Standoff In Nevada: Another Federal Siege Against The Innocent

From ChuckBaldwinLive, By Chuck Baldwin, April 10, 2014 –

Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin

With the memory of Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, still very vivid in the collective memory of the American people comes another example of a federal government run amuck. A rancher in Nevada is watching the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seize his cattle and arrest his son for simply taking pictures of the events. BLM has also placed several federal snipers around his home with their high-powered rifles trained on his family. The last report I read said more than 200 federal agents are now surrounding the homestead complete with attack helicopters. All that seems to be missing are tanks.

Did the family do anything violent? No. Did they do anything immoral? No. Did they even do anything wrong? No. Did they do anything illegal? Well, that’s where the story gets interesting.

Cliven Bundy’s family has been grazing cattle on their ranchland since the 1880s. But in 1993, the federal government reclassified 600,000 acres of land, including the land that the Bundy cattle have been grazing on forever. The pretext used by the feds for seizing the land was to protect some “endangered” tortoise. However, the feds would allow Cliven to continue to graze his cattle on the land–if he pays the federal government for the privilege. The rancher refuses to pay.

Here is one report of the story:

“Federal snipers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) trained guns on members of a family yesterday after they dared to stop and take video footage of cattle outside the bounds of a designated ‘First Amendment Area,’ before arresting one of the men for non-compliance.

“The cattle were being rounded up by BLM officers as part of a crackdown on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has refused to pay ‘grazing fees’ demanded by the feds as a result of a re-classification of 600,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Clark County which Bundy claims has been in his family for generations.”

The report continues: “The feds have now started rounding up Bundy’s cattle in the name of protecting a supposedly endangered species, the desert tortoise, forbidding Bundy from interfering or even entering the vast area. The case is quickly turning into another iconic battle between big government and a besieged family.

“Fears that the confrontation may turn violent and concerns that Bundy is drawing increased support from liberty activists and the local community prompted the feds to tape off two ridiculous ‘First Amendment Areas,’ outside of which free speech in support of Bundy is banned. A sign placed inside the area reads ‘Welcome to Amerika–Wake Up’ alongside a hammer and sickle logo.

“When Bundy’s family members violated that rule yesterday in an attempt to peacefully document the cattle roundup, they were met with a barrage of loudspeaker warnings and four BLM snipers with their guns trained on the dissenters.”

The report goes on saying, “None of the family members were armed, but as soon as Dave Bundy began filming the cattle in the distance, 11 BLM vehicles each with two agents arrived and surrounded him.

“‘They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area,’ said Ryan Bundy.

“The family were told to leave the area via loudspeaker because they had violated the crudely established ‘First Amendment Area’.

“‘They said that we had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that,’ Bundy said.

“When Dave Bundy didn’t immediately heed the warning and return to his vehicle, a dog was set on him and he was subsequently arrested.”

See the report here:

Federal Snipers Train Guns On Family For Filming Cattle

BLM hired independent contractor-cowboys from Utah to confiscate Mr. Bundy’s cows. Nevada State troopers and local law enforcement personnel have also either assisted, or refused to interfere with, BLM’s actions. And, as one would expect, a federal court has also backed BLM’s activities. Some estimate the cost to the taxpayers for BLM’s siege will amount to more than $3 million.

But as news of the siege spreads, people all over the country are taking note. Hundreds of people have come from all around Clark County, Nevada, in support of the Bundy family. Personally, I hope tens of thousands of people show up.

Before the feds began laying claim to privately-owned ranch property back in the early 1990s, there were dozens of ranchers in the area. Mr. Bundy is the last one left. All of the others have been forced off of their land by the excessive restrictions and rules from BLM. And it looks like the feds intend to do whatever they feel is necessary to remove the Bundy family from their land, as well.

An out-of-control federal government was the primary catalyst for the “conservative revolution” in 1994 when the GOP historically took control of both houses of Congress. After egregious betrayals by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 1996, a conservative revival continued from 2000-2006 when G. W. Bush and the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government. Disgustingly, neither Bush nor the Republican leaders in Congress did one darn thing to undo the power grab of the federal government that took place under Bill Clinton. If anything, the GOP-led government in Washington, D.C., further expanded federal power across the board.

During those turbulent years of the 1990s, the late-great Congresswoman, Helen Chenoweth, in an interview with Michael Reagan, spoke these words:

“BLM is taking onto themselves law enforcement that is normally saved for the State, law enforcement over motor vehicles. They’ve written into the regulation without authority from Congress, the ability to stop vehicles or to search people, to search a place or a vehicle without warrant or process; to be able to seize without warrant or process any piece of evidence and to test people for potential DUI (driving under the influence). They have redefined a parachute into a mechanized piece of equipment, so if you parachute into any of their areas you can be fined $20,000 or more.

“It is amazing. Our founders, when establishing our system of government wanted to make sure that law enforcement was closest to the people. You and I have talked before about how important it is to make sure that you elect the very best local county sheriff because he should be regarded as the highest law enforcement officer in the area because he is accountable to the voters. They really worried about a national, a federal, law enforcement. To federalize our law enforcement is to create a situation that the pilgrims were trying to escape.

“We are moving quickly to that. The Bureau of land Management is taking onto themselves law enforcement authority that Congress never gave them. In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that was passed in the early 1970’s it made it clear that Congress said that, ‘first, you must go to your local county sheriff for law enforcement activities.’”

See Reagan’s interview with Helen here:

Interview with Rep. Helen Chenoweth

Helen knew what she was talking about. The BLM controls over 60% of all of the land within her home State of Idaho. The BLM controls over 70% of all land in Utah; and in the State of Nevada, the BLM controls over 76% of all land.

Chenoweth was as much of a prophetess as she was an observer when she added, “Whatever [land] we have left. Right now in Idaho and I am sure all over the West, they are moving people and human activities off the land.”

Helen was also correct when she noted that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which was adopted in 1976, stipulated that BLM had to go through the county sheriff for any action that required law enforcement. Nearly four decades later, the BLM (and virtually every other federal agency) totally and thoroughly ignores this requirement.

For those of us who still labor under the conviction that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it must be observed that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. That’s it! All other law enforcement matters are the purview of the individual states, according to the Tenth Amendment.

Unfortunately, for most of the Twentieth Century, and especially since the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, the federal government has demanded more and more power and authority that it does not constitutionally possess. And, for the most part, the individual states have sheepishly done little to resist. All of which has led to the events that are now playing out in Clark County, Nevada.

Here are some of my questions: why are the local and State law enforcement officers in Nevada assisting the BLM with this egregious act of tyranny? Beyond that, why are they not standing up to the BLM and telling them to go to Hades? Do the lives and liberties and property of the citizens of their State mean nothing? And, another thing: who are these independent contractor-cowboys in Utah who are willing to help trample a fellow citizen’s constitutional rights? How much does 30 pieces of silver equate to today? And what about those BLM snipers? Who are these men who would willingly turn their guns against innocent, hard-working Americans for the sake of a paycheck? I guess the only reason that the members of Mr. Bundy’s family are not six-feet under already is simply because those “brave” and “patriotic” snipers were not given the order to shoot. They sure had the family members in the crosshairs of their scopes; all that was missing was the pull of the index finger. Wow! That’s comforting. I wonder how many of us are in the crosshairs of federal snipers and don’t even know it?

I hope the people of the western states will arise in support of the Bundy family in such numbers that the BLM thugs will be forced to withdraw and leave this dear family alone. If we are not careful, the feds could do to this family what they did to those poor Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, and to the Weaver family near Ruby Ridge, Idaho. This should be a wake-up call for all of us out west to let our elected officials know under no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate such conduct in our backyards.

The citizens of Connecticut are resisting their own tyrannical State as it attempts to deny them their Second Amendment rights; now it’s time for the citizens of the western states to resist the tyrannical Bureau of Land Management (and any other federal agency) that attempts to usurp the Tenth Amendment and private property rights of their fellow citizens.

I realize that there are several legislative and judicial efforts underway around the country to push back against this runaway federal government. All of this takes time. In the meantime, a family in Clark County, Nevada, is fighting RIGHT NOW for all of us. This dear man is putting everything he owns, as well as the very safety of his family, on the line. To coin a maxim from the German pastor, Martin Neimoller: “First, they came for the Randy Weaver family in Idaho, and I did not speak out; next, they came for the Branch Davidians in Texas, and I did not speak out; then, they came for the Cliven Bundy family in Nevada, and I did not speak out; then, they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out.”

But, God willing, there are still millions of us left who will speak out. Will you be one of them? Here is the contact information for the Nevada BLM office (taken from its website):

BLM Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Blvd.
Reno, NV  89502
Front desk: 775-861-6601

State Director: Amy Lueders
Associate State Director: Marci Todd
Phone: 775-861-6590



41 responses

  1. If only the lumpen-voters had enough intelligence to elect leaders like Pastor Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party candidate for President in ’08), this country might avoid the massive economic train wreck towards which it is plummeting downhill without brakes…or at least soften the impact.

    If only one state in the fractured union had enough foresight to elect someone like him as governor, there would be at least one refuge in this land in which to seek shelter and asylum from the coming global financial tsunami caused by the Wall Street banksters (aided and abetted by the wh*res in Congress and the White House) and their fraudulent financial instruments and derivatives (which Warren Buffett called “financial weapons of mass destruction).

    Is the above a gross exaggeration? Is it overly pessimistic? For those who suffer from “normalcy bias” (the belief that because some event has never happened in their lifetime, it cannot happen), please explain how this country took almost 200 years to accumulate its first trillion dollars in national debt (in 1981…way back when Ronald Reagan was president), but now we add over a trillion dollars in new debt every year (officially…unofficially, it’s much more) and there is no future problem when our foreign creditors cease to buy our increasingly-worthless U.S. Treasury debt instruments. Please explain that there is no end game to this financial insanity and how the laws of economics don’t apply to “the shining light on the hill” called “Amerika”.

    I asked a mid-20’s daughter of a good friend of mine the other day if she paid Social Security taxes and she replied in the affirmative. I then asked her if she expected to ever get anything back from Social Security and she nonchalantly answered, “No.” And she had no problem with that. Talk about the “Stockholm Syndrome” (captives begin to relate to their captors and even try to protect them if they are threatened). The majority of people willingly pay confiscatory taxes to the District of Criminals (D.C.) and fully expect to never get it back…and they’re ok with that.

    Keep electing the gutless pols of both political persuasions to govern you…but, don’t dare protest when their Ponzi schemes (Social Insecurity, Medicare, the U.S. dollar, ad nauseum) implode and you and yours are digging for roots to add to your thin soups for substance one fine day.

    And now for the positive thought for the day:

    “God helps those who help themselves.”
    – Benjamin Franklin

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      Breaking Update –

      its Harry Reid and the Chinese – snip-

      “In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

      “The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

      Back in 2012, the New American reported that 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, Nevada.

      And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

      “[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,” he wrote. “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.”

      Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link.

      full article with graphics

      “Blow the dust off the clock. Your watches are behind the times. Throw open the heavy curtains which are so dear to you – you do not even suspect that the day has already dawned outside.” – Solzhenitsyn

  2. This situation is deplorable for many reasons. The one being when looked at from an entirely unemotional view -point, is appears to be, and in my opinion is, an unpaid rent dispute. Does Bundy OWN the land? Only insofar as the fact that he is a US citizen. Unless he has clear title to the land, and he does not, he is using our land, yours and mine to make a very good living on for free. Ranchers all over the West and even in mid-West states pay the government (you and I) grazing fees for the use of public lands, again you and I and every citizen “owns” these lands. Bundy is a deadbeat tenant who refuses to pay his rent and should either pay up or be evicted.

    Are extreme measures being used to affect his eviction? Absolutely!! The heavy hand of an irresponsible, lawless regime (it is no longer an administration) is being wielded when a warrant served by the cowardly High Sheriff of Bundy’s county should have sufficed.

    Is this a fight he can win? Certainly not, because he is not the sole owner and is in default on his grazing fees. An amicable settlement should and can be reached if the Feds would just back off and settle the dispute in court and not a “my gun’s bigger than your gun” schoolboy face-off with human lives at stake.

    I pray to God that this situation does not evolve into another Waco bloodbath, but if it does, Bundy will be as much at fault as the short sighted government we now have to endure. A $3 million dollar price tag to remove those “trespassing cattle” (how stupid and childish is that statement?) Makes for some pretty pricey hamburger meat.

    If our current “regime” really wants to start another civil war or revolution, this tinder box is the perfect place for it to begin. The first side to fire a shot in anger loses in either case, but the ensuing consequences will surely be far flung and very unpleasant for everyone.

    Whose side am I on, you ask? Neither, but I also not a fence sitter. Bundy can’t take the land and run with it. He will be there in plain sight for all to see and the other side of that is so will any actions taken by jackbooted thugs no matter which alphabet soup letters are on their jackets. I don’t have any idea just how many federal police agencies there are, or their number of combatants, but I know damned well we ordinary citizens outnumber them by a long way and are at a distinct advantage in that we are fighting for our homes and family and they are fighting for a paycheck. Not that hard to figure out who is more dedicated to the outcome.

    My conclusion is this: This fight shouldn’t even be a fight. Non-payment of rent AKA grazing fees, is a civil matter and should be decided in the courts, not at gun point.

    This not a situation that warrants the kind of force and expense that someone in power has ordered to be expended. Open defiance is appropriate in this case, but it does NOT warrant pointing guns at each other, because someone is surely going to get shot, and that would truly be a tragedy.
    Surely there is a middle ground somewhere in this mess. If not, and the government decides to start killing people over it, please furnish me with a road map with the shortest route to Bundy’s ranch marked on and I will load up and leave for that destination with all possible haste and welcome anyone who needs a ride to go with me. If the revolution must begin, let it be there, and not here in Texas.
    Jack Cavenah

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      Jack – here is a snip from an article discussing the so-called “grazing fees” annd the fedgov intent. the full link contains many imbedded links for amplification.

      ” In 1993, the same federal Leviathan State that unilaterally “modified” binding treaty agreements with Indian tribes and bands decided to “modify” the terms of the Bundy family’s grazing permit. This was done in the service of a doctrine even more insidious than Manifest Destiny: A new religion in which all human property rights – including, some adherents insist, the right to live itself – are to be sacrificed on the altar of “biocentrism.” The central tenet of that religion is that “Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things.”

      However, there are certain superior specimens within the ranks of humanity who possess a gift of seership that permits them to discern the true needs of nature. On occasion, these infinitely wise and limitlessly benevolent beings – most of whom have found a niche in some foundation-funded eco-radical lobby – will identify “endangered” or “threatened” species whose supposed claim to a “habitat” outweighs property rights and all human needs.

      Since none of those non-human creatures can speak on their own behalf, we should consider ourselves extravagantly blessed by the presence of eco-seers capable of discerning their needs, bureaucrats willing to harken to their inspired counsel, and judges who dutifully ratify bureaucratic decisions without being unduly burdened by respect for property rights.

      In 1993, acting on an infallible ecocentric pronouncement, the Bureau of Land Management decreed that the land on which Cliven Bundy and his neighbors had long grazed their cattle was actually the “habitat” of the desert tortoise.

      Although the BLM – like other agencies involved in administering Washington’s illegal colonial occupation of western lands – has been influenced by biocentrism, it’s not likely that its upper echelons are filled with True Believers in anything other than the Bureaucratic Prime Directive: “Maintain what we have, and expand where we can.”

      The BLM’s revisions were imposed during the reign of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who in a letter two years earlier (written while he was head of the League of Conservation Voters) declared: “We must identify our enemies and drive them into oblivion.” Babbitt and his comrades have acted with what Sherman described as “vindictive earnestness” in pursuing that objective: In the past twenty years they have all but eradicated cattle ranching in the southwestern United States.

      In his book War on the West, William Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation observes that “the enormous might of the federal government has always meant that the life of the West was in the hands of strangers living thousands of miles away. Like the weather that can sweep down upon Westerners and change their lives in an instant, the federal government has always loomed as a distant threat.” During Babbitt’s tenure at the Department of the Interior, the federal eco-jihad specifically targeted “the most enduring symbol of the American West – the cowboy – seeking to price and regulate the rancher off federal grazing lands and out of business, destroying the economy of rural areas.” One of the first initiatives undertaken by Secretary Babbitt in pursuit of his vision of a “New West” was to seek a 230 percent increase in grazing fees charged to ranchers on federally administered lands. Although the proposed fee increase was thwarted by a Senate filibuster, the effort to destroy the ranching industry continued. After the fee increase was proposed, an Interior Department memo surfaced which revealed that Babbitt wanted “to use price increases as a straw man to draw attention from management issues.” While ranchers fought the grazing fee increase, Babbitt and company created “Range Reform ’94,” a cluster of proposed federal land use and environmental regulations which Pendley describes as “A Thousand and One Ways to Get Ranchers off Federal Land.”During the late 1990s – a period in which Babbitt, appropriately, was mired in a scandal involving decades of federal fraud, embezzlement, and graft in the Indian Trust Fund System – ranchers rallied to hold off the federal assault. But like the Plains Indians, the ranchers were facing an implacable enemy unburdened with respect for the law and blessed with access to limitless resources. Of the 52 ranchers in his section of Nevada, Cliven Bundy is the only one who has refused to go back to the reservation. So the heirs to Sherman and Sheridan have mobilized an army to protect hired thieves who have come to steal the Bundy family’s cattle with the ultimate purpose of driving him from the land.

      Their objective is not to protect the desert tortoise, but to punish a defiant property owner and entrepreneur. This potentially murderous aggression is being celebrated by Progressives as a worthy effort to make dangerous radicals “feel the superior power of the Government.”

      For more than two decades, Bundy has defied the federal land management bureaucracy, and his continued resistance could catalyze a general revolt against their designs for the western United States.”

      full –

      1. Very interesting and informative read, and I appreciate someone who, like me, does their homework. None of your information changes the fact that Bundy is in arrears on LEGAL grazing fees. Re-read the US Code I included in my earlier response and published on Facebook also. Per Sect. 9 & 13 of the code, the government acted properly in attempting to collect past due fees, but as is usually the case with federal law enforcement, went far beyond the civil, necessary means of doing so. Do I agree with the citizens and militia standing up to them and forcing the standoff to end? You are damned right I do, but Bundy still owes you and I and all other citizens of the country past due rent, which he should promptly pay. I stand by my original statements and have US Code to verify my stance. I refuse to go by hearsay and innuendo. Facts are facts and hard to dismiss, and if the law needs to be changed, there are legal ways to do that.

        My suggestion to Bundy is to gather enough public opinion to impeach Harry Reid and send another Communist into forced retirement, or better yet, jail.

        My last words on this subject. Prove me wrong if you can. I look forward to it.

        Jack Cavenah

  3. Senator_Blutarsky


    from Bundy’s daughter – snip – full link below

    My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

    BLMs action was not a ” fee collection ” effort, nor was the fee issue even the excuses used by BLM-Reid-Chinese ad nauseum

    Also, a very revealing column by Dr Jerome Corsi today

    and Dave Hodges exposes the Agenda 21 issues intertwined in this –

    1. Did Bundy really think you can “fire” the BLM and pay Federal fees to the county? If you believe this, you must have fallen on your head as a child. My first opinion stll hoids and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind.

      1. I question whether anyone could show you anything that would change your mind at this point. Conversely, I would contend that anyone who thinks that the Federal Government has the right to seize property belonging to a family for over 100 years to save a “desert tortoise”…”must have fallen on your head as a child”. Your mileage apparently varies.

        “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
        – Voltaire

        However, the majority of American colonists under British rule in the late 1700’s (aka “Loyalists”) agreed with you that loyal adherence to man’s “legal” law was an inviolable duty of a good subject of the crown.

        Samuel Adams took exception to this fallacy:

        “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

      2. You haven’t done your homework, just like most posters on this subject. Bundy NEVER owned the land. His family has rented/leased it from the Federal Government from day one. They never bothered to homestead it (another bothersome law) and want to lay claim (as in title ) to the land be mere presence. Doesn’t work that way, never will. You sir, are the fool if you see this as anything other than a deadbeat squatter starting a big fight to get out of paying a just debt. Fools fell for it, and if you think this is over, you are an even bigger fool.
        Jack Cavenah

      3. Jack…no more coffee today…you know how caffeine gets you all excited. Please post your sources for your erroneous information about ownership of the disputed land above.

        Here’s a couple of mine…with links…

        “Cliven Bundy and his family claim that they can trace their family ownership back to around the 1870s on their current property in Clark County. This is well before any federal offices such as the EPA, BLM, or water management were created. This corresponds with the Homestead rights that were established during the Lincoln administration in 1862 to entice people to settle the western frontier and expand the U.S. agricultural enterprises. This 19th-century policy was meant to encourage and support settlement by families like the Bundys. Now, over 150 years later, what seemed to be borderless country surrounding small-town Bunkerville in Nevada is an inhospitable petri dish for the experiments of growing federal regulations.”

        Now, while sources like “American Thinker” may not be your huckleberry…I am curious to see your proof that Mr. Bundy is being disingenuous about his family’s “ownership back to around the 1870s”.

        Here’s another:

        “The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.

        ‘I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights,’ he said, explaining that among them is the right to forage.”

        Jack says, “They never bothered to homestead it (another bothersome law) and want to lay claim (as in title ) to the land be mere presence. Doesn’t work that way, never will.” You contradict yourself, Jack. There were laws for homesteading Arizona in the late 1800’s…Mr. Bundy claims his family did homestead the land…and it did work that way.

        Here’s a snip from your hallowed Bureau of Land Management’s own website:

        “By the mid-1870s, Congress had passed many laws involving homesteading. When the Revised Statutes of 1878 was printed, it cited eighteen additional homesteading laws. These included laws that amended prior homesteading laws and amendments. Thus, not only were the requirements for homesteading evolving, but they were also getting more specific and detailed. Congress passed some homestead laws for specific groups of people or for specific areas. In the years to follow the 1870s, this happened repeatedly.”

        Here’s another article on the homesteading of Arizona by The Daily Courier of Prescott, AZ:

        “Homesteading is often ignored in the stories of the settlement of Arizona. While historians have generally downplayed the overall impact of the 1862 Homestead Act on western migration, an estimated 1.7 million homesteaders found opportunity that might otherwise have eluded them, successfully claiming 270 million acres.

        In Arizona from the 1870s through 1940, more than 21,000 patents, covering 4.1 million acres, were issued. That number is rather small when contrasted with the 87,000 patents issued in New Mexico, covering 19.4 million acres. Yet all across Arizona there are inspiring stories of homesteaders creating new communities in a wild land during the latter part of the 19th century. A brief overview of that history reveals the significance of homesteading to the future of many a prominent settler and to the establishment of a surprising number of new towns in Arizona.”

        You state the following, “Bundy NEVER owned the land. His family has rented/leased it from the Federal Government from day one. They never bothered to homestead it (another bothersome law) and want to lay claim (as in title ) to the land be mere presence.”

        List your sources and/or your proof.

        But, despite what I’ve written above, you got the best of me Jack.

        “A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool.”
        – Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton

      4. 1.) You will not get me to do your homework for you.
        2.) Your sources (Most of them) are un-official.
        3.) your treatise in not worthy of comment.
        4.) I don’t hide behind an alias, I have the courage of conviction to use my real name.
        5.) You use the ploy of name calling when you can’t support your position.
        6.) I’ll waste no more time on responses to an alias, so fire away, you’ll be talking to an empty chair.
        Jack Cavenah

      5. Brubaker (who ever you really are) Let’s let the readers know once and for all that the Cliven Bundy deadbeat squatter does NOT hold title to the land he has the dispute over. Peruse , and you will find Cliven Bundy owns NO land in Clark County Nevada. I rest my case.
        The property records are a solid base of indisputable ownership records, wouldn’t agree?
        Jack Cavenah

      6. Make up your mind, Jack…to-wit:

        1. On April 13th, you wrote, “My last words on this subject.”

        2. On April 15th, you wrote, “I’ll waste no more time on responses to an alias, so fire away, you’ll be talking to an empty chair.”

        3. You posted another comment again 36 minutes later.

        Have you ever been a politician, Jack?

        The difference between you and me is that you seem to give two ch*ts about what some pencil-pushing government bureaucrat puts down in writing on a piece of paper…”U.S. Code 1701″…”Clark County Records”…ad nauseum.

        I care…for now…about one piece of paper…the supreme law of the land…the U.S. Constitution…not a perfect document, but the supreme law of the land nonetheless. And I ignore any other piece of paper that contradicts that document. And until 2/3 of the good-for-nothing CONgress and 3/4 of the state legislatures properly amend it, I care not what some bought-and-paid-for government dweeb, whose salary I help to pay, says or writes in contradiction of it…in whole or in part.

        And if said constitution is ever amended in a manner that violates my God-given rights as a free man, I will ignore those parts of that document also.

        Folks who wave around this law or rule or regulation remind me of the young man who was parking in a remote area with his girlfriend when a group of outlaw bikers drove up. The bikers drew a circle in the dirt and told the young man and his date to stand in the circle while they proceeded to destroy his car with clubs and chains while flattening his tires. When the bikers finished, the young man was rolling on the ground in a fit of uncontrollable laughter. When the bikers asked him what was so funny, the young man replied, “While you were destroying my car, I stepped out of the circle 3 times!!!”

        Silly, spineless Amerikans who are 100% invested in the government-owned information Matrix are exactly the same way…”Well, we don’t have as many rights as we used to because Uncle Sugar in D.C. has to keep us safe…Well, we don’t own the land that has been in our family for over 100 years because Uncle Sugar in D.C. has to protect the desert tortoise…it’s the law…there’s a piece of paper from an almighty federal judge who speaks with God on a daily basis that says we don’t own that land anymore…These thieves say I owe them rent to graze my cows on the land they stole from me…Gee, it’s backed up by legalese in the Federal Register for Pete’s sake…Gee, even the county tax records say we don’t own it anymore…Boo Hoo!!”

        It should be obvious by now that Cliven Bundy ain’t no “silly, spineless” Amerikan. He may end up dead before it’s over, but he’s got grit…the stuff that our Founding Fathers had when they dumped tea in the Boston Harbor…even though some British “piece of paper” said they were violating the “law”. Poor King George cried himself a river over that one, no doubt.

        If some corrupt politician has your county property tax records changed one day to indicate that you don’t own your home…your castle…are you gonna mop the floors and vacuum the carpet for the governmental agency that is preparing to move into your former home while you and your family look for camping site vacancies for your tent in the county park? Hey, the county tax records make it right…right?

        There was a situation in Texas recently where a group of lawmen invaded the sanctity of a man’s home…and they were holding a piece of paper signed by a black-robed god-on-earth…aka a judge…and the homeowner deep-sixed one of the badged interlopers…and a grand jury subsequently no-billed the homeowner on a charge of “Capital Murder”. And ain’t nobody challenged it yet.

        “Just following orders”…and “relying on a piece of paper”…”cause it’s the law”…without using the brains that God gave us…gets folks hurt.

        But, you keep waving around your pieces of paper, Jack…and don’t forget to practice leading those stacks of armed home invaders coming to enforce the edicts of the dweeb bureaucrats’…local, state, or federal.

        Stand in line at the airport for your turn at the porno scanners and the porno pat-downs…like a good, subservient citizen of the State.

        I’ll pass, thank you.

  4. When people view government as a religion, they mistake our so-called “leaders” as “gods” and their various legislative edicts as divinely-inspired scripture…not to be violated by mere mortals.

    The movie, “Braveheart”, starring Mel Gibson included a scene where one of Longshanks’ (the King of England) Lords invoked “the right of Jus Primae Noctis, allowing the Lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs’ maiden daughters” (source: Wikipedia). Said “Lord” was later rightfully and satisfyingly skewered by the husband of the “legally violated” wife.

    While historians disagree about the historical accuracy of “Jus Primae Noctis” as depicted in “Braveheart”, there is no disagreement about the routine physical and sexual violations of our males, their women, and their children by some of our modern-day Lords…also known as TSA agents…and other assorted jackboots who violate their oaths of office (to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic) as readily and reflexively as breathing air.

    Notice I said “males” since no “man” with a scintilla of honor and decency would stand idly by and allow anyone to violate their person…much less the bodies of their women and children…and all for the lame excuse of “keeping us safe.” Same for the “porno scanners”. To-wit:

    “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.”
    – John Wayne as John Bernard Books, “The Shootist”

    As Kevin Costner’s character (Charley Waite) famously said in the movie, “Open Range”, “You’re men ain’t ya?” In 2014, “men” are an endangered species. Hence, the elevation of the term, “legal”, to excuse the feminization and subservient mentality of tto many of our males.

    Here are a few historical quotes from men as opposed to fictitious movie characters:

    “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
    – Edmund Burke

    “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”
    – Charles de Montesquieu

    “There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.”
    – Walt Whitman

    Senator Blutarsky has done an admirable job of posting information regarding the probable motives for the fed-guv’s assault against Cliven Bundy, a mere “Mundane” cattle rancher in Arizona who dared to stand up to his betters in the federal leviathan who stole his family’s land under false pretense a couple of decades ago. The fact that said theft was later endorsed by a court of the same federal government that committed said theft only makes it right in the eyes of a worshipper of the State (as in Federal Government).

    As far as the armed federal jackboots and rustlers-for-hire who stole Mr. Bundy’s cattle and pointed tazers and loaded weapons at his unarmed family and friends, it is truly amazing to see the depths to which a human being will stoop for a paycheck and a few lucrative federal benefits.

    The “I-was-just-following-orders” Nuremberg Defense didn’t work for the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII. It is just as lame in 2014 as it was in 1945-46.

    But, for those who would still rest their defense of tyranny on man’s “law”…even though in direct contradiction to God’s natural law as recognized by our Founding Fathers and partly codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution…don’t just give lip service to defending the so-called “legal” acts of our so-called “leaders”. Don’t just sit back and cheerlead the hired-gun jackboots who will form in a “stack” to violate a free man’s castle and his land to deprive him of his natural rights and his property. No. You must lead the stack. Be the first in line as the door is kicked in.

    “Boss Spearman” (played by Robert Duvall) in “Open Range” said, “Man’s got a right to protect his property and his life, and we ain’t lettin’ no rancher or his lawman take either.”

    There are many who value freedom and liberty enough to relate to another line from “Charley Waite” in “Open Range”, “…there’s things that gnaw at a man worse than dying.”

    The only unanswered question is, “Are those hired trigger-pullers and hired cattle rustlers who are willing to deprive American men (and women) of their “unalienable right” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” willing to die in the pursuit thereof?

    I’ll close with a quote from one of the Founding Fathers of the once-Republic:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

  5. Your judgment is clouded by too much movie watching. A better choice would be to really read the Constitution of these United States and the writings of the men who wrote it. You and your kind would not survive a week in a country ruled by anarchy.

    1. Jack, you obviously didn’t see the numerous non-movie quotes and Founding Father quotes in my comments you reference. But, when you’re cherry-picking your information, it’s easy to miss I guess.

      You state that I should “really read the Constitution of these United States”…to-wit Jack:

      “The U. S. Constitution clearly states what land the federal government may possess and the procedure for acquiring it. Article I, Section 8, requires the federal government to purchase land from states with the approval of the state legislature ‘… for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.’

      The Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to own more than half of Utah and 10 other Western states.

      Moreover, there is no logical reason for the feds to continue their ownership of land within particular states. State governments can do a better job of utilizing the resources and protecting the environment than can the federal government. Private owners can do a better job at utilizing the resources and protecting the environment than can the state government.

      It is high time for the federal government to get out of the real estate business. It is high time the land and resources of America be returned to the citizens. Surely, both the federal and state governments could benefit immediately were they to sell their land to private interests. Progressives – Democrats and environmentalists – disagree. They are convinced that the government, not private owners, must control the use of land.”

      Based on your reading of “Constitution of these United States”, where does your beloved Federal Government get its constitutional authority to own more than 50% of the land mass of 11 of our “United States”?

      Jack said, “You and your kind would not survive a week in a country ruled by anarchy.” That’s contradictory, Jack. The very definition of “anarchy” is “the absence or lack of government”…there is no one in a position to rule. Please explain.

      1. Every law is not in the Constitution. See Us Code 1701. Sec.43 which I have posted before and do not care to do again. (DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK) I will tech you American History if your too lazy to find out for your self by doing the research.

        Your last statement about Anarchy being without government is the first inkling you just may catch a crumb or two. In an anarchy, everyone does whatever they please, regardless of how it affects others.

        I will not continue to trade foolish insults with you, nor attempt to educate you on how our government is supposed to run. It is evident to me from your posts, you have neither the intellect nor the desire to look at the “other side of the coin”, and therefore I would be wasting my time.

        Ride down memory lane without regard for the future of the country we live in and you will perish sooner rather than later. No skin off my nose if that is your pleasure.
        Class dismissed.

  6. Every law may not be in the constitution, but since the constitution is the supreme law of the land, every law must pass constitutional review if challenged. And according to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, if any law is later ruled to be unconstitutional, it is as if it never existed. So, to put every law on the same level as constitutional provisions is inaccurate. Mere laws can be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn any provision of the U.S. Constitution…although they can weaken any provision by the bastardization of the Founders’ intent by means of a majority decision.

    I am crushed that you feel I am deficient intellectually…and I was about to apply for a future episode of Jeopardy.

    Thanks for dismissing class though. We will leave it up to any readers as to who was the teacher and who was the student.

    Cheers! 😉

    1. Was happy to see that you at least know the law can be challenged. This one,
      US Code 1701, has not.
      Jack Cavenah

      1. Senator_Blutarsky

        Martin Armstrong Asks “Do The Feds Really Own The Land In Nevada?”

        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.


        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.


      2. Once again the government (consisting of each and every citizen of the USA) own most of the lands in the Western states, and it is held in trust for those citizens by the Federal Government. The Federal Government does NOT OWN IT, you and I do.
        U.S. Code› Title 43 › Chapter 35 › Subchapter I › § 1701
        43 U.S. Code § 1701 – Congressional declaration of policy
        Current through Pub. L. 113-88. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
        • US Code
        • Notes
        • Updates
        • Authorities (CFR)
        prev | NEXT
        (a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that—
        (1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest;
        (2) the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts;
        (3) public lands not previously designated for any specific use and all existing classifications of public lands that were effected by executive action or statute before October 21, 1976, be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
        (4) the Congress exercise its constitutional authority to withdraw or otherwise designate or dedicate Federal lands for specified purposes and that Congress delineate the extent to which the Executive may withdraw lands without legislative action;
        (5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decisionmaking;
        (6) judicial review of public land adjudication decisions be provided by law;
        (7) goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law;
        (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;
        (9) the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute;
        (10) uniform procedures for any disposal of public land, acquisition of non-Federal land for public purposes, and the exchange of such lands be established by statute, requiring each disposal, acquisition, and exchange to be consistent with the prescribed mission of the department or agency involved, and reserving to the Congress review of disposals in excess of a specified acreage;
        (11) regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas of critical environmental concern be promptly developed;
        (12) the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C.21a) as it pertains to the public lands; and
        (13) the Federal Government should, on a basis equitable to both the Federal and local taxpayer, provide for payments to compensate States and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal lands from State and local taxation.
        (b) The policies of this Act shall become effective only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by subsequent legislation and shall then be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which public lands are administered under other provisions of law.

        Bundy is still a deadbeat and the Feds were still wrong for trying to enforce a civil action, which the Sheriff of Clark County Nevada should have served. I agree that Feds should not not have even been there, much less point full-auto weapons at citizens. I would consider a gun pointed at me as an immediate threat to my life and would act accordingly. This is not over. I fully expect the Feds to return in the dead of night and a bloodbath will ensue. The only solution I can see is to replace the heads of government, by any means possible, for letting this atrocity happen and letting it continue.
        Jack Cavenah

      3. Jack, let’s see if we can explain this in simplistic terms.

        The various “ifs, ands, and buts” of this issue are kind of like the kids’ game, “rock, paper, scissors”. You know, “rock breaks scissors”, “paper covers rock”, and “scissors cuts paper”.

        However, for our uses, let’s use “U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, and Guns”.

        If this was Sesame Street, we could ask, “Of those three, which one doesn’t fit with the other two?” The answer is…”U.S. Code”. Because the other two were given to us by our Founding Fathers.

        The. U.S. Constitution. is. the. supreme. law. of. the. land…period, paragraph, story.

        Guns. are. protected. by. the. U.S. Constitution’s. 2nd. Amendment…period, paragraph, story.

        U.S. Code, on the other hand, is “law” passed by 535 (+/-) idiots collectively called CONgress. These are the same people who, over the last 100 years (+/-) have given us the unconstitutional, private banksters known as the Federal Reserve, who have slowly implemented communism into the once-Republic, who have spent this country into virtual bankruptcy, and who have destroyed any hope that our progeny will be able to enjoy the much-vaunted “American Dream”…soon to be the “American Nightmare” as the world collectively moves away from the dying U.S. Dollar as the world reserve currency…and hyper-inflation comes home to roost. The elected idiots who pass laws that go into the U.S. Code generally don’t even bother to READ the proposed legislation before voting on it (see the abomination known as “ObamaCare”). Besides fluoride-ingesting “worshippers of the State”…i.e., the Federal Guvmint…who cares what’s in the Federal Code?

        Please view the above summary as just that…a very, very short summary…since the actual list of treasonous actions for which these political charlatans (especially those who are “retired”) should be hanged forthwith is much too long for this forum.

        But, I digress…back to “rock, paper, scissors”. The “U.S. Constitution” trumps the “U.S. Code”. When treasonous politicians of whatever political flavor ignore the “U.S. Constitution”, “Guns” in the hands of citizens who know that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land…trumps everything.

        The “U.S. Code” trumps nothing.

        “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
        – Thomas Jefferson

        “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike.”
        – Thomas Jefferson

        I took an oath to protect the “U.S. Constitution” from enemies both foreign and domestic. My oath said nothing about the “U.S. Code”. That’s why they call us, “Oath Keepers”…the same people who are in Nevada helping to protect the Bundy family.

        We picked our side. How’s the weather looking way up on that fence?

  7. Senator_Blutarsky

    well boys and girls, wonder how many of you will supporting ” CODE ” as soon as these “draft rules” are approved and become part of the US Code? I guess Quisling Vichy-types like Glen Beck will take the side of .gov , when any property owner wants to refuse to “obey”. Then, some EPA clerk sends an armed swarm of Fed goons to enforce some nefarious “code” and confiscate your property.

    This is Agenda 21 on steroids, just like the BLM tactics.

    EPA Set To Regulate Water On Your Private Property

    The EPA is about to unleash a huge amount of regulations that would expand their power far beyond what it ever has.

    This would include giving them power over water on private property.

    “The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

    Happy holidays from the Obama administration. Federal agencies are currently working on rolling out hundreds of environmental regulations, including major regulations that would limit emissions from power plants and expand the agency’s authority to bodies of water on private property.

    On Tuesday, the White House released its regulatory agenda for the fall of 2013. It lists hundreds of pending energy and environmental regulations being crafting by executive branch agencies, including 134 regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency alone.

    The EPA is currently crafting 134 major and minor regulations, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda. Seventy-six of the EPA’s pending regulations originate from the agency’s air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants.

    Carbon-dioxide limits are a key part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The EPA is set to set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology. Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants — which could put more older coal plants out of commission.

    “The proposed standards, if finalized, will establish achievable limits of carbon pollution per megawatt hour for all future units, moving the nation towards a cleaner and more efficient energy future,” the agency said in its agenda. “In 2014, EPA intends to propose standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from existing and modified power plant sources.”

    Hundreds of coal plants that have been closed or slated for early retirement due to Environmental Protection Agency regulations, according to coal industry estimates.

    “Already, EPA regulations have contributed to the closure of more than 300 coal units in 33 states,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

    However, the agency isn’t just working on limiting emissions from coal plants. The EPA is also working on a rule that would expand the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act to include water on private property.

    Republicans have hammered the EPA’s draft water rule as the largest expansion of agency power in history.

    “The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

    The EPA’s rule is heavily supported by environmentalists who argue that it’s necessary to protecting water quality. Smaller water sources, they argue, eventually affect larger water sources that people use for recreation or their livelihood.

    “It’s taking the way the Clean Water Act works back, so that it works the way water works in the real world,” Bob Wendelgass, president and CEO of Clean Water Action, told Fox News.


    “Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master.”
    Sallust (86-34BC)

  8. To Anonymous, AKA Brubaker,
    I sure as Hell am no fence sitter. You cannot see that I abhor the actions of the Feds at the Bundy picnic, so I won’t try to convince you of that. You, like Bundy, seem to think you can summarily dismiss the US Code because it doesn’t match the Constitution. I hope you have a good attorney if you ever run afoul of any US Code, for any reason. As of now our vaunted Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on, because we, the American people have given free reign to the leaches in Congress to do as they please, and we will continue to reap the bitter fruit of that decision until we have enough and take our country back.. I pray for that fight to begin, and I won’t be standing with a lawless Federal government when it does. As far as abiding by their laws, Constitutional or not, I don’t have any other choice, nor do you.

    Have a lovely day, and keep on praising the deadbeat Bundy, because it doesn’t change anything.
    Jack Cavenah

  9. Jack, you state that “our vaunted Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on…”. However, you quote the “U.S. Code” in your previous postings as if it is divinely-inspired scripture. So, is the U.S. Code worth the paper it is written on? Even when “it doesn’t match the Constitution”?

    You claim to “abhor the actions of the Feds at the Bundy picnic”…but, you sentence yourself and the rest of us to “reap the bitter fruit…until we have enough and take our country back.” Kinda reminds me of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto being surrounded by Indians. When the Lone Ranger asked Tonto, “What are we going to do?” Tonto replied, “Who is ‘we’ Paleface?” I don’t know who you mean by “we”, Jack, but there’s a bunch of folks in Nevada who have had enough, brave patriots from around the country have joined them on the front lines, they drew a collective line in the sand, they “locked and loaded”, and your “lawless” Feds retreated.

    But, you “pray for that fight to begin”…and you “won’t be standing with a lawless Federal government when it does.” The battle already started, Jack. What the patriots in Nevada don’t need are a bunch of REMF’s buying into the Fed-Guv’s propaganda and undermining their efforts to date.

    However, the Fed-Guv is not “lawless”. The corporate U.S. Guvmint has the vaunted “U.S. Code” that you revere so highly. That hodgepodge of bureaucratic geek-speak is chock full of “laws”.

    With 9 million illegal aliens in our country and thousands more crossing every single day…all in violation of the “U.S. Code”…and every one of them bleeding this country bone dry…free food, free housing, free medical care, and everything else “free” that you can think of…not to mention the high crime rates (murders, assaults, sexual assaults, kidnappings, child molestations, robbery, burglary, fraud, etc.)…and none of them are paying Federal Income Tax on their cash earnings…and they’re all being facilitated and protected by the same Washington District of Criminals’ bureaucrats who are persecuting Cliven Bundy…DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT D.C. SENT 200 ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS, SOME WITH SNIPER RIFLES, AND HELICOPTERS BECAUSE ONE FEDERAL-INCOME-TAX-PAYING RANCHER IN NEVADA WASN’T PAYING SOME PIDDLY GRAZING FEES?

    The communists in the Fed-Guv even want to make all of the illegal aliens eligible for Social Security benefits…and Social Security is bankrupt. AND YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS ABOUT SOME GRAZING FEES OWED BY ONE MAN?

    Really, Jack? Any grazing fees the Fed-Guv claims that Bundy owes pales in comparison to the TENS (HUNDREDS?) OF BILLIONS that illegal immigration costs this country EVERY SINGLE YEAR…and all these illegal aliens are in direct violation of your “U.S. Code”.

    Gee, Jack…if you were at Lexington or Concord in 1775, you’d be chastising the Patriots because they didn’t turn over their weapons and ammunition to the British because the “King’s Code” demanded it. How dare those colonists defy the British throne and their hallowed “Rule of Law”!!

    “As far as abiding by their laws, Constitutional or not”, I do have a choice. I have violated their laws. Everyone, including you, has violated their confusing matrix of laws. Books have been written about this subject. Here’s one link concerning this issue…

    The only thing that “doesn’t change” is your mind…no matter how many facts are presented to refute your erroneous conclusions.

    But, you have a lovely day too, Jack.

    1. Anon., AKA “Brubaker”, you are proof positive that “you can’t fix stupid”. Call me all the petty names you care to, it doesn’t change the facts. Let me make it as simly clear as I can for you.
      1.) Do I agree with all laws,US Code or otherwise? NO I DO NOT
      2.) Do I have any respect for the present lawless administration? NO I DO NOT
      3.) Do I approve of Federal Jack-booted thugs enforcing civil actions? NO I DO NOT
      4.) Will I resist the Fed. Gov. when the real fight begins? YOU’RE DAMNED RIGHT I WILL, TO MY LAST BREATH.
      5.) Am I the enemy you seek? NO, YOUR STUPIDITY IS YOUR ENEMY, NOT ME.
      6.) Will I put your personal animosity toward me aside and defend you against your government? AGAIN, YOU’RE DAMNED RIGHT I WILL. Would you do the same? I doubt it.

      Changed my mind again, have a lousy day.
      Jack Cavenah

  10. Jack, do we resort to ad hominem attacks when we get frustrated that someone reminds us that “words have meaning” and then holds us to task to back them up? Contrary to your assertion, I have called you no names…and I have no “personal animosity” towards you. I have simply asked you questions and drawn conclusions based on your words.

    For instance, I am confused when you say that you do not agree with “all laws”…but, in an earlier posting you stated that you “don’t have any other choice…as far as abiding by their laws”…then, you state that you will “resist the Fed. Gov. when the real fight begins”.

    So, you don’t have the tenacity to disobey their laws now…when all they can do to you is lock you up…but when things get real serious and bullets start flying, you will summon the courage for a life-or-death scenario with the heavily-armed SWAT teams, armored personnel carriers, and the armed drones?

    You reference “when the real fight begins”. I think that’s where the problem is, Jack. You still think you’re free. You’re either free or you’re not…cause there ain’t no in-between. There ain’t no 51% free…or even 90% free.

    If you are free to do as you like for 23 hours a day, but the Fed-Guv mandates that you must be in your home with the lights out every night from 11:00pm till Midnight, are you 95.8% free since you can roam free 23 hours a day? You are no more free than the work-release inmate who is allowed to go to his job during the weekday, but must return to his jail cell each night and on the weekends until his sentence is complete.

    For a “freedom” litmus test, let’s paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy:

    You may be a Slave…If you go to any airport in the country to board a domestic airliner and one or more Fed-Guv jackboots sexually assault you and your family prior to boarding said flight.

    You may be a Slave…If the constitutionally-ineligible Pretender in the White House can sign a piece of paper that orders your immediate execution without any of your constitutionally-guaranteed due process rights being invoked by you…or your attorney. This execution can be carried out anywhere in the world…even within the borders of the United States itself.

    You may be a Slave…If the FBI can come to your door with a handwritten search warrant (not signed by a judge) as authorized by the Patriot (sic) Act, search your home, and you cannot even tell your wife they were there…much less your attorney…or you go straight to jail…DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200.

    You may be a Slave…If the Fed-Guv confiscates a portion of your earned income and redistributes it to others without your consent…and calls some of it “Social Security” withholdings knowing full well that these D.C. thieves will run out of money long before they ever pay you what they told you for decades you would receive…or knowing that said dollars will be worthless by then.

    You may be a Slave…if Fed-Guv agencies collect every seemingly-insignificant piece of information to be added to your profile records they keep on you…your e-mails, your telephone / cellphone communications, your purchases, your social networking activities, who your friends are, etc. These Dot-Guv jackboots can even tap into your computer cameras and watch you and your family without your knowledge or consent…and listen to your own and others’ conversations by means of your cellphone even if you are not talking on it at the time.

    And we could go on and on and on…

    News flash, Jack. The “real battle” started long ago. But, like the frog in the pot of water where the heat is slowly turned up and he doesn’t realize he’s boiling to death, the Fed-Guv has slowly taken our freedoms and our liberties to the point that most Amerikans don’t realize that they are no longer free.

    Oh! But, the Dot-Guv lets you cast your vote on a computer every now and then…a computer that they control and program. Doesn’t count. You’re still not free.

    You stated in your first comment to this article that you take no sides in the Cliven Bundy / BLM dispute. Maybe you should consider who is the bigger threat…Cliven Bundy or the D.C. Guvmint, to-wit:

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
    – An Arabian quote (a sad irony I’m sure for all of the gullible Neo-Cons out there)

    One man may draw the line sooner than another man. It is not my place to tell another man where his line should be nor to determine for him when the political persecution becomes so onerous and unbearable that the “real fight” should begin. If his acts of resistance are beneficial to my goals of regaining my lost liberties, the least I can do is not speak in condemnation of him and others who support him…and especially when the Fed-Guv has thrown out a couple of painfully obvious red herrings like “desert tortoises” and “unpaid range fees” as their casus belli.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

    – Martin Niemöller (1892 – 1984)

    The art of “resisting” can begin with “baby steps”. But, if you think you’re going to obediently comply with your D.C. masters’ whims today…and suddenly wake up one day and attempt to reclaim your lost liberties with some divinely-inspired courage, good luck with that.

    You are correct though that I will not “defend you” against the Fed-Guv. I would do it for my family first, me second, and you would simply be a coincidental beneficiary of my efforts…no animosity intended.

    Hope you have another great day, Jack.

    1. Anon., AKA Brubaker,
      I reiterate, You can’t fix stupid. and you can’t fight from a jail cell.

      1. Jack,
        You would have made a great politician, to-wit:
        1) You love to regurgitate mindless rhetoric.
        2) You avoid answering direct questions by attacking your opponent.
        3) You’re afraid to challenge the system.
        4) You’re a go-along, get-along kind of guy.
        5) You contradict yourself on a regular basis.

        However, in response to your repetitive “stupid” comment…you criticize me for responding under a nom de guerre…yet, you get on a public blog and express your desire to engage in a “real fight” with the D.C. Fed-Guv…and you post your real name? But, I’m stupid?

        “Stupid is as stupid does.”
        – Forrest Gump

        Have another great day.

  11. Anonymous, AKA Brubaker,
    You couldn’t be more wrong about me being a politician, I am too honest and outspoken to be involved in politics. I will attempt to answer your “to wit’s” in the order presented, even though I suspect it will not be understood by someone so dim witted,
    1.) Mindless rhetoric and “movie quotes” is your style, not mine
    2.) I have have presented published, factual answers to all questions posed to me–You must read them to understand them, evidently you either didn’t read the material, or couldn’t understand it
    3.) Fear is not in my make up. I fear no man or institution, including the US Government, and challenge them at every turn when they are out of line. If you knew one thing about me you would be aware of that fact.
    4.) I am anything BUT “go along to get along”. It is evident you know not one damned thing about me, yet are so quick to form the WRONG opinion and continue spouting off about it
    5.) My opinion are hard to change without presenting me with verifiable, irrefutable FACTS, and I rarely contradict myself. You just are not knowledgeable enough to realize a person can disagree with a law and still not break it. That is what good citizens do so that they can fight those laws, which would be most difficult from a jail cell.
    Conclusion: I express my opinions on a public blog, using my real name, because, unlike you, I am not afraid to stand up and make it known what I stand for. If that is sedition, then let the powers that be come calling with a warrant. I do not need nor want your blessings to do what I feel needs to be done, and unlike you, will not do it anonymously, nor hide behind some else’s skirts to do it. You, sir a coward and your drivel proves it. My 10 year old great grand son has more civic pride than you do.
    Jack Cavenah

    1. Yes, your logic has done me in again, Jack. It would take volumes to dissect your inconsistent ramblings…but, here’s a brief example from your first posting…

      “Does Bundy OWN the land? Only insofar as the fact that he is a US citizen. Unless he has clear title to the land, and he does not, he is using our land, yours and mine to make a very good living on for free. Ranchers all over the West and even in mid-West states pay the government (you and I) grazing fees for the use of public lands, again you and I and every citizen ‘owns’ these lands. Bundy is a deadbeat tenant who refuses to pay his rent and should either pay up or be evicted.

      Are extreme measures being used to affect his eviction? Absolutely!! The heavy hand of an irresponsible, lawless regime (it is no longer an administration) is being wielded when a warrant served by the cowardly High Sheriff of Bundy’s county should have sufficed.”

      You falsely believe that your status as a “US citizen” makes you a shareholder in a profitable business of sorts, the “U.S. Government”. You’re not a shareholder, Jack, you’re a sharecropper…just like me. And like me, you don’t “own” squat in the way of land or dwellings. And if the U.S. is a business, it loses several trillion dollars a year now…give or take…when its unfunded obligations like Social Security are taken into account.

      You state that the Western ranchers’ grazing fees “pay the government (you and I)”. I’m glad you got your check, Jack…I missed mine. You might counter that we receive governmental services with that money…again, Jack…the Federal Government spends several trillion dollars a year more than it takes in. All you’re getting for their sorry efforts is more and more debt piled on the back of your civic-minded “10 year old great grand son”. What an inheritance he’ll get with your portion of the grazing fees…a collapsed national economy and a soon-to-be worthless Federal Reserve Note. If you taught him his civics, I hope you don’t pass on your knowledge of economics too.

      If you really think you “own” anything in the way of public lands or real property, take your pick…go build your dream home on any U.S. Government public lands in the country and watch the D.C. scoundrels send the bulldozers to tear it down and then have their badged thugs toss you off of “your land”.

      Win the lottery…$100 million after taxes…go pay cash for a mansion anywhere in this country…private land, not public land. Do you own it, Jack? No sir…you will pay rent in the form of “property taxes” every year for the rest of your life. And if you ever stop paying rent to the government, they send people with guns to evict you and put you and your family on the streets…and they’ll toss your house title out in the street with you and sell your house at auction for the back taxes.

      You don’t own anything in the way of land or dwellings, Jack…public or private. You’re a sharecropper…you work and Uncle Sugar demands a percentage of the fruits of your labor at gunpoint. Heck, the D.C. thieves even tax Social Security benefits.

      As long as there is a counterparty claim by any governmental entity, you never will own land or dwellings to do with as you please.

      Try damming up a stream on land you have title to and watch the EPA jackboots show up with your fat fine for damming up THEIR stream on “your land” that you rent from the county.

      You stated, “Bundy is a deadbeat tenant who refuses to pay his rent and should either pay up or be evicted.”

      For my purposes, I believe Bundy when he says that he can prove that his ancestors homesteaded the land he occupies from the 1870’s…just my opinion.

      You, on the other hand, take the word of the same Federal Government you claim to despise that Bundy doesn’t own it. Where are your “verifiable, irrefutable FACTS” that support your call for this brave patriot, Cliven Bundy, and his cattle to “be evicted”? Where are your “verifiable, irrefutable FACTS” that Bundy’s forebears DIDN’T homestead this land? Where are your “verifiable, irrefutable FACTS” that the Federal Government has the constitutional right to own 86% of the land in Nevada, a necessary prerequisite for the Federal Government’s claim for rent from a State of Nevada resident?


      Then you stated, “The heavy hand of an irresponsible, lawless regime (it is no longer an administration) is being wielded when a warrant served by the cowardly High Sheriff of Bundy’s county should have sufficed.”

      There’s a little problem of “law” and a little problem of “jurisdiction”, Jack.

      If the dispute is “civil” in nature, the Federal Government must file a civil suit in a Federal Court, obtain a judgment, then seek to enforce said judgment.

      Warrants are issued in “criminal” cases, not civil.

      And the county is a local form of government that has no jurisdiction in a dispute by the Federal Government for alleged unpaid grazing fees.

      You stated, “You, sir a coward…” If you had said, “You, sir ARE a coward”, I would have challenged you to a public duel… 😉

      However, I do appreciate you pointing out that I am “dim witted”, Jack.

      I hope you have a great rest of the day, Jack.

      P.S. And tell your 10 year old great grand son to put his share of the Western ranchers’ grazing fees in silver…it will take off like a rocket when the hyperinflation gets here soon.

      1. Again, pure Bull Shit on your part. And I do consider you a coward Sir.
        Jack Cavenah

      2. from Barbara I have been sort of watching all the comments on Bundy. The Government has been trying for 20 years to negotiate something with this man who says he does not recognize the U. S. Government but rides around carrying an American flag on American land which he will not pay the grazing fees on. Would your reactions/responses be different if Bundy was a muslim or mexican? Are you aware that the $1.35 per cow per month would be $12.00 per cow per month if he was leasing from the state of Nevada and $20.00 per month per cow if he were leasing from a private individual? The other ranchers pay their fees and do not support Bundy nor does the Cattlemen’s Association. The people in this community have asked the “patriots” to leave because they have set up roadblocks and keep residents from their own homes, terrorize children on their way to school, and Sunday surrounded the church while Bundy was inside. Bundy’s actions will cause someone to be injured or killed. Why does he need a bodyguard? No one is threatening him. We, the American citizen, have been subsidizing this man for 20 years. The sheriff of Clark County has a court order. He needs to serve it.

  12. Jack, I wear your opinion of me as a badge of honor. Coming from a man who said, “I fear no man or institution”…

    “The wise person fears and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and overconfident.”
    – Proverbs 14:16

    If the shoe fits…

    As they say, “Better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable.”

    However, I don’t think you are despicable, Jack. You are probably well-intentioned…but, your faulty logic and failure to answer direct questions highlights your misdirected opinions.

    I asked three(3) very specific questions in my last response and you answered none of them…unless you consider “Bull Shit” your response. Deep, Jack, deep. I expect no less from you. When you have no answer, resort to ad hominem attacks…right out of the two-party, Dim/Repube, playbook.

    Again, in your response, you contradict yourself. You state, “And I do consider you a coward Sir.”

    “Sir” is a title of respect…while calling someone a “coward” is a statement of disrespect. Which is it, Jack?

    As far as Cliven Bundy having no respect for the Federal Government, but riding around with a flag, it is entirely consistent with the common sentiment, “I love my country, but I hate (fear) my government.” The District of Criminals in Washington is not America.

    It is not only possible, but very advisable to love the original concept of the Republic (a nation in which the citizens have unalienable rights that no majority can vote away) and to despise the traitors in public office who infringe and nullify those rights without any hesitation whatsoever.

    If Bundy was a Muslim? I’m not sure what his choice of religion has to do with this debate. If Bundy was an American Muslim, I would support his natural rights as much as I would if Bundy was a Christian. Basic civil rights are not dependent on religious choice. If you disagree with that…it’s Federal law that Jack so cherishes and obeys.

    If Bundy was a Mexican? If he was not legally in this country, I would support nothing that he was trying to do.

    “The other ranchers pay their fees and do not support Bundy nor does the Cattlemen’s Association.” There are no more ranchers. Bundy is the last man standing. The Fed-Guv has run the other ranchers out of business. As far as the “Cattlemen’s Association” goes, they must be a paper tiger if they have sat back and let the Fed Guv run the other ranchers out of business. So, who cares what they think?

    As far as the “people in the community”, it appears that most of them were on the front lines with Bundy when the BLM turned tail and ran. Even if the rest of the “people in the community” constituted more people than backed Bundy, most colonists during the Revolutionary War were Loyalists to the Crown or neutral during the war. If the Founding Fathers gave two whits what the majority thought, we’d still be proclaiming, “Long live the Queen!”

    “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
    – Samuel Adams (a Founding Father and President of the “united States”…not a failure to capitalize…simply how it should be spelled)

    The “sheriff of Clark County” has…no…court…order. The sheriff of Clark County has no authority to enforce a Federal court order…the same as the Feds having no authority to enforce a county court order. That was covered in my last response. It deals with “jurisdiction”.

    Have a great day again, Jack.

    1. from Barbara Brubaker, evidently you do not read or totally comprehend what you read. Most of your last response was as if you responded to Jack and I am the one who posted the comment. I am amazed at how ill informed you are. It is evident you have not studied the situation. Whatever makes you think Mr. Bundy is the last rancher? Give me a break. As to the townspeople and other residents, have you not seen the interviews regarding their wishes that the “patriots” would disperse and leave the area. I will not continue with all the errors in your post other than to say the Clark county sheriff does have the authority to arrest Mr. Bundy on the federal court order.
      Once again, my name is Barbara

  13. Barbara…I saw your name in the original posting…and I saw that you posted under Jack’s banner (jecavenahBC71).

    Try reading my response again…because “evidently you do not read or totally comprehend what you read.”

    You state, “Most of your last response was as if you responded to Jack and I am the one who posted the comment.” Well, there you go…”as if”. So, you “assumed”…I won’t go farther than that on this correction since I am a gentleman…

    At the point that I addressed the specific issues that you brought up, I didn’t mention Jack’s name…nor did I mention yours…but, since you’re both posting under Jack’s heading (jecavenahBC71)…does it really matter? Only if you can’t argue the facts and would prefer to throw out red herrings to divert the topic apparently.

    BARBARA asks, “Whatever makes you think Mr. Bundy is the last rancher?”

    Gee…let’s see…hmmmmm…let me think…hey, try this…

    “Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county, stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding that he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.”

    Ok…let me think…hmmmmm…hey, try this one…

    “There were 52 other ranchers in the Gold Butte, in Clark County about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, before the BLM sharply restricted grazing rights in 1993, ostensibly to protect the Mojave desert tortoise. Only the Bundy ranch remains.”

    Read more:

    Google is an amazing tool, no? Try it…there’s plenty of other links to further answer your question. How’s that for a “break”?

    BARBARA asks (assume there’s a question mark at the end of the sentence), “As to the townspeople and other residents, have you not seen the interviews regarding their wishes that the ‘patriots’ would disperse and leave the area.”

    I addressed this in my last response, but “evidently you do not read or totally comprehend what you read.”

    However, let’s take a different approach, Barbara.

    If your neighbors (let’s assume there are 100 voting age adults) all got together and voted that you and Jack should move…or mow your grass every day of the week…or each of you do 100 jumping jacks at 5am every morning…would you?

    It’s simple, Barbara…we all have inherent rights to speech, private property, to assemble, to keep and bear arms, and on and on and on. And if the exercise of your natural rights, some of which were codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, do not violate the RIGHTS, not WISHES, of your fellow citizens, who cares? Because, I can assure you…if Bundy had violated a LAW, the spineless sheriff of Clark County, Nevada would have arrested him. Otherwise, Bundy’s fellow residents and the sheriff of Clark County, Nevada can pound sand for all Cliven Bundy cares.

    And as to your contention that “the Clark county sheriff does have the authority to arrest Mr. Bundy on the federal court order”…THERE IS NO ARREST WARRANT ISSUED BY ANY JURISDICTION…FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR LOCAL…FOR CLIVEN BUNDY.

    Now…I have addressed “all the errors in your post”, Barbara. If you will observe, my responses are much longer than yours and Jack’s because I actually answer your questions…and it takes much more effort to correct your constant misinformation.

    If this continues, I may start billing you both for my time…just kidding.

    Maybe you’re upset because I didn’t wish you a “great day” in my last posting. Ok…

    Have a great day…Barbara.

    1. From Jack, to Mr. AKA Brubaker:
      Not worthy of comment. You are upbraiding an empty chair, but feel free to prattle away.
      Jack Cavenah

  14. Jack…for once, we are all in agreement…since there is no rebuttal to the truth.

    Have another great day, Jack!!

    1. You wish. I’ve heard the delusion of never being wrong is wonderful. Is it?
      Jack Cavenah

      1. Jack, did one of your alter-egos tell you that? Do you frequently have conversations with yourself? Scary, Jack…scary.

  15. Just the latest example that the Amerikan Naifs don’t own any real property…we only borrow it from the Dot-Guv…till they get ready to kick us out…2 1/2 min. news video…

    Eminent Domain: Colorado Couple Finds Out Their Land Is Only Theirs Until The Government Wants It

%d bloggers like this: