marklevinshowpromo526

IN-DEPTH: Mark Levin gives his take on the dispute between Cliven Bundy and the federal government

report this ad

Mark Levin lays out the most thoughtful and in-depth analysis I’ve heard yet on the dispute between Cliven Bundy and the federal government. In short, Levin calls it an abuse of power and believes the BLM should stop referring to the land as a conservation area and allow Bundy’s cattle to continue grazing on the land just as it has for the last 100 years or so.

Listen:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
report this ad
  • Kathy Nardo-George

    agenda 21 seems to be prevailing hearing knighted States of America its citizens better open its eyes and wake up because the government’s on the move to take everything you have colonized us and control us..thank goodness some people are still awake and are fighting back last I checked this was the home of the free

  • stage9

    Sheriff: Feds strategize for ‘raid’ on ranch
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/sheriff-feds-strategize-for-raid-on-ranch/

    The executive director of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government warn that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, because a raid on the family’s ranch still is planned.

    And there probably would be violence involved, said Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz.

    “I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence, he told WND Monday. “I don’t think the Bundys would lie down and be taken.”

    • Stehekin912

      Does not the word “raid” imply violence?

  • JacksonPearson

    > o o O O

    • Stehekin912

      Clever

    • Gary Dickson

      Talking of “How do you know?”:

      O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption, none?
      OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.
      O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?
      OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption.
      (Emphasis mine.)

      Mr. Obama, how do you know? Who have you been talking to? Didn’t you just undermine any on-going investigation?

    • Chester Simms

      Sure it’s not over. It will be OVER only when Harry Reid takes the perp walk.

  • toptenart

    Radical left environment group forces the blm to act….

  • Attila_the_hun

    Today’s Environmental Movement is the reincarnation of 19 century Marxism hiding under the cover of green. Or put another way it is a WATERMELON green outside and pure Soviet RED inside.

  • Steve Angell

    This is just a move to steal every piece of land owned in America. Steal it and give it to the monied few. The Rothchilds and Rockefellers. The Bilderbergs. Our real rullers not their servants we call House, Senate and President. They have little power. They answer to the Bilderbergs that in reality own this country and now want us off their land. Put into the Ghettos of the cities and then be exterminated.

    • 57thunderbird

      It is foreign interests that they want to sell it to.IMO,that makes it worse.

  • jrt

    when was the land purchased by the gov. how much did they pay? to whom did they pay. This person should be grandfathered into being able to lease or purchase what he needs. Like one of those 99 year leases

    • SpencerChaffin

      The Bundy family has been on that land since 18 80 or so, even before the state was formed.

    • TJ

      The Feds got the land from Mexico in the 1848 as part of a treaty.

  • wales777

    Mark doesn’t explain how the open land of Nevada is Federal land. How did state sovereign land from any state become Federal land?

    • MaxineCA

      That happened when they became a state which was sop for most states. The bigger point here is that even though it was federal land, it had been designated for “public use” before they arbitrarily changed it to “conservation land”.

      Legislation passed years ago to allow the states to regain control of the Fed. land within their borders. Nebraska has been successful at doing this. Many other states have it in the works. I think everyone should be pressuring their reps and senators to get it done ASAP.

      • wales777

        My point is they don’t “own” it. I think that’s what Bundy is trying to shed light on this. Article 1 Sec 8 clause 17. If so could the Federal Gov sell parts of Colorado to Utah?….No. They do not have the rights or the authority.

        • MaxineCA

          I think that would be a great question for the expert… the Great One, Mark Levin. I’d be interested in his response as well.

        • Star Doe

          document “Federal jurisdiction within the States” says That if the feds obtain land from State for its constitutional uses and wants to quit holding it for those uses it must return said land to the State!
          Please read said document! it will answer many questions!

      • 57thunderbird

        If memory serves,I believe the SCOTUS broadened the Constitutional meaning of public use. 2005.Kelo vs. the city of New London.Unless I misunderstand the legalese.

        • MaxineCA

          I believe that was the horrific eminent domain case, which doesn’t apply here. You are correct that it expanded the “takings clause” addressing private property.

          • 57thunderbird

            Good point.It was eminent domain.And you are correct,it didn’t come into play in this instance.I had overlooked that fact.Thank you,I stand corrected.At least the case and the expansion of the taking clause were correct.Must have had a senior moment. 🙂 I agree on the horrific part

            • MaxineCA

              I get those senior moments quite frequently these days….. but hey, at least we have a good excuse!

              • 57thunderbird

                Doesn’t happen too often,but it seems to be happening more frequently. 🙂 Just kidding…..I think.

            • PapaLouie

              Although, if they can take someone’s house for a new Mall, why couldn’t they take a ranch for a new solar farm?

              • MaxineCA

                It wasn’t his private property (his own ranch) where this happened. It was on what was fed land previously designated for public use (grazing, water rights, etc.) until they reclassified it to conservation land. It wasn’t a “private property” issue.

                • PapaLouie

                  But if the government took Bundy’s ranch through eminent domain, he would have no place to live in the area. As the “last man standing” his neighbors had already sold their properties, so where would he go except out of the area? It would make the Fed’s job a lot easier if they could get away with it. But now public opinion would make it difficult for the Feds to pull such a trick.

      • Patriot077

        That was interesting to learn. 25 years ago they were supposed to give it back to the states but Nevada and Utah have not gained any of it back. Nevada is about 85% untouchable by the people.

        • MaxineCA

          I know Utah’s legislation passed and the Gov. signed it, but somehow it ended up in the courts and the judge said NO. They have since re-drafted their bill and are currently in the process of passing it. I haven’t done any research, but I’m a bit curious as to “who” instigated the lawsuit against the state.

          This is where I think “we the people” should take action and start pressuring our state to take back their lands. If Nebraska could do it, maybe they should copy what Nebraska did.

        • Dr. Strangelove

          Give it back. Ha ha ha! Good one.

          • Patriot077

            I know, right? But Nebraska did something and got theirs back.

    • Dr. Strangelove

      The BLM used the environmental laws to make it a conservation area to protect the endangered desert tortoise. As far as I can tell though, now they appear to be endangered from overpopulation.

  • MaxineCA

    I saw an update on Greta tonight. Griff was at the Bundy Ranch. Today they found a massive grave while looking for cattle still missing. At this point, they have no idea how many might be buried until they dig it up. They could see a least one, but there appears to be many more. How sad.

    They are still looking for many calves that were separated from their mamas in the helo roundup.

    • 57thunderbird

      The grave is probably the ones they ran to death with the helos.

    • Patriot077

      If babies were separated, they probably won’t make it in that heat. I can hardly stand to think about those mama cows bawling for them, because they will.

    • Paul Adcock

      Was that grave where they were gonna bury the feds?

    • BRwoman

      That was so unnecessary, the BLM didn’t have to kill the cattle. It’s just more actions from a tyrannical government. Disgusting!

    • Stehekin912

      I am no lawyer, but seems to me that if the Feds/BLM/Sheriff etc killed his livestock, or through their acts the animals died, they should be liable. Those cattle are the rancher’s livelihood, and each one represents not only financial investment at the time of their death, but an investment in the future via the production of calves. Further, they hid their alleged bad acts by burying the cattle and not disclosing their actions – which to my little mind indicates they knew what they did was wrong and they tried to literally cover up their sins.

      Again, just my humble opinion. Let some legal eagle sort it out.

    • wales777

      Cliven said they recovered 27 calves and are trying to nurse them back but the challenge is trying to find their mothers. If not they try to pair moms who lost their calves with calves who lost their mommas.

  • sjmom

    Agenda 21 at its worst.

  • mcgurn

    Everyday the “volcano” gets closer to erupting. And it is being induced by the left, the fed & the u.n. When it does blow I think they will wish to God that they had a place to hide.

  • AmericanDuckie

    They don’t give a crap about land or turtles or anything else. They only care about power. If they cared, they’d care about stuff like this which is doing a he!! of a lot more to damage the environment than some cows.
    Oh but then again, this is owned by the Department of the Interior, not the BLM. Silly me.

    • 57thunderbird

      That right there says all that needs to be said.

      • Patriot077

        It is beyond sick to know that they will allow the human trafficking and cartel violence to come in along with all these “voters”. Not to mention all the social ills and economic stress the latter cause.

        • 57thunderbird

          I agree Patriot!It is to the detriment of our nation to allow this to go on.I believe this regime knows that,thus they allow it to continue.The end justifies the means.

    • Gary Dickson

      Cows can’t vote.

      • PapaLouie

        Are you sure they didn’t register them while they had them rounded up? Who says they can vote by absentee ballot like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?

        • libssukkalot

          Check them for cell phones…LOL!

    • Dr. Strangelove

      Hmmm… Do I see a couple prayer rugs in that picture? Probably just my imagination.

  • nottalib

    The enviro-Marxists are doing the same thing in NC, threatening lawsuits if the Feds don’t impose these conservation/critical habitat areas as if all of a sudden what humans have been doing all these years is too much for these creatures. It’s all about ruining our economy and seizing power. BTW the piping plover tastes like chicken!

    • Stehekin912

      They are such liars and so two faced…if a person wants to keep their private property pristine because they love the wildlife on their property, then they get taxed out of it, or the land is taken for a strip mall via eminent domain, or through the property being condemned or taken via some other trumped up reason. The Progs want it both ways…to control control control

  • CharlesS702

    It was amazing to go out there and see all the support Bundy got. I wasn’t able to get out there until last Sunday (4/13) though so I missed the BIG showdown. It’s another classic example of why the 2nd Amendment is SO important. When I went out there, there was armed militia everywhere. The entire hill over looking the Virgin River and the hills lining Riverside Rd were lined with militia sharpshooters (which is why the BLM quit attack pregnant women and cancer patients, it’s also why the BLM didn’t open fire on the crowds.) My faith in this country (at least in part of the country) has been restored. Seeing patriots stand up against the bloated Federal Government, and protect those who need protection, brought tears to my eyes.

    This is the exact reason Obama, Reid and all the other scumbags want to disarm the law abiding citizens of this great land. The Feds hate it when good people stand up against their tyranny. They want to bully, push, attack and kill without the common man being able to defend himself.

    This gave me great hope for the future. I just really hope Reid, the BLM or any other Fed doesn’t think they can push around and arrest Bundy after the militias leaves. There is no doubt they would be returning and not only would they make Reid’s life a living hell, but I think they would do everything in their power to free Bundy from the chains of oppression.

    • jrt

      God bless them

    • Stehekin912

      Now somehow, We The People have to keep an eye on what happens next…we know there will be a “next” – Beetle Larva promised it, and we know the Progs won’t let go.

    • BS61

      I was wondering if I was the only smiliing as I saw the good guy sharp shooters. When an armed fed shows up first, I’m glad there are good citizens armed out there!

  • Crassus

    Hannity and Levin have done a good job covering this story as opposed to the whiny Glenn Beck who seems to want to have it both ways and the absent Rush Limbaugh who has yet to say a word on the story.

    • Paul Adcock

      I admit, I find Rush’s silence disturbing.

      • BRwoman

        Now that you mention it, Rush has been silent. It does make one wonder about Rush and Beck. It also has been disappointing.

        • riverlifecallie

          Gosh, people. Do a little research. Try Google. Don’t listen to Crassus. Rush has NOT been silent.,

          • Laurel

            He hasn’t. I listen everyday.

          • BRwoman

            I don’t need to google it, I listen to Rush everyday at work and I haven’t heard him say anything — unless I was taking a break at the time.

    • Paul Adcock

      What is up with Rush? What’s he doing?

      • jrt

        he’s just one human that makes mistakes

      • Dr. Strangelove

        Rush was on this last week. Haven’t had the opportunity to listen much this week, but he has covered it.

    • Semprasectum

      Let’s be real. . .Beck has changed in the past 6 months. . . he is talking less and less about fighting this government and more about just praying . …it is clear he is sick and has let slip it has to do with his immune system. . .Rush is having another ear implant in an attempt to save his ever decreasing ability to hear . . . I know it sounds conspiratorial but when people talk out too aggressively against this administration, things go bad for them. This country is in a fight for it’s existence and the voices attempting to save us, are being silenced. . . If Levin is still as aggressive a year from now agains this administration, I will be shocked . . . we should all fear for Levin. . . WE ARE SO LOST

      • BRwoman

        I agree. I heard him on the radio this morning basically saying that people who are willing to participate in a revolution, should unfriend him on facebook and we should stay peaceful. I was really shocked to hear that from him. Of course, I am not for any kind of violence if it can be avoided, but that is not always possible. What has happened to Glenn’s spirit?

        • jrt

          Rush was disappointing when he dismissed any voter fraud from 2012. Dick Morris has a new talk show out of Philly where he adds to the Rush show each day. He has been on fire, blasting Hillary at every chance and this new article from him yesterday is pivotal. I never cared for Morris but his new show slams the left and is eyeopening

          http://www.newsmax.com/Morris/morris-democrats-electoral-college/2014/04/15/id/565661/?ns_mail_uid=86887730&ns_mail_job=1564560_04152014&promo_code=pawhl1iq

          • BRwoman

            Interesting article. I don’t really like Dick Morris either, but I’ll try to find his station and have a listen. Thanks!

            • jrt

              Morris has never been a true patriot of a conservative and when he trashed O’Donnell I was done with him but he had her on his show and was quite kind and apologetic, so hate does fade.
              I loved when he suggested a fund to fly the soldiers parents of Benghazi to all of Hillary’s tour because she has had to cancel for the protests.
              He rips into Hillary almost like he is trying to make up for and clear his conscience. Maybe he is talking to God and moving in a more honest direction. That article is all his doing. Media wont cover that angle or the soros connection.

        • TJ

          Nonviolence is always possible and the way to win. Using woman as human shields is not the way to win. Revolutions for revenge leads to the french revolution, the guillotine and gulags. Revolution with no malice leads to freedom. Those yelling at the BLM when they pulled back are out for revenge not freedom.

          • BRwoman

            I don’t believe the story about them wanting to use women as shields. That is the word of one person, whereas all the pics I’ve seen of it, not only are the men on the front line, they are also on the second line. Anybody can say anything, but the proof is in the pudding.

        • PapaLouie

          Did George Washington unfriend him too? A lot of Glenn’s old heroes participated in a revolution. So are they not his heroes anymore? Was that revolution to preserve freedom different from any possible revolution to preserve freedom today? I’m not sure what to think of Glenn anymore. He tells people to stand up for what is right. Then he condemns them for standing up and tells them to go hide under their beds and pray for peace. I wonder if his new diet is making him mentally unstable.

      • jrt

        prayer is good. its the best thing any of us can do. Beck is a Mormon. They can be funny you know and I mean about money, not God. All in all I think his motives are good.

        God gave us the gift of Ted Cruz.

        Dont give up the faith and please dont give up the prayer.

      • Dr. Strangelove

        You’re right, but the DC Junta may not want to turn Rush, Beck or Levin into martyrs by having them die by “accident”.

    • riverlifecallie

      Rush has not been silent. That is not true.

    • tp517

      Rush ran from Waco and Ruby Ridge too. He changed his open line Friday policy just to keep dissenting voices off the air. That is when I knew Rush was an entertainer and not much of anything else.

      Beck is trying to cover his butt because he is afraid of what is coming next. He is probably correct about what is coming next.

      The nuts like Chrissy Matthews are slithering out from under their rocks now. The left must have gotten some polling data that says that hating Bundy is something that their base will go for.

    • MaxineCA

      I have no idea what’s been up with Glenn lately. Someone commented the other day, they thought he was just doing a CYA in case there was any violence. Boy, if that’s it, I hate to tell Glenn, he really doesn’t hold that much power. And what’s up with the crying crap again? And all this talk about Ghandi and MLK – I sure hope he doesn’t even think he’s in that category, but maybe just a wannabe?

      If I want preaching, I’ll turn to clergy. He’s better at teaching than preaching, IMHO. It’s a good thing he’s attracted some great talent. I won’t watch his show any longer, but I’ll stay tuned to see how the others do. When he said everyone who didn’t agree with him should “un-friend” him…… wow the loyal followers commenting on the blaze were gladly complying.

      • Laurel

        He has always been too emotional.

      • Dr. Strangelove

        Beck is an alcoholic (as am I) which could explain the emotional outbursts. I’ve found myself crying watching a feminine hygiene ad. It’s part of the brain damage I think. Don’t take this as an endorsement though, I don’t care for his preaching or his little clique of comedy.

    • Laurel

      Rush is busy fending off a lot of personal attacks.

    • Dr. Strangelove

      I’ll repeat myself, Rush covered this last week. Haven’t had the opportunity to tune in much this week.

  • Exodus2011

    I’m glad to know I am on the same page wrt this issue as the Constitutional heavy weight Mark Levin – I do not have expertise in the law by any means, but the phrase that immediately came to my mind as I read about this issue was:

    ABUSE OF POWER

    and soon after that, knowing about the Reid connection:

    C O R R U P T I O N

    IMV, the #WEThePeople Posse who rode to support the Bundys in the weekend were playing

    Cowboys and CORRUPTOCRATS

    Stay alert Patriot Posse!

    #BeClingers —————–> #AmericaRISING

    • Laurel

      You read my mind exactly.
      Thank you!

  • Bill Herbster

    why did the DHS buy 9 billion rounds of ammo, and I cant have a 10 round magazine ?

    • foreverinchrist

      Its all about Government control!

  • harglide

    God Bless you Mark, yet once again! you have it right, but what is it going to take to get the attention of the American people???
    Thank you, for bring again, some crappy stuff that we need to see!

  • Chester Simms

    This made me weep with joy.

    • wales777

      When Steve Klein says it was the 1st and 2nd amendment working together, that was amazing. Cameras and guns. Great observation. What most don’t understand about this event was how present God was. People were praying all around the perimeter and right before they moved in. And how disciplined the militia were.

      • libssukkalot

        I had noticed that too…it was a goosebumps moment to say the least.

  • Timothy Winkelkotter

    brilliant & spot on as usual. leave it to Levin to illuminate the bigger picture for the cognitive impaired.

  • stang289

    I think it has more to do with Water Rights , Check out his neighbor ( next door ) who benefited from a foreclosed ranch . Bribery and Corruption involving water district employees .http://mesquitecitizen.com/viewnews.php?newsid=7359&id=3

    • Stehekin912

      A layer cake of corruption

  • Brent Smith

    Mark in an even broader sense this is an attack on the fundamental rights established in our constitution which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Government is strangling Americans right and ability to use the land as planned by our founding fathers.

  • tp517

    I wonder if Chrissy Matthews has any mud puddles on his property and should be declared as a wetland.

    • Dr. Strangelove

      Matthews brain could be considered wetland.

  • BS61

    Thanks for posting scoop!

  • Laron Woods

    Let me sheds some light on what has happened in the past.
    BUNDY LAND

    Let me see If I can help out a little on this. I was born and raised in Lincoln County, Nevada, the county that borders Clark County to the North. I lived in Lincoln County and my family has been involved in ranching, my Grandfather and Great Grandfather were all Nevada ranchers. My Great Grandfather homesteaded a ranch moving there in the 1860’s. Even my Dad was a rancher until WWII started and he could make more money working in the mines of Eastern Nevada.

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

    After the BLM took over management, they no longer recognized
    those actions of purchasing grazing rights. Right or wrong, they still refuse to recognize the purchased grazing rights from the Bundy’s. Unfortunately my own family – Uncles that continued to live on and work the Woods family homestead in Lincoln County and land around Mesquite Nev. (Clark County – a few miles East of the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville) relinquished their rights to the land claimed by the BLM long ago. Hope this helps you to understand the issues with the land and BLM management a little better.

    Laron Fred Woods

    • MaxineCA

      Excellent! Thank you very much. I’ve read your comment twice and I believe the question is “who owns the land?” When NV became a state you said they had “control” of it’s land. Did they maintain ownership or did they give up ownership to the fed govt. with the promise of having control of it’s use? The events following statehood speaks of the progression relating to “control” of the land.

      I think that’s what is confusing to most.

      • Laron Woods

        The land was under the administration of the General Land Office, GLO. Administered by the State of Nevada, even though in was a federal agency. The GLO was merged with the Grazing Service in 1946. Bundy’s family bought the rights to graze on the land from the GLO. In ’46 when they were merged, the new agency, the BLM took over all management from the states. From that point on, the Federal Lands were in control of the BLM. The BLM refused to recognize the land grazing purchase. That’s the issue. Should the BLM honor the purchase made in the 1880’s or when they took the land was the purchase nullified? That’s Bundy’s issue. For myself, I think they should step up to the bar and honor the commitment. They don’t want to, because it doesn’t meet the needs of what they want to do with the land. Bundy says the contract is still good; The BLM and the Federal Courts say the contract was nullified.
        I hope that answers your question MaxineCA

        • Laurel

          The real problem is the dirty politics behind the land grab by BLM and it fits a pattern playing out for decades.

          • Laron Woods

            Yes, and even though he denies it, and others deny it, there is a certain Nevada Senator and his son who stand to make millions off the land grab, whether they sell oil leases, mining leases, or solar project leases.

            • Gary Dickson

              As far as I am concerned, Laron, that certain Nevada Senator is the root cause of this whole situation.

              That Senator probably got cold feet and got the BLM to return the cattle when things were starting to get too hot because Dana Loesch got wind of what he was up to.

              http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/

              Mark Levin mentioned solar farms at the end of his commentary, but I don’t believe he mentioned that certain Nevada Senator. He should have but perhaps he needed more objective confirmation.

              As far as I am concerned, there is almost always a political or financial motivation behind virtually all the actions of federal agencies these days — the IRS, the NSA, the State Department — and the BLM is no different. All the rest of the activity — courts, agents with their guns and helicopters — is just theatre to intimidate people like Mr. Bundy.

              • MrInterpid

                You are right on the money about Harry and son. The only shooting that would have done any good in Nevada would be one right between Harry’s crooked old eyes.

        • MaxineCA

          I understand the administration of the land and control of it’s use issues. Trust me, I’m with Mr. Bundy all the way on this. I think what’s confusing to the general public is that Mr. Bundy has come out in several interviews stating the land does not belong to the fed govt – rather it belongs to the state of NV and control of Clark County. I wish he’d focus on his grazing rights and not ownership of the land, which seems to be the fed.

          I really do wish a great attorney in NV expert in this field would represent them pro-bono and fight for their grazing and water rights. (I’ll bet there would be many across the country that would be willing to contribute to their legal fund.)

          Enough is enough!

        • MaxineCA

          Sometimes I’m slow to reply as I want to compose my thoughts into a short and concise comment. But I’ve got to tell you – You absolutely NAILED IT! Using your words I’ll summarize the entire problem:

          1. The GLO was merged with the Grazing Service in 1946. Bundy’s family BOUGHT the rights to graze on the land from the GLO.

          2. Should the BLM honor the purchase made in the 1880’s or when they took the land was the purchase nullified?

          3. They don’t want to, because it doesn’t meet the needs of what they want to do with the land.

          4. The BLM and the Federal Courts say the contract was nullified.

          Is this sounding familiar to anyone? (If you like your grazing rights, you can keep your crazing rights.) Contracts? Promises? What’s that?

    • Dr. Strangelove

      Thanks for the history, that really clarifies the situation. Not even Mark Levin mentioned Bundy bought the grazing rights.

      • Laron Woods

        Yes, Bundy’s daughter mentioned early on with the situation that the purchase of grazing rights was central to their court battle.

    • Doug Fox

      US government purchased the land in the 1840’s after the Mexican/American War (Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago) Nevada became a state in 1864, to this day, the Nevada constitution recognizes the US Government as landowners of the land in question.

      • Laron Woods

        Thanks for your comment and input. There was never a question about the land itself. The question is why would the GLO allow rights to be purchased and then rescind those rights?

  • Laurel

    Levin connected the dots precisely!

  • mediaaccess

    I’m not sure about Glenn Beck’s response. I know there are some ‘anarchists’ who want to get things riled up. But, we have a Second Amendment for just the very reason. Levin has been more thorough about this. Here’s a guy who gets it.

  • Tucker Peterson

    Thats the problem. The Feds want something and they just make a law or policy and take it. They are not “We the people” they are “We the Government Cronies.” What we allow, is what will continue.

  • spin43

    It seems as if Glenn Beck is siding with the central government. I tried listening to his radio podcast but it sounds more like frat boys talking. Is Michael Savage still missing? Boring guest hosts filling in.

    • RightlySo

      I agree, Spin. I loved Glenn on his TV program. So historical and interesting. But can’t stand to listen to his radio program. All I hear are giggles.

    • The Monster

      I think Beck is trying to be MLK (non-violence) instead of Malcolm X (by any means necessary) because he knows the Left desperately needs a Reichstagsbrand to justify the Krystallnacht they want to have.

  • spin43

    If only the Gonzales kid had Bundy’s Freedom Fighters to protect him from the Clinton Regime. Perhaps the children at Waco could have been saved.

  • Dr. Strangelove

    That was an absolutely fantastic summation of the Bundy situation and how it represents the government overreach and takeover of our rights and property all across the country, not just Nevada. I don’t think even Rush could have explained it better.

  • Conniption Fitz

    The Feds are operating under the fake man-made myth that methane gas from cows causes a hole in the atmosphere and causes global waking.

    They have put every other rancher in the whole region out of business except for Bundy. He is the last rancher standing.

    The elites want to make sure they are the only ones who can afford beef.
    Let the lower classes eat beans (whoops: methane) well, not beans, let them eat cabbage (whoops, more methane) let them eat soylent green.
    Or let them starve (except for a few select servant class) and make more room for the elite.

    The elite political class are evil. They want all your money, homes, property, land, and they want to control your lives and your mind-wash children.

  • cliftonbritt

    Of course Mark Levin is correct. What happened at the Bundy Ranch reminds me in a way of what happened at Benghazi. At Benghazi, accord to the liars in the White House, certainly to include B.O. the head liar, it was all caused by a video that was made by a Coptic Christian some five years earlier. Of course we know better. When the ‘rustlers’ from the BLM showed up at the Bundy Ranch, the whole commotion was supposedly about protecting the desert tortoise. Since there have been no complaints from the cattle nor the tortoises for more than one hundred years, one has to assume that they have gotten along pretty well. Indeed, it is about nothing more than another land and power grab that has most probably been manipulated for monetary gain for the usual outlaws; like Harry Reid whose finger prints are all over the Bundy Ranch episode.

  • Sandra123456
    • Conservator1

      That’s a difficult question to answer in a comment section. The first thing you need to look at is what federal department owns the land. At the end of this post I will provide the link.

      IMO, the Fed’s land grabs began with progressive Teddy Roosevelt and his push for federal parks. That came to fruition when Roosevelt broke with the GOP and supported Democrat Woodward Wilson who got the job done with the creation of the National Park Service On August 25, 1916 when he signed the new law that mandated the agency “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife to protect the land for unimpaired enjoyment of future generations.

      You can add Taft, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon who created the EPA, and presidents up to the present. Here’s the link to the federal agencies that own and is responsible for its management – for more information, click the links for every agency or department.

      Primary federal land holders
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

      • Sandra123456

        Thank you!

    • Alpiner

      They acquired the land after the Mexican American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. When the Federal Government granted statehood in these areas, they retained much of the land as Federal land under the State’s Constitution. This is different from what was done in the eastern states. Which, in the case of Georgia, may give some understanding to why the Cherokee were moved by the Federal Government, because Georgia was granting homesteads to the Georgia land which had been claimed by the Indians. I think they did what they did in the west to partially prevent this. But I’m only a novice reader of history.

      • Sandra123456

        Thank you!

  • timerunnersc

    Thank you Mr Levin.
    WE are ready to defend our freedom and our liberty from the traitors within our government and those inside our nation. We are willing and damn ready.

  • Sentinel

    This resistance, the ranchers who showed up and supported him, the cowboy on the hill waving the American flag… this is what pitchforks and torches looks like!

  • doriangrey11

    Great article Mr Levin.

    A Open Letter to Glenn Beck.

  • veritasliberabit

    Yup – WTP are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore –

  • Maxsteele

    There are so many laws now that anything and everything we do can be classified as illegal. In this case the powers that be can then pick and choose who and when they will apply the laws too. It was no coincidence that it was the head corrupt progressive, Harry Reid, that came out saying that “this is not over, we cannot allow people to break the law.” Yet, coming from the same mouth is that looking into the innumberable Obama administration scandals, IRS, Iran, Bengazi, fast and furious… are witch hunts

  • I get the concerns about private property under threat of nationalization. I get States rights. I get that Congress had delegated too much power to Federal agencies. That said, does the Federal Gov’t hold the title to the lands in question (or does the state of Nevada)? If the Feds own the property, then those taking a stance against the Feds/BLM are fundamentally arguing against property rights/rights of ownership (which in this case happens to be owned by the Feds).

    A regulation hiding behind a turtle will be seen as absurd to some, but if the owner of a property decides that access to his/her property is over, that property owner can use any reason he/she wants (or doesn’t even have to give a reason). Prior access permissions are irrelevant (unless law something like grandfathering prior access governs a dispute of this nature).

    I admit that I don’t know what I don’t know concerning possible law and/or regulations that may require Federally owned land to be accessible to the public unless cordoned off via a specific regulation. However, in the escalating debate between Constitutionalists/law abiders vs. Statists & Marxists, be careful to not contradict core your principles. Don’t let emotion of anti-Fed trap you into taking a stance that makes you a hypocrite concerning being law abiding. If you disagree with old, new or absent law, rely on the Constitutional process for grassroots driven change to law. Of course this nation is off the rails of this cornerstone of our representative republic’s form of government, but advocating for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey laws and property rights is advocating for the rule of man, not the rule of law.

    You can hate how we got here, hate rationale they use (etc.), but don’t become them by also cherry picking laws you like and don’t like. Do a better job of advocating, informing and defending our Constitutional form of government that must remain a nation of laws … and use the system our Founders gifted us to correct injustices (rather than resort to anarchistic thinking because you’ll reinforce their slanderous portrayal of you to low information voters)..

    • Patrick Westfall

      Federal entitys can not own land John. Its a breach of the constitution

    • WordsFailMe

      Here’s really coherent backgound on the patriots of Bunkerville:

      Also, it’s no longer about picking gnat s*** out of pepper for me. 200 federal employees, probably on overtime, group in a remote location and point their attention and weapons at American citizens who willingly walk into the dessert and are willing to risk their lives for their ‘”rights,” or someone else’s.

      For me, as a former federal employee, if an American guy or girl is ready to die on a Saturday afternoon in an I-15 underpass for a belief, I’m not so interested in debating his and her premises as I am interested in determining what brought hell me to this confrontation? It’s significant because in the next breath, these same people are going to let it be known that they are as willing to defend these beliefs with force as they are willing to die trying.

      I wonder how it feels to be a career employee for the BLM or USFS and find yourself with an order to kill Americans? Wonder how these men will spend that overtime pay, realizing that not only were they the “hired guns” with no dog in the fight, ready to kill Americans, but those Americans were ready to stick it right back to them?

    • Brent Mooney

      Amen brother. I am not for government control of our daily life as citizens of the United States, but however, in this circumstance, you have a squatter who will not budge off of land that he has been told to evacuate. If this was Average Joe Citizen’s land and he asked Mr. Bundy to take his cattle off of the land and Mr. Bundy refused, what kind of crap would be regurgitating around in the so called media right now? I understand that the use of this land has been available to his family for (I heard this figure on some yahoo’s radio show) a hundred years. I also understand that it was a lease, or grant of permission of land use rights, if it were my land, and some over privileged yokel of a cowboy that was trampling on the American flag and using the Bill of Rights as his personal shit rag, refused to get off of MY land he would have a fist in his mouth right about now. I hope that they take this guy to court and he gets schooled in what freedom used to mean to him as he writes his congressman from a comfy federal jail cell in an alleged FEMA camp.

  • physicsnut

    illegal aliens break the law every day. Libs say nothing.
    Gangs break the law every day – Libs say nothing

  • rightrightright

    The US Federal government operates like the European Union government – override, stifle, destroy and close down. The individual US states are like the nation states of Europe, currently under attack everywhere by the EU.

    The EU-funded Environment Agency in England followed a policy of not dredging rivers. As a result, the Somerset Levels were catastrophically flooded this winter and people’s homes ruined. Why? Those who ran the agency wanted to preserve bird life and turn the Levels into wetlands. Never mind the countless people who lived there, all the way back to when Alfred burnt the cakes at this spot. The EU had made it illegal to tip dredged river sludge back onto the farmland for reasons of “pollution” on penalty of massive fines. The Agency was paying £31 million for a bird sanctuary in Somerset but there were no funds available for the costs of dredging. The agency had even sold off its dredging equipment.

    It’s the same story as on Mr Bundy’s property. Marxism in all its nastiness is using environment and wild life protection issues to further its aim of driving people out of the countryside.

    It is wicked and sick the way the hard, destructive Left hides its true purpose behind little birds, tortoises, lizards and so forth, which nobody wants to harm.

    I hope that you in the USA stick by Mr Bundy, and somehow get your Federal overlords under control. If you don’t, you will end up in the death spiral that is consuming the nation states of Europe.

    By the way, the birds in Somerset were drowned in the floods.

  • a freedom maker

    Look up this article……“The Desert Tortoise in Relation to Cattle Grazing,” where you will see how the desert tortoise actually need the soft cow dung because of their inability to masticate.

    • steprock

      Now just you look here – if you’re going to use reason, science, and evidence then you have NO place trying to argue this!

      -a Liberal-

  • Brent Mooney

    Hey they are giving away all the land in the national forests. First come, first serve. Get your stakes ready and start marking you out 150,000 acres or so before it’s all gone! Oh, and free cattle too.
    And it is now legal to use your neighbors backyard pool anytime you want as long as there is a hole in the fence.

  • Freedomswatch

    This was very helpful to explain all the details that have been confusing. It also illustrates the encroachment on our freedoms by the government. Hands off our freedom.

  • $20068428

    The whole fuel for the B. Hussein Obama administration is deception and lies, you know, like Satan. This situation is right smack dab in the middle of their bundle of lies. This nation needs to rise up RIGHT NOW and impeach this Communist Muslim Israel-hating Monster-In-The-White-House along with each of his conspiratorial collaborators like Biden, Holder, Sebellius (Not so fast out the door, lady! Sit right there in the little chair by the officer’s desk!), Killery Clinton, every last one of the Kommisar czars (make me want to vomit), Debo Ndigbile (he’s gonna show up somewhere), Solis, Sotomajor, Kagan, Biden, and all the rest of the Obama mafia. God help us.

  • Constitution Warrior

    #Bundyranch
    Core Issue 1864 NV Enabling Act
    Requires FEDS Transfer Land Title to State
    FEDS REFUSE
    pic.twitter.com/7PoPb14ot7

    • Downs, Jr

      Are you referring to Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs?

      • Constitution Warrior

        Yes

        • Downs, Jr

          I am reading it right now and based on the case head-notes the FLPMA was not at issue before the court. In that regard the citation excerpt included in your comment is misleading. The facts of this case are also readily distinguishable from the facts in relation to the Bundy dispute. How do you read it?

          • Constitution Warrior

            SCOTUS specifically addressed the Status of the State of Hawaii being sovereign

            Bundy’s core argument is the Land belongs to Nevada not Feds. According to the 1864 NV State Enabling Act FEDS required Transfer Lands to State – Equal Footing Doctrine

            • Downs, Jr

              The issue in Hawaii is: “This case presents the question whether Congress stripped the State of Hawaii of its authority to alienate its sovereign territory by passing a joint resolution to apologize for the role that the United States played in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in the late 19th century.”

              This is markedly different than the issue at play in Mr. Bundy’s pleadings. See also STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants for explanation of equal footing doctrine.

  • Babylonandon

    In the Soviet Union, as described so elegantly and terribly by Solzhenitsyn, much of the terror and tyranny was done NOT because someone had violated any laws of the State – tyrannical as they were.

    It was because they’d violated the unwritten law: what za Commissar or his family vants, za Commissar gets. Harry Reid is a very high Commissar … and his son Rory stands to make a lot of money from the Chinese Solar company.

  • Jimmy Z

    Mr. Levin SHOULD BE talking about the former sheriff who said that women would be put on the front line to take the first shots from the feds. Or maybe that Bundy hasn’t paid grazing fees for ten years, on land that the tax payers own. I’m no fan of the power that the federal government has amassed, but we need to pick our heroes more carefully.

  • Leo

    The tax payers don’t own the land (that’s balderdash) go and try and build a house or something there and see how much of it you own, as for grazing fees air is free. should the feds own the air also? maybe there should be a breathing tax!

    • PoliticalWaif

      They do own and maintain the air rights. Hence the power of the FCC

  • You all need to read The Contract On The Government. It is the book the politicians and bureaucrats DO NOT want you reading. Find out more here: http://www.thecontract.us/

  • Kat Saved

    Those who preach from collectivism’s altar declare that equality of wealth must be imposed in the interests of “society” and that the “rich” must pay their “fair” share.

  • Judy Jones

    I cant believe Bundy, was not grandfathered in his use.

    • PoliticalWaif

      Grazing fees have been around since 1906, and the Bundy family has been paying them thru the generations. Love Levin but I might disagree that switching it to conservation land (a concept that also irritates me) did not eliminate the ability to graze livestock. It limited the amount of cattle head allowed to graze.

  • dvfischer

    Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power to enforce Federal Laws?
    The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If the power to enforce Federal Law is not given to the United States in the Constitution, then that power is forbidden by the 10th Amendment. The US Constitution, Article 1 section 8 clause 15 says “Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union…” and Article 2 Section 2 clause 1 says “The President shall be Commander in Chief … of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States”. So, the US Constitution sets forth a two-step process for enforcing Federal Law. First Congress must call out the militia and only then may the President, using the “militia of the several States” enforce the Federal Law. No other method is mentioned in the Constitution and thus any other method is prohibited. This is an important check and balance, between the Feds and the States, which seems to be lost.
    Do you think the Nevada state militia (national guard) will fire upon fellow citizen Cliven Bundy to enforce BLM regulations? If not, there is no other constitutional power given to the United States by its people to enforce such regulations. The FBI, CIA, ATF, BLM, nor any other three letter agency has such Constitutional power. Any other action taken by the Federal Government is unconstitutional abuse of power.

    • ruth1942ify

      Yes they do. Two different federal judges and a federal appellate cour, all of whom know the intent and import of the 10th amendment and the articles aforementioned have so ruled. See the court ruling http://www.thewildlifenews.com

      • dvfischer

        The Federal Courts are not enforcing the Constitution but are letting the Federal Government overrun the States. This is the whole point of this discussion. What do we do when the courts do NOT enforce the Constitution.

        • Downs, Jr

          I share your concern of the overreach of the federal government but these concerns are rooted in public policy principles and governance, not core questions involving the Constitution. Article III courts do not enforce the Constitution, they have power to hear cases arising in law or equity under the Constitution, Laws, etc. The courts reflect what the law is.
          In the Bundy example I see no overrun of the State of Nevada’s interest, other than the horrible misjudgment that was sending militarized SWAT teams to enforce unpaid grazing fees against one of Nevada’s citizens. Again, this not a Constitutional thing, it is a policy thing.
          Read U.S. v. Cliven Bundy, Order CV-S-98-531-JBR and ask yourself if Mr. Bundy, who represented himself pro se, makes a compelling argument.

          • dvfischer

            I agree. I am not defending Bundy and I agree that Courts do not enforce the Law, they simply hear and decide cases or equity under the Constitution.

            I do think the BLM is unconstitutional but that question was not before a court. My concern, as expressed in my original question, is “Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power to enforce Federal Laws?” They do through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 – call up the State Militia, which they have not. They certainly do not have any power or right to send in government agents with sniper rifles.

            • Downs, Jr

              And I think that is where we split. I see the BLM, and other agencies, as permissible exercises of Congress’ express power to regulate commerce, and such. I do not think SCOTUS would ever grant cert to hear a case on the constitutionality of a federal agency given their jurisprudence on non-delegation. But I absolutely share your disgust and outrage regarding the unquestionably aggressive use of force against private citizens. The militarization of federal agencies is the end-around of the Posse Comitatus Act, in my opinion, and must be reversed.
              As I am getting a better understanding of your positions as to how the Constitution should, in your view, operate I am not able to subscribe to your beliefs but can see the common ground in our rejection of federal overreach … if not for different reasons.

          • Whit

            Downs, Jr:
            Read U.S. v. Cliven Bundy, Order CV-S-98-531-JBR and ask yourself if Mr. Bundy, who represented himself pro se, makes a compelling argument.

            Documentation of the two U.S. District Court cases brought against Mr. Bundy are available for viewing at the URL’s below.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/218708956/number-cv-s-98-531-jbr
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/217895416/Order-US-v-Bundy-7-9-13

            • Downs, Jr

              forestguy57:
              Thanks for the links. My answer is, no. Mr. Bundy, though pro se, makes what might be an emotionally impassioned argument that would find support among those with similarly held view points, but he does not a compelling argument – or put differently, he does not make a legally substantive argument. He makes assertions that are plainly without basis for support.
              Mr. Bundy has been put through an ordeal and the legislature must not allow themselves to be made irrelevant and act to reign in the militarization of the agencies which they create. On Mr. Bundy’s position and the argument he put forward to the courts I cannot agree with that.

    • Downs, Jr

      You’re ignoring Article I, Sect 8 in particular the “necessary and proper” clause, among others.

      • dvfischer

        “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution…” If you are saying they can do anything under this “necessary and proper” clause, then you are saying they can do anything they want, unlimited power. The Tenth Amendment comes after this clause and limits it to just those things given in the Constitution. That’s why its called an Amendment. The 10th Amendment trumps everything which comes before it.

        • Downs, Jr

          No, I am not saying that because if a bare assertion that a law were “necessary and proper” were the threshold test for Constitutionality then that one clause would swallow the entire Constitution. So, no, I am not arguing that.
          I am, though, responding to your lead-off question which is “does the Federal Government have the authority to enforce federal law?” Most certainly it does and that cannot seriously be in question given the entirety of Article II.
          You impart well your interpretation of the textual meaning of the Constitution but your position, implied first in your question and expounded in your belief of what Amendment X means, is simply untenable.
          If one is looking for a literal sentence that allows the Congress to establish grazing fees and a BLM agency to enforce those fees one will not find it but that does not, ipso facto, invalidate the BLM or grazing fees, as unconstitutional.

          For example, Congress holds the power to “to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States …” among other powers. Congress has the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying our their express powers to tax and regulate commerce. Leaving aside the BLM entirely, the Congress may enact law requiring Mr. Bundy to pay his grazing fees, they may enact law creating enforcement mechanism to collect said fees, and they may enact law creating agencies to administer this fee schedule under the guidelines of their enabling statutes. The Executive “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and this should answer your open question.
          The weight you assign to Amendment X is inappropriate. The word “trump” in this context has no place. Statutory construction requires an equal reading of the whole text, in this case the Constitution which is inclusive of the Bill of Rights, meaning no one part of any text in this document may be construed as dispositive to another. In other words, an amendment may not be read as nullifying or being superior to any part of the previous text unless stating so specifically, see e.g. Amendment XIV Section 2 which invalidates the 3/5’s clause in Art. 1 Sect. 2, or Amendment XVII which changes Art. 1 Sect 3. Here, Amendment X “trumps” nothing, rather it says that unspecified rights not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to a State,are reserved to the States; it imposes no limits on the exercise of delegated powers. For an instructive explanation of Amendment X see New York v. US 505 U.S. 144 (1992), or Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898

          • Downs, Jr

            correction to the above: your question was, “Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power to enforce Federal Laws?” I erroneously used “authority” in place of “constitutional power.” My answer remains the same, Yes.

          • dvfischer

            I want to reiterate that I am not defending Bundy but rather condemning the Feds as unconstitutionally abusing power. You said:

            “You impart well your interpretation of the textual meaning of the Constitution but your position, implied first in your question and expounded in your belief of what Amendment X means, is simply untenable.
            If one is looking for a literal sentence that allows the Congress to establish grazing fees and a BLM agency to enforce those fees one will not find it but that does not, ipso facto, invalidate the BLM or grazing fees, as unconstitutional.”

            Yes, in fact that is exactly what the 10th Amendment says. Anything, including the BLM, not in the Constitution is reserved to the States. The Constitution sets up the States as individual separate and autonomous units, except for the severely limited cases spelled out in the US Constitution. Current legal manipulation is incorrect and unconstitutional. How clear does the 10th Amendment have to be? If, as you say, the 10th Amendment applies only to things included in the Amendment, then it applies to nothing since it does not specify anything at all. This is untenable since the framers certainly did not include an Amendment which meant nothing. Since it cannot mean nothing, it must mean everything. There is no in between. What does the 10th Amendment dispose of anyway? I am simply arguing that the only Constitutional way to enforce Federal Law is through calling up the State militia.

            “Statutory construction requires an equal reading of the whole text, in this case the Constitution which is inclusive of the Bill of Rights, meaning no one part of any text in this document may be construed as dispositive to another. In other words, an amendment may not be read as nullifying or being superior to any part of the previous text unless stating so specifically,”

            This is in fact EXACTLY what an Amendment does and NO the text cannot be read equally where an Amendment is dispositive of a Constitutional Clause. This is exactly what an Amendment is, and the Bill of Rights are all Amendments.

            I know current Law is unconstitutional in this respect and the courts do not even pretend to follow the law or the Constitution. I am simply presenting the way it should be.

            • Downs, Jr

              You and I have a fundamental disagreement on this topic. I will end by saying that though I disagree with what you say I am ready to defend your right to say it freely.

  • ruth1942ify

    The grazing land in dispute is not Bundy’s; it was ceded to the USA by Mexico in 1848 before Bundy was even there.
    See: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

    Legally speaking, He may lease it IF he pays the grazing fee-as do other ranchers who do-so without controversy.

    Ironically, the law doesn’t permit you or I to lease 700 acres of pristine taxpayer owned land for our personal or private business use.
    No, that is reserved for a privileged class of taxpayers known as ranchers. That in itself is unequal treatment of the law-which Bundy and his supports would no doubt ironically defend.

    As for the questionable “tactics” of BLM agents, its worth considering that
    Bundy had been on televison where he promised not to heed any federal court orders, or allow agents to confiscate his cows as the order authorized

    The BLM agents also knew Bundy was angry and defiant as were a hundred or more of his equally livid and armed supporters.
    In such a situation, it is understandable that the enforcing agents would rather be overly equipped and armed in the face of the unknown.

    The safety of agents charged with the duty of enforcing a Federal Court order is of paramount concern, and hence they should be armed as heavily as necessary to protect themselves in an explosive situation with a hundred or more armed ad very emotional men who declared their intention to physically obstruct the agents.

    The agents were sworn at, one was pushed, and an agents dog was kicked. Under such provocation with angry armed demonstrators, they conducted themselves as well as could be expected,

    • Lydia Artishon

      They tazered Bundy’s son and knocked down a woman, rustled cattle and killed them. Yes they were humane and justified according to you. Get real.

    • dvfischer

      Absolutely not. The people should be armed just as much as the government agents, thus the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise this becomes a totalitarian regime of government thugs. The framers were deathly afraid of a large, powerful government. They put in the 5th Amendment that the government MAY NOT DEPRIVE ANYONE OF LIFE…WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW and later in the 14th Amendment made sure by making the same requirement of the States. What else is actually in the Constitution twice? Must be important!
      The Government is NOT ALLOWED to kill anyone except after a trial by jury. Anytime the Police or any Agent kills someone, they are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution, even if it is in self-defense. Since they can not kill anyone, why do they need to be armed at all? (Yes, I know police kill people every day and they are unconstitutional when they do.)

    • MindiMc

      Ruth, it seems as though you need to become familiar with what “rights” to the land are for western cattlemen. You are not alone, however- even the most sympathetic observers do not seem to understand public land laws and associated procedures.

      A “right” (as in grazing rights, water righst, forage rights, mineral rights etc) is a commodity. It is bought, sold, & handed down over generations- it has money value (many a rural westerner leaves “rights” to his children in a will). The Bundy’s do not own the land, but they do own “rights” to land use in the form of grazing. The BLM can legally buy the rights from the Bundy’s but they cannot ignore them. The grazing “fees,” so much talked about, exist beyond the “rights.” So, even though the Bundy’s own “rights” to graze on that land, the BLM began requiring a payment of fees to actually use these “rights” several decades ago. Although good arguments can be made with regard to the fairness of imposing fees on top of “rights,” the Bundy’s have not been resisting fee payment out of being misers or hard-headed libertarians, etc. What most people do not understand is that to pay the required fees, the ranchers must sign a contract (no signed contract, no fees accepted). The contracts designed by the BLM since the early 1990s have used the so-called “endangered” tortoise to impose restrictions (such as the number of cattle that can be grazed) which grossly undercut the rancher’s livelihood (never mind that tortoises actually eat cattle dung and thrive in coexistence with cattle) . So, the ranchers own the “rights” to graze, but in order to graze legally the rancher is required to pay fees…but to pay the fees the rancher must sign a contract so restrictive that he kills his own livelihood through compliance (or becomes a criminal through noncompliance). This is how the BLM has forced all ranchers but Bundy and maybe one other family out of business. Bundy is willing to pay the fees, and has tried to pay the fees locally and to the state, but is determined not to pay the feds.

      I have heard many people remark- “well, the courts decided against him.” What these people do not seem to understand is that these are federal courts, and the feds almost never decide against themselves. In essence, the federal government via the BLM bundles regulation (law), policing and punishment (fines), and the courts (no trial by peers) in itself. If the American people, in general, lived under this structure, we would call it tyranny.

      Therefore…. this is far from being a case of an unreasonable rancher. His act of civil disobedience spans 1. nonpayment of fees to a federal bureaucracy that is trying to break him as it has done to over 50 other local ranchers, 2. an unjust system that ties a rancher’s livelihood to regulations, fines, and courts that exist outside the public sphere, elected lawmakers, and trial by peers 3. public lands that ought not belong to the federal government, in the first place, at least according to the Constitution. Yet, had the BLM/ Federal Government not abused their power, Bundy likely would have never made a ripple…

      So, this brings us to the more important issues that the public ought to be concerned about- what does the government want with these lands? Should politicians such as Harry Reid get to use federal agencies like the BLM as tools for their own economic interests and to bully private citizens? When is enough enough in terms of government overreach, especially via executive branch agencies? And,… the obscene military force, abuse of people and animals, all of which also defy the Constitution (no standing armies)?… Don’t you think the public ought to be a little more concerned with these types of questions rather than making petty, and unfounded, accusations that Bundy is some sort of freeloader?

      And, I will add one more thing to consider: for all of the media’s militant rhetoric and imagery of rural gun-nuts, the feds via the BLM brought weapons to the situation first and actually used them against American people; the feds via the BLM carried, drove and flew the vast majority of weapons into the standoff, 98-99% of all weapons upholstered and aimed during the standoff were in the hands of the feds via the BLM. Now…. who is the true irrational gun-nut, and who was merely using their 2nd Amendment right for self defense and in a reasonable determination to liberate cattle that were dehydrated, stressed, and injured (yes, as in broken legs and bleeding wounds that needed to be doctored ASAP….PETA? )

  • Clifford Michael

    The FEDERAL government has no right to land ownership other than in accordance with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 – for the “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Requires purchase from the state with the consent of the State Legislature as well. The Constitution has the right solution.

    • dvfischer

      Absolutely Right! Once the western territory became the State of Nevada, the US Government, by its action of admitting Nevada as a State, relinquished all rights to land within the borders of the State. As you correctly cite, the Feds may own BUILDINGS with the consent of the State. I see no reason why consent cannot be later withdrawn if the State deems it necessary. It makes no difference what the Nevada constitution says. The Feds are limited by their own Constitution.

  • Roxann Van Winkle Callahan

    I disagree with Levin here, the feds do not own that land, and I don’t understand either how Dirty Harry got his dirty little hands on adjacent BLM managed, public lands to sell to China.