Bundy And Federal Lands

Advertisement

Editor:

Let’s keep this very simple.

Clive Bundy is a thief. If I came onto your property and took fruit from your tree and did not pay for it I would go to jail.

For 20 years Clive Bundy has failed to pay for the right to graze on land owned by the people of the United States. He is no better than any other welfare cheat and if it were up to me he would be in jail.

As for who owns the land in Arizona and is the federal government allowed to own and manage the land — if you look at a map of Land Use Management Responsibility for the State of Arizona you will see that the state has a very large area that they own. This is the land given to the state by the federal government when Arizona became a state at a rate of one section for the state and one section for the federal government, with the understanding that both are holding the land in trust for use by the people.

Land was not stolen from the state and Arizona has sold many tracts of land to the benefit of the state.

Finally, as usual, one of your letter writers quotes those parts of the Constitution to support his argument without stating all the facts. Article IV section 3 deals with new states joining the union. It clearly states, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”. Arizona was a territory and Congress determined how the land would be distributed between the state, the Indians, open space for recreation and land held in trust by the federal government. Maybe you want to be a strict constitutionalist and say that buildings are just that; you could argue that the federal government has no right to manage open land, but if you build a toilet in a national forest and manage it for the benefit of those visiting the forest would that not fall under Article I Section 8? Or, how about trying to collect rent from a thief, would that not also fall under Article I Section 8?

As for payment in lieu of taxes, let’s not make the same mistake we made in the last budget crisis. The state of Arizona, to balance the budget, sold a number of buildings owned free and clear by the state only to have to lease them back and make regular payments to private corporations. Let’s not make the same mistake with our public lands and by selling them to private corporations and see them closed to all but the wealthy. Let’s keep the West the land of wide open spaces for the use of all those living here.

Robert Hamer

Comments

Donald Cline 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Part 1:

Well, let's see, Mr. Hamer; if I understand you correctly, the King arrogates to himself the authority to arrest anyone caught poaching his deer, and you are okay with that. Okay, the Robin Hood simile doesn't quite work in this case other than to illustrate very similar arrogance on the part of the American self-appoint lords and masters, but nonetheless you seem to think government authority trumps the U.S. Constitution in spite of the documented fact the founders of our nation created that document and had it ratified by the representatives of the People you refer to specifically for the purpose of preventing the kind of thing that happened to the Bundy's.

I'm responding to you here, Mr. Hamer, because my letters have appeared in practically every issue of the Roundup for the last month and someone else ought to have a chance to dealing with the odd doofus that seems to think the American taxpayer owes them a living. Besides, the Roundup isn't keen on conducting back and forth debate on the same issue. Let's go through your attack letter concept by egregiously dirty concept.

You first sentence is a vicious lie, and Mr. Bundy should sue you for libel and probably would if he were not now inadvertently a public figure. It is the federal government who has stolen, or at least embezzled most of the land in Nevada with the promise to give it back, and it has never fulfilled that promise. Furthermore, if you think that land belongs "to the people," perhaps you should ask yourself why the rogue occupation government* of our nation of liberty is closing off roads in all the "national" lands in all the western States and prohibiting "the people" from going there on one specious enviro-wacko excuse after another.

Newsflash, Mr. Hamer: No one has to "pay" for a right. One has to "pay" for a privilege. If it is land belonging to the people of the United States, then the people of the United States have a right to use the land, don't they? They don't need to ask for a government "privilege" government has no authority to issue or deny.

2

Donald Cline 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Part 2:

As for the feds giving Arizona half of the State and keeping the other half, where is the Constitutional authority for doing that? And by the way, in Nevada the feds claim ownership over 85 percent of the State. What's the point of having a State if the State doesn't have total sovereign control of State land? and "... both are holding the land in trust for use by the people." Oh, yes? You mean the same people who are trying to use the land and have to face down an illegal federal weapon squad for doing so?

No, land was not "stolen" from the State of Arizona if you want to nitpick; it was embezzled from Arizona, "conned" out of Arizona on the solemn promise to give it back which promise now constitutes perjury. But embezzlement is theft, so let's not nitpick, okay?

You say "Arizona was a territory and Congress determined how the land would be distributed between the state, the Indians, open space for recreation and land held in trust by the federal government." Yeah, Article IV Section 3 allows the federal government to do that so long as the land is a territory and property of the United States. But once the territory becomes a State, as stated in UNITED STATES V. GARDNER, all federal regulation and control ceases.

Oh, and here's a newsflash, Mr. Hamer: The founding fathers were "strict Constitutionalists." They wrote the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed by government functionaries, and they expected the people to bind the government down by the chains of the Constitution, as remarked by Thomas Jefferson. That's what we and the Bundy's and their defenders are doing, and guess what? You don't like it. Which reveals which side of the liberty v. tyranny struggle you are on.

Please tell me where the Constitution of the United States authorizes the federal government to have a national forest in the first place, let alone build a toilet in it. Please tell me where the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to charge rent for land that you yourself has said belongs to the public. That's called fraud under color of law, and the rogue occupation government in the District of Criminals is a past master at that.

No, let's not sell State land to private corporations; let's take it back from the tyrant/thieves in the District of Criminals and then exercise our sovereign State's right, with full input from the people, to decide how best to use it in the interests of the people.

2

don evans 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm sure that in the interest of the "people" 52 Public US Post Office facility's in prime locations across the United States, are being sold. To who you ask? To private developers for resale, new developments, or for lease. And who pray tell, was granted the rights to facilitate these US post office land sales that are estimated to generate up to an estimated 20 Billion dollars? Why the Company that's owned by the husband of California State Senator Diane Feinstein. She and he are estimated to get a minimum of 10+ million dollars for the facilitation of this public US property sell off. His last name is "Blum". Now why would she not use his last name? Hmmmmm? His company has been selected to facilitate such deals for the Govt. in the past, during the tenure of his Senator wife. As she will soon be retiring from public office, this coincidental windfall for her and her husband appears to be a nice Golden Parachute package for her retirement. A big thank you from her to the clueless taxpayers. So much for Government control of public lands.

1

Donald Cline 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry, Don, but as much as I dislike Nancy Pelosi, that story has been discredited by TruthorFiction.com. Nancy Pelosi's husband is a major player in that company (not the owner) but kept himself out of that transaction by his company, and initially Nancy Pelosi opposed the sale. OTOH, I just went looking for the entry on truthorfiction.com and couldn't find it this time, so maybe you're right after all. :)

1

Ted Paulk 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow Don and Donnie, you twi are rather wordy today...not much makes sense, but still, lot's of words. I guess with your reasoning, I can go buy a logging company and go up on the Rim and just start cutting the trees down. No limit on how many fish I can keep, No need for a hunting license, just go shoot anything that I see...etc. etc. Cannot for the life of me figure out why you think you are intelligent men...must have had doting moms?? Aren't you families ever embarrassed by your ramblings?

2

Donald Cline 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry if you have difficulty reading words, Ted. Apparently more than a half-dozen in a row gets away from you. Maybe that's why you can't seem to figure out the obvious, as indicated by your assumption that because there is no legitimate federal jurisdiction in this State (at least with regard to the subject at hand), then there must be no jurisdiction at all.

Ever heard of the State government, Ted? Ever heard of sovereign States' rights? Every heard of the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona State Constitution? Every heard of the "rule of law," Ted? Newsflash: The U.S. Constitution and the Arizona State Constitution ARE the rule of law in this State, and when the federal or State government operate outside their constraints, respectively, they abdicate their lawful authority to govern and become rogue occupation governments. Now, Ted, try to read this question slowly and carefully so you understand it: Do you support the rule of law or do you support criminal tyranny as practiced by the feudal lords of medieval Europe?

2

don evans 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Ted is busy today. He's down at Uncle Herb's waiting in line.

1

Meria Heller 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Bundy is a freeloader. He chose to stop paying his fees ($1.35 a head) while 16,000 other ranchers pay. That land wasn't purchased by his family until 1948. It belonged to the Pauite people before the US took it with broken promises. He cheats the taxpayers out of one million in fees. Another distraction from the real problems facing the U.S.

2

Donald Cline 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, not entirely, Meria. Bundy paid the fees until the freaking idiots in the BLM (organized by Senate Majority Leader Dirty Harry Reid, whose family trust owns 93 acres of land adjacent to the area where Bundy was grazing his cattle slated for a housing development) required him to reduce his cattle to below sustainable numbers to protect a "Desert Tortoise" that is not even on the endangered list. It is listed as "vulnerable," not "endangered." And Bundy continued trying to pay the fees to Clark County Nevada to show good faith, but they didn't know what to do with it. This whole weapon-squad assault on the Bundy's was not over "grazing fees" and it is not over the Desert Tortoise that has co-existed with the cattle for hundreds of years. This is America, Meria, or have you forgotten that: We don't enforce color of law at the point of a gun in this country. And BTW, if you read Article I Section 8 Clause 17 you will find that the only purpose for which the federal government has the authority to own "Places" (besides the seat of government, which is settled) is for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and needful Buildings; --" The Constitution does not authorize federal ownership or control of land for the Desert Tortoise or housing developments.

Almost forgot to mention: There are Bundy families all over this country, and Bundy's ancestors ran their cattle on that land long before Bundy was born when the Bundy's were living in Northern Arizona near Mt. Trumbull. A lot of ranchers ran there cattle in that area during the season while living elsewhere. Bundy's recent family were more into farming than ranching, but they got back into it in 1954 after moving to the area in 1948, two years after Bundy was born.

0

Mel Mevis 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I find it interesting that anyone can defend Bundy and the people who flocked to support him with guns and threats of violence.

Lets put this in prospective. In New York a young woman faces 7 years in prison for resisting arrest and assaulting an Officer during the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

In Mr Bundys case you have people pointing weapons and threatening Officers trying to enforce legal findings based on law. Last time I checked it illegal to point weapons in a threatening manner at law Officers. Besides getting you charged it usually gets you shot.

Bundy is a welfare king and his supporters are thugs.

1

Donald Cline 7 months, 2 weeks ago

And I find it interesting that you can support the BLM weapon squad posting snipers on the hilltop over the confrontation area and pointing their weapons at civilians, Mel. Without an arrest warrant that is assault with a deadly weapon in any State of which I am aware. Do you REALLY believe we should tolerate a federal thug that governs land it has no law enforcement authority over at the point of a gun? Do you really think a "land management agency" has any lawful power or justification to maintain a standing army or SWAT team or even weapon squad? If you do, your priorities belong in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's gestapo, not in a nation founded on the principle that individual liberty trumps undelegated federal government authority every time. BTW, if you can read plain English you know that no one at the Bundy Ranch raised their weapons against the BLM except for one guy on the overpass back in the rear area. But the BLM had four snipers on the hilltop pointing THEIR weapons AT TAXPAYERS WHO PAY THEIR SALARIES, and the BLM fired their TASERs at Ammon Bundy who was standing there with his arms down by his side. What are you, Mel, some kind of authoritarian thug?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.