Pardon me, if this has already been discussed here, but
I'm curious to hear some explanations.

>Representing himself, Bundy lost his appeal to
>San Francisco’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
>A simple man in a plaid shirt and denims, he’s
>handled his legal battle from his Nevada ranchhouse,
>arguing in mailed-off court filings that his Mormon
>ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was
>even formed, giving him rights that predate federal
>involvement.

The guy sounds like a Freedom Institute advocate or a
close reader of Cleon Skousen.

In 1857 Brigham Young recalled his Nevada colonists to
Utah Territory and they abandoned their lands to come
and fight Johnston's Army. That didn't turn out so well,
so the next year they (the Utah and former Nevada) LDS
surrendered and accepted a pardon from President Buchanan.
Nevada quickly became a state -- with a much, much
diminished proportion of Mormon residents than before.

So --- just where does Mr. Bundy's land claims come from?
Because Brigham Young wanted to occupy what is now Nevada,
Bundy's Mormon ancestors are accountable only to Brigham?

How can he (and they) claim authority over land that the
U.S. Congress kept for the nation, when that same nation
recognized Nevada as a new state?

I do not believe Mr. Bundy has any legitimate claim to
being a patriot of the sovereign state of Nevada (even
if such sovereignty exists).

Seems to me he has a better claim to being a patriot of
the State of Deseret, before that would-be nation lost
its Nevada domain.

Or -- is he the offspring of apostates who left the LDS
Church before he was born?

Some clarity on this topic would be refreshing.

UD

After the loss of the Mexican American war, the Treaty of Hidalgo was drawn up and signed on Feb. 2, 1848. This gave the territory north of the Rio Grande and all territory of the US southwest to the US Government. Cliven Bundy has no clear title to any of the land he claims he should be able to graze his animals on. And indeed most ranchers and cattlemen in Nevada do not support his claims.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After the loss of the Mexican American war, the
> Treaty of Hidalgo was drawn up and signed on Feb.
> 2, 1848. This gave the territory north of the Rio
> Grande and all territory of the US southwest to
> the US Government. Cliven Bundy has no clear
> title to any of the land he claims he should be
> able to graze his animals on. And indeed most
> ranchers and cattlemen in Nevada do not support
> his claims.


It's likely that the guy does not recognize the existence
of the Mexican government any more than that of the U.S.A.

So, if his family really was in what is now southern
Nevada before Feb. 2, 1848, the only possible claim
would be for "sovereign citizen" status. But Bundy claims
to be a loyal citizen of the State of Nevada.

Seems to me that Mexico either implicitly or explicitly
recognizes that the federal lands now in that state were
ceded to the U. S. Government, and that the U.S.A. had the
right to write the organic act by which Nevada eventually
gained statehood, with federal lands specified as being just
that -- U. S. A. real property. So I doubt Bundy has any
recourse to seeking Mexican support for his claims, either.

I'm curious to know what the local LDS Bishop, Stake Pres.,
etc. have to say about all of this. No matter whether or
not Mr. Bundy is a member of their church, some of his
rancher neighbors no doubt are members and might be listening
to what he has to say with some interest.

Were Brigham still alive today, I suppose he would support
Bundy -- at least similar "squatter" claims were authorized
by the Utah Territorial Government during his reign, without
the necessity of obeying Federal land pre-emption procedures.

UD

The issue of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley with the Shoshone is an interesting twist to this situation. Google Cary and Mary Dann (Shoshone) for more info about the double standard and hypocrisy of the Bundy case. He has no legitimate claim and is a lawbreaker.

Clive Bundy and the White Panthers. Can I get a raised fist?

he is nothing but a freeloader.

I'm over at this place a lot more than RFM; I get to do the deleting in a couple of places (it's only happened once), and being able to gobsmack trolls really helps with the blood pressure and road rage...

http://eezzbeat.newsvine.com/_news/2014/04/20/23557457-exposed-the-source-of-cliven-bundys-crackpot-constitutionalism?lite#threadId4012978-lastNewId83132394

Bundy is most definitely a Skousenite, and one contributor even linked the Mitt Romney 2008 radio interview where he mentioned Skousen and also argued whether the LDS Church believed Jesus was going to reappear in Missouri...

Good stuff; somebody might want to archive this one...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 08:27AM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm over at this place a lot more than RFM; I get
> to do the deleting in a couple of places (it's
> only happened once), and being able to gobsmack
> trolls really helps with the blood pressure and
> road rage...
>
> http://eezzbeat.newsvine.com/_news/2014/04/20/2355
> 7457-exposed-the-source-of-cliven-bundys-crackpot-
> constitutionalism?lite#threadId4012978-lastNewId83
> 132394
>
> Bundy is most definitely a Skousenite, and one
> contributor even linked the Mitt Romney 2008 radio
> interview where he mentioned Skousen and also
> argued whether the LDS Church believed Jesus was
> going to reappear in Missouri...
>
> Good stuff; somebody might want to archive this
> one...


I do not claim to understand Skousen at any more than a
superficial level, but I think he was saying that the
U.S. Constitution was a divine revelation, yet the
government it established was demonic, or became so;
or, at least was becoming so corrupt that it had no
real authority over righteous Americans.

This was pretty much what Brigham was preaching, up until
Buchanan established some minimal control in Utah in 1858.
It took another decade (until after Brigham's strange
trip to Dixie and the MMM site) before anti-government
rhetoric began to die down in the SLC Tabernacle. After
the congressional Smoot hearings it disappeared altogether
and the Mormons became ostensibly "patriotic" Americans.

We don't hear this stuff much from the Holy Thirteen
nowadays -- but neither do we hear them disavowing old
Brigham, Skousen, and this contemporary Bundy stuff.

UD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 02:15PM by dalebroadhurst.

This one is on my bed stand, and I've been breaking bread regularly with one of the authors...

http://www.oupress.com/ECommerce/Book/Detail/1527/the%20mormon%20rebellion

Will and Dave's thesis (no ADMIN, not that Dave; this one is David Bigler) is that Brigham and the Saints were essentially forced to accept Buchanan's offer of a pardon at gunpoint, and that was after the attack on Fort Lemhi. Before that event, they've concluded Brigham Young was willing to move the whole of Zion to Oregon territory as a counter move to Buchanan sending the army to Utah...

Here you go... My apologies for the writing, which strikes me as being at about an eighth grade level, but hey, it is Idaho, afterall...

http://www.history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/pclub_fort_lemhi.pdf

>But not everyone was happy about the Mormon visitors. The
cutting of timber and clearing of fields for cattle
pastures troubled many of the Shoshone. When the
Mormons shipped eight wagonloads of salmon from
Lemhi Valley to Utah, something they had agreed
not to do, the Shoshone had even more reason to be
angry. The Mormons decided to abandon the fort
and return to Utah after some of the angrier Tribe
members attacked the fort, took all the cattle, and
wounded a few of the Mormons while doing so.
Some of the Shoshone upset by the actions of the
other tribe members tried to make things better by
returning the cattle, but the Mormons headed back to
Utah anyway.

Among the Utahovian hillbillies Brigham Young's rhetoric had a multi-generational effect (there were, after all, lots of copies of the Journal of Discourses still around), and it fed their militia/millennial thinking. It never really died out, and Skousen tapped into that stuff after Brack Lee brought Salt Lake into the 20th Century. And he essentially had the whole religion department at BYU at his disposal...

Add a couple of political sorts with shameful secrets about their ancestors' participation in Mountain Meadows (Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Mike Leavitt), and the psychology is pretty clear to me.

Cliven Bundy's family first moved to that area in the 1870s or 1880s, iirc. That was decades after the land was ceded to the US government. He has absolutely zero rights to the land under any form of homesteading protections.

His brother and nephews (and 16,000+ other ranchers) pay the grazing usage fees of $1.26 per head per month, but Cliven has refused to pay the fees to the BLM since 1994. He claims he tried to pay the fees to Clark County, who now owns the land after a land swap deal to establish a tortoise reserve, but a local county government is not authorized to collect money for a federal agency.

The county (or other agency?) attempted to set up an escrow account to hold the $1MM+ in back grazing fees, and he refused to pay into that.

He has two court orders dating back 15 years mandating he vacate the land, yet he still wants to be seen as David standing up against the Goliath of government.

The truth is he should be viewed by his Tea Party compatriots as the very definition of a 'Welfare Queen' who abuses government resources without paying his fair share. He has been scamming the system for over two decades Ans the BLM is only doing what should have been done in 1995.

Putting up unarmed women as human shields was a classy touch

The women should not be surprised if they get shot in the back.

Does Bundy believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, or do the "president" and "obeying, honoring, and sustaining" parts only apply to federal laws when a conservative republican occupies the oval office?

If he is temple worthy, how does he get by "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"

How about Sen. Harry Reid publicly degrading Bundy? Very Mormon of him.

There are much smarter ways for the government to do this.

Wait until Bundy sells his cattle, then take the court order and raid his bank account.

Place liens against every bit of property he owns. Enforce the liens when he is transporting property from the ranch.

This does not need to be a violent gun fight in front of cameras.

Take his money and do not give him the spotlight.

The "government" is not one, giant, monolithic entity. He's refused to pay the BLM. There already are court orders against him. The BLM has authority to remove cattle from public land. That's what they do. If some law-breaking yahoo wants to turn it into a gun battle in front of cameras, that's the risk the BLM runs anytime it does what's it's authorized to do: manage public land through administering grazing.

That this guy finds high-powered support for what he's doing (Mike Lee) just shows the conflating of self-serving, personal interest with some greater social benefit that characterizes tea party thinking. That's why it's so easily manipulated by the powerful, like the Kochs. The expansion of ego until it encompasses eternity is the self-flattery, the vanity, that the Mormon con, and other cons, thrive on.

Article notes his Mormon heritage dismissively.

http://nyti.ms/1eFlRqT

NYCGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article notes his Mormon heritage dismissively.
>
> http://nyti.ms/1eFlRqT

>A supporter of Cliven Bundy aimed
>his weapon from a bridge near the
>Bureau of Land Management's base camp

hmmmmm...

Probably an Idaho "oath-keeper," come down to Nevada to
do a little "rattler huntin'"...

But Bundy won the standoff -- proving that an armed militia
"patriot" can point a loaded semi-automatic machine gun at
federal officers and they'll simply back off.

I wonder what it will be next time? KKK bodyguards with
fully automatic tommy-guns? NRA leaders with RPGs?

"Second amendment remedies," as they say in Nevada and
and in Deseret.

UD

Cliven Bundy was mentioned in this Salt Lake Tribune article today:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp

Excerpt from article:

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

[…] New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said. [end excerpts from article]


This article has over 2000 readers comments, and a lot of them sound like Cliven Bundy. Cleon Skousen multiplies and rises again.

Excerpts from the comments below the SL Trib story:

Today the battle cry will be between the Federalists and Liberty/Freedomists, just as in 1861. Back then it was easy to know who to shoot thanks to yankees wearing bright red and living in the northeast. Today, we still have those in the NE plus all those that have moved in amongst us throughout the south and west.

This time, the fighting will be much bloodier and I pray to God that He helps us avoid this nightmare and run the evil New Bolshevik socialists out of the country in a peaceful way…

[another comment]
Notice the influx of paid leftist shill trolls here…

These acorn-fed trolls are clearly second-raters.

[another comment]
A whole bunch of know-nothings are saying here that Utah state government is SO competent and able to manage the federal lands in this state when those of us who live here and see how things actually work might know better.

[another comment]
We all thought that saving the national parks was a good idea. […] if it is federal it is ultimately evil. […]

You take the federal employee abuse within the Defense Department, and see how that has been exteded to little agencies like the BLM, you can get a clear picture why the federal government needs to be shut down.[end excerpts from reader comments]

http://www.sltrib.com/pages/comments?cid=57836973

More comments from readers of the SL Trib article:


IF people are created in the image of god and rights come from God, are not people sovereign? What is the role of the state? What is needed is decentralization of state powers.



Extreme leftwing loons should be executed.



the Constitution has a clause limiting federal ownership of land within states to small parcels necessary for defense.
-----------
err, no they don't. Do a bit of research before you make a fool of yourself on the internet.



You need to read the Obama prophecies folks, several prophets have been warned about what is coming and it is very frightening!
revelation12 dot ca


The greenies are being used by the NWO Marxist Banker Regime. Federally seized land was gifted to China... It's not about Turtles or Solar Farms... Obama signed over mineral, gas & oil rights to China. They refuse to execute their plans until the US population is disarmed. In the interim, fake US firms are being used as a ruse….

Once More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Extreme leftwing loons should be executed.
...

Would that include a certain fellow by the name of Abe Lincoln,
who advocated keeping the federal government in one piece?

A Jeff Davis copperhead "patriot" performed his particular
execution -- without benefit of judge or jury.

Certainly our modern "patriots" will at least follow their
beloved Constitution (and allow for a trial by peers of any
"loons" destined for execution).

Oh, wait... judges and juries act on the part of government;
and the "patriots" do not recognize such federal governments.

...scrap that trial before sentencing idea, I guess...

UD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 04:20PM by dalebroadhurst.

Read this today, "How is it a man who wants to graze his cattle on government land for free is a 'hero' but anyone who wants $10/hour for work is a 'moocher'?"
Good question.

Paidinfull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read this today, "How is it a man who wants to
> graze his cattle on government land for free is a
> 'hero' but anyone who wants $10/hour for work is a
> 'moocher'?"
> Good question.


GREAT question.

Allow me an off topic rant.
Saturday, the 19th, was the 19th anniversary of the OKC bombing. So-called "patriots" decided to take revenge on the federal government by blowing up the Murrah Federal Bldg with ammonium nitrate & diesel bombs. 168 people were murdered, including 17 little children & babies. Many of these were visitors in the building, most of the children were in the daycare housed in the bldg & visible from the street, 2 worked for a state agency across the street. Over 500 people were injured including children in another daycare in the YMCA building diagonal to the federal bldg. On a typical day by 9:00 AM the toddlers from the Y were outside on the playground, but the caregivers were behind schedule that day. After the blast the playground was covered in shards of glass. With apologies for being graphic, one family buried their 8 yr old child twice. After a fourth set of her remains were identified, the family asked the ME's office to keep any more parts belonging to her - she was with her grandparents in the Social Security office when the bombs were detonated. 15 area hospitals received the dead & injured.
I hate these anti-government nut cases & the purveyors of paranoia who whip them up. I saw first hand the consequences of antigovernment rhetoric by fools who become convinced the government is evil & therefore the laws of the land don't apply to them. They are anything but "patriots" - they're filthy, cowardly terrorists. Whenever I hear hatred & fear mongering, sincerely I'm frightened, nauseated, that innocent people in another city like the one where I grew up will be the targets for another act of antigovernment terrorism.

That could not have been stated better. Thank-you.

I'm not a "tea partier". but my understanding is that the Bundys purchased their rights to this grazing land in 1877. Is this not the case?

As I have read (I don't personally know much about this topic), when BLM was created under Roosevelt, they demanded grazing fees, and as long as the BLM did their part to maintain the land, the Bundy's paid their fees. In the 1990's, the Bundy's felt that BLM was using the fees in bad faith, and were willing to pay the county, as the county would do their part to maintain the land for multiple use.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the terms and ramifications of the so-called "enclave clause" of the US constitution?

Just looking for clarification here.

Bundy's feelings on how the fees were being used does not give him the right to ignore the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Article Four of the US Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Federal_Property_and_Territory_Clause

A citizen of the United States cannot pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones don't apply to him or her. He is a lawbreaker.

In this case, is the land in question actually property of the US GUV, or is it Nevada state land being managed by the BLM under federal appointment?

I understand this is one of the issues the western state governors are discussing in SLC at present.

If it is state land, then perhaps the clause you reference does not apply here?

It is not state land, it is federal owned land. The Nevada state constitution disclaims all rights and titles to the land that Bundy is grazing his cattle on.

"That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States".