Just two days to get this funded for Cliven Bundy.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mikestickler/cliven-bundy-american-patriot-the-next-edition?ref=nav_search&result=project&term=cliven%20bundy#

Ryan Bundy In Paradise Montana Jan.23rd 2018

Either we have a Constitution or we don't. What do you say?

Found here: https://youtu.be/kNHwbfzuzQg 

and here: https://youtu.be/OdVE4d4Ogxo

The Tyrannical Bundy Trials – An Insider’s View

Bundy Attorney Roger Roots on the Tyrannical Bundy Ranch Trials

Attorney Roger Roots signed-on as a legal adviser to the Bundy family at his own expense, which placed him on the inside of one of the most publicized trials in the modern West. Roger lays out all of the lying and dirty tricks used by prosecutors, which ultimately led to the liberation of many American Heroes, including Cliven Bundy and his family.

Found on Northwest Liberty News here:

http://northwestlibertynews.com/tyrannical-bundy-trials-insiders-view/

Cliven Bundy in Paradise Montana January 20th 2018

Found here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2AXZXNzlGM

Bundys Freed -- Extra! Extra! Hear All About It!

By Anna Von Reitz

It is my understanding that the bad behavior of the FBI and BLM in this matter has finally caught up to them and that the Bundys and all those who have likewise been falsely accused and prosecuted and persecuted will now be set free and the record established as a finding in their favor "with prejudice"----preventing the vermin responsible for this travesty from ever coming back and bringing forward any more complaints.

Thank God. Finally. 

And now, I have a few more choice words:

18 U.S. Code Subsection 2333-- Civil Remedies

(a) Action and Jurisdiction---

Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefore in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney's fees.

Hear that, Guys?  3X plus court costs. Guaranteed. 

‘Kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth and take his cattle’

by David Keene

The Bundy cases bears remarkable, and unsettling, similarities to the Waco standoff

Twenty-five years ago this year, federal agents stormed the compound of a religious group in Waco, Texas, with armored vehicles, machine guns and tear gas. Claiming the Branch Davidians were a dangerous religious cult, they killed David Koresh, the group’s leader, along with and some 70 men, women and children who were with him when the assault took place.
The ostensible reason for reducing the compound to rubble was to serve a search warrant on Mr. Koresh for illegal weapons officials believed he possessed. The issuing judge was told Mr. Koresh was a crazed paranoid who never left the compound where he and his violence-prone followers were illegally hoarding automatic weapons and represented a clear and present danger to the Waco community.
Long after the smoke cleared the facts proved that the raid was staged not because Mr. Koresh and his Branch Davidians were a threat to anyone, but as a public relations stunt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to be used to justify a budget increase. Everything was filmed to be shown at future budget hearings, but when things went bad, the PR stunt turned into a murderous massacre.

Bundy Ranch Reminder - Ammon to be released today.

Later today Ammon Bundy will be released pending the Bundy trial set to continue December 11th.

Here is one news article about the release scheduled for today.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/11/judge_orders_release_of_cliven.html

Cliven Bundy refused to be released while other co-defendants remain in jail.

Stunning Leaked Footage of Bunkerville Standoff at Bundy Ranch in 2014

Published on Aug 23, 2017

The 2014 Bunkerville Standoff saw over 200 armed federal agents aim their guns at American citizens who had gathered in support of rancher Cliven Bundy. This shocking footage includes never before seen video clips from BLM dash and body cams. 

I would be glad to credit whoever put this footage together, but since it was leaked video I'm not aware of the original creator. If any of you know, you are welcome to pass the info on to me.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quM30...
Find Me On...

Patreon: http://bit.ly/2i1cFVv
YouTube: http://bit.ly/2iQhRZk
Facebook: http://bit.ly/2jfB59Q
Twitter: http://bit.ly/2i2I1Gf
Gab: http://bit.ly/2jnJxDZ
Minds: http://bit.ly/2iYkXcP
Vid.Me: http://bit.ly/2jeVDjZ
_
Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Trump needs to tell Judge in Bundy trial that the Government is not God

Shawna Cox: What America needs to know about the Bunkerville trial

We just want to tell the truth, so why can’t the media go into court and show the world what really goes on in these Federal Courts?  Why are they only allowed to take notes and draw pictures?  The defendants want an open court and have asked for it but the Judge still refuses media access.  The information that goes out by way of the major media is only a spin because their reporters don’t even stay in the courtroom the whole day. They report things of very little concern and try to keep the public in the dark.

Commentary by Shawna Cox

Dear America,

Federal Court in Las Vegas, Nevada: March 22, 2014 during the “Cliven Bundy Trail #1,” the federal prosecutors were still putting on their case. This would be the 22nd day of trial since it began on Feb. 6, 2017.  In cross examination of one of the federal agents, the only Pro Se Defendant, Todd Engel, asked the agent if it was true that the Special Agent in charge, Daniel P. Love of the BLM, was under investigation for misconduct. (Remember “Burning Man”?) The witness did not answer the question before the prosecution immediately jumped to their feet and objected.  After all, the defendants were not allowed to talk about the main character in the whole Bundy Standoff.  The prosecution has raised his name a number of times but only in the light that is most favorable for them. Judge Navarro immediately sent the jury out of the room.  It was time for a break anyway. The prosecutors demanded that Mr. Engel be stripped of his Pro Se status.  After a few  moments of thought, the Judge agreed to strip Todd of his Pro Se but just for the rest of the day. ( I believe she was trying to figure out a way to do it.)  The 6th Amendment provides “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”  Of which, Todd’s counsel was fired because of falling asleep in hearings, no communication with defendant, no knowledge of the case, refusing to ask the questions put before him of the defendant, only performing when others are looking over his shoulder or trying to assist his client, etc. This would now leave Mr. Engel with no defense!

Judge Navarro

This is a true story about one of Americas most courageous families.

Controversy is state I’ve learned to live with, a badge of honor that often stings. It’s a badge the Bundy family possesses in abundance, because you stand up, you will always be attacked. My brother and I stood with the Bundy’s in 2014; we saw the truth and we felt the danger. When Oregon happened there was no question in our minds that these men and woman deserved the support of all who love liberty. Their message was pure. But much of America did not feel the same. Why?

Like many activists and prisoners, from patriots to the natives. The hate for the Bundy’s comes from lies who’s intent is to make the story of a warrior misunderstood.  Our “justice” system goes to great lengths to ensure the real story does not reach the masses. This works because we don’t really want to know how bad it is. That’s why it’s important to share a story no matter how you feel about a person. Watch it and make sure others do the same, sending it to those who know and to those who do not.

People often say, there’s nothing we can do. But I do something every day and if you will set aside differences and do something with me, we will set this nation free.

Found Here:

http://callmegav.com/2016/12/bundy-story/?utm_source=Liberty+Letter&utm_campaign=1236def45d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_976d091c29-1236def45d-193493&mc_cid=1236def45d&mc_eid=337b712d5c

The Down and Dirty for Thomas Deegan, Ammon Bundy, and Everyone Else

Facing Prosecution by the Vermin Pretending to Serve and Defend America  ---by Judge Anna 



1. The Federal District Court today is a hybrid that was never intended to be. 

2. Every Federal District Judge takes his oath to uphold the Constitution ----- 5 USC 3331.  (Bear in mind that you cannot use CFR, USC, or any other of their private statutes in their courts, with the single exception of the United States Statutes at Large, which are public. The most you can do is remind them of their oath and accept it.) 

3. March 9, 1933 martial law was imposed by Proclamation 2040 on both the federal and state government franchises organized as the United States of America, Inc. and its "states" doing business as the "State of California", etc.  The "Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917 (50 USC App. 5(b) was amended by the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of March 9, 1933 (12USC95a) ----2040 continued Emergency Proclamation 2039. 

4. On April 25, 1938, the US Supreme Court demolished federal general common law civilian due process and the military common law jurisdiction was imposed. 

5. In September 1938, new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced "as authorized by Section 17 of the Trading With the Enemy Act".  Four years later, in 1942, new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure followed. 

6. After that, there has been no distinction between suits at law and suits in equity--- they are constitutionally created courts, but sitting in a foreign, statutory, emergency war powers military jurisdiction.  Civilian "U.S. citizens" are now treated as "enemy combatants" subject to military due process of law--- i.e., international martial common law. 

The actual complaint against Cliven Bundy.

There are so many holes, lies, and falsifications of history in this document that it appears to me to be one of the most evil documents I have ever seen.
Just my opinion of course. Make up your own mind.

http://www.lincolncountywatch.org/cliven-bundy-complaint1.pdf

The Day the Feds Stood Down-Micro Documentary

The Battle of Bunkerville: One Year Later

The relative calm of Southern Nevada’s Clark County was shattered in April of 2014 when agents of the private, government contracted Bureau of Land Management moved in-force against 67 year-old Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy.

The reasons given for why a private company would violate a law-abiding American’s constitutional rights were weak, at best. The claim by the BLM was that they were working to protect the desert tortoise, the same desert tortoise that fell victim to mass genocide by another federally funded agency, The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center, some 8 months previous. In that budget cutting measure, it is estimated that ½ of the 1400 turtles housed at the conservation center would be euthanized. An act that calls into serious question the real motives of the BLM.

In addition to their role as protectors of the desert turtle, the BLM contended that Cliven Bundy was behind on his grazing fees. Fees that Mr. Bundy paid to the State of Nevada, as per an agreement that was cemented before the BLM’s un-lawful arrival. The question is this: Does protecting a turtle, or collecting late-fees, rise to the level of sending snipers, armored vehicles and weapons-ready helicopters to southern Nevada? Was it necessary to Taser unarmed men and pregnant women in an attempt to get a point across? Does the BLM, or any government agency, have the right to sequester the public and herd them into an Orwellian named, “1st Amendment Zone?”

Many Americans from all across this nation didn’t think so, and they acted on a massive scale. What happened next was perhaps the greatest display of American grit and patriotism that I, or many others, have witnessed in their lifetimes. The following micro-documentary is look back to those tense filled days in the warm Nevada sun. It’s the day we won a little of our liberties back…it’s the day that the Feds stood down.

Thanks to Jim White for doing this documentary and for being at the Bundy Ranch with us.

http://northwestlibertynews.com/the-day-the-feds-stood-down-micro-documentary/

The Question is "Who Owns This Land" the federal government or the states?

Cliven Bundy Answers this question!

Published on Sep 5, 2014

http://agenda21radio.com Cliven Bundy talks with Paul Preston and company at the Liberty Tour Event at Win-River Casino, Redding, CA August 30, 2014. Bundy gets to tell his side of the story and what went on during the Bundy Ranch standoff last May, 2014.
This is the first Liberty Tour Event that will be happening throuout California. If you wish to attend one of these events, tickets are available through http://agenda21radio.com
During his talk Win-River Casino suffered a false alarm fire alert which lasted at least 20 minutes. This time has been eliminated from the youtube video.

Originally found at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELbgUwk7AZ8#t=203

Cliven Bundy and Kamau Bakari talk Race and Freedom

I met this black gentleman at the Bundy Ranch. Cliven and Kamau and I had a short conversation and let me tell you this guy is one black man that takes his freedom seriously, but is also a hoot to be around.

It was a lot of fun to listen to them talk about these issues in person, and I agree with everything they are both saying in this video.  You are going to enjoy this.

Only "Extremists" Believe They Have a Right to be Left Alone

This article by William Norman Grigg deserves to be reprinted in it's entirety all across this land.

By William Norman Grigg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/william-norman-grigg/think-you-have-the-right-to-be-left-alone%E2%80%A8/

Ernie Wayne terTelgte is a poor man from a tiny village in Montana who believes that nature gives him a license to live. Barack Obama is a wealthy and privileged man residing at the seat of power who believes his position gives him a license to kill. Naturally, the Tolerance Commissars are pretending that the former is a menace to society, because of the contempt he displays for the system that facilitates the crimes committed by the latter.

Last August, terTelgte was fishing at Three Forks Pond with his eleven-year-old son when they were accosted by Adam Pankratz, who is employed as a warden by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Service.

When Pankratz saw terTelgte reeling in a fish, the warden asked if he had a fishing license. TerTelgte replied that he didn’t need one. Pretending to concede the point, the warden persisted in demanding that terTelgte provide identification. When both teTelgte and his son quite sensibly refused the demand, Pankratz called for assistance, and Three Forks Police Officer Colter Metcalf quickly arrived.

Officer Metcalf made a brief and unsuccessful attempt to learn terTelgte’s identity.

Pankratz later said that he and Metcalf were concerned by the fact that terTelgte’s “body language” was “tense,” that his language was “curt,” and that he kept telling them to “walk away” and “just leave me alone.” This is a description of someone whose behavior was defensive. But Pankratz and Metcalf, as representatives of the coercive caste, insisted on escalating the encounter by arresting him for “obstruction.”

“We didn’t want it to go this far, especially with the son … but we couldn’t identify him,” Pankratz complained, assuming that a tax-funded aggressor is entitled to sympathy because of his occupation.

Since terTelgte had no legal duty to present identification (Montana code authorizes “stop and frisk”-style harassment of citizens, but doesn’t specify that citizens have a duty to identify themselves), the arrest was unlawful. As is the case elsewhere, Montana state statutes authorize police to abduct citizens without legal justification if this is done “under the peace officer’s official authority.”

Plucking a fish from a “publicly owned” pond without a license is considered an offense, despite the fact that entailed no violation of property rights. (If it did, who is the victim, and what injury did he sustain?) Violently abducting a human being who has done no harm to anyone, on the other hand, is regarded as a “lawful” act, assuming that the kidnapper is accoutered in the officially prescribed costume.

To his credit, the victim was non-cooperative but non-violent. This wasn’t true of the assailants, of course. After Metcalf threatened to attack terTelgte with pepper spray, Pankratz kicked his legs out from beneath him.

Rather than mounting a violent defense against his captors, terTelgte simply sat motionless on the ground, forcing them to pick him up and carry him to the police car.

During his arraignment before Three Forks Municipal Judge Wanda Drusch, terTelgte refused to defer to her authority or play his expected role as a penitent and submissive suspect.

“I was searching for something to put in my stomach as I am … allowed to do by universal law,” he declared. “I am the living man and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry.” 

The “trial” last November — if the proceedings merit that description — was attended by 32 police officers from ten agencies, brought together by shared concern that the defendant’s defiance might prove contagious. TerTelgte was denied the right—supposedly protected by the Constitution – to cross-examine witnesses or to introduce evidence on his own behalf.

To the surprise of nobody, terTelgte was quickly found guilty of the supposed offense of obstructing the unwarranted harassment of armed state

functionaries, and refusing to cooperate in his own abduction. Although his jail sentence was suspended, terTelgte later spent 30 days behind bars for “contempt” after he declined to take off his hat in the courtroom during a subsequent appearance on another charge of “resisting arrest.”

TerTelgte is clearly eccentric; he might even be considered obnoxious by some. It is reasonable to conclude that his actions have been unwise, a violation of the principle that each of us has trouble enough and shouldn’t be seeking to borrow more. But he is patently harmless. There is no evidence that he has ever injured or defrauded anybody, which certainly can’t be said of the government functionaries who assaulted and caged him, or the criminal entity that employs them.

It is the zeal to prolong the pretense of the Regime’s legitimacy that led the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify terTelgte as a public enemy, an exponent of what that self-appointed Stasi calls “sovereign citizen ideology.”

Stated in its broadest terms, the “sovereign citizen” concept holds that some people can exempt themselves from the law through the use of esoteric legal concepts expressed in impenetrable language. From that perspective, people who utter or publish the appropriate conjurations can seize the property of others, issue fraudulent financial instruments, and employ lethal violence against those who seek to hold them accountable.

Assuming that this is an accurate description, at least some “sovereign citizens” are attempting to mimic the criminal behavior of those who presume to rule the rest of us. The SPLC and allied “watchdog” groups offer no objections to the routine practice of fraud and exercise of lethal aggressive violence by the most dangerous element of our society. They simply want to preserve that element’s monopoly on the privilege of committing criminal aggression.

This is why the SPLC professes alarm that outrage over the terTelgte case has prompted some Montana residents to create a citizens’ grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse and official misconduct. SPLC flack David Neiwert breathlessly – and perhaps hopefully – writes that this could lead to a rural “showdown” akin to the April 12 confrontation in Bunkerville, Nevada.

William Wolf, who has organized efforts to create the citizens grand jury, has suggested that his group might arrest Rick West, the Justice of the Peace who sent terTelgte to jail for thirty days on a contempt charge. Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin described this as “unacceptable,” accusing Wolf and his allies of “crossing a line they can’t cross.”

“When there are threats like this, not only does it affect that person, it affects their family,” mewled Gootkin in a television interview. “For someone in the family to live in fear, that’s not the way things work. When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people … that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that.”

It’s appropriate that Gootkin uses the terms “arrest” and “kidnap” interchangeably, given that the latter is properly applied to what was done to terTelgte. The public record is barren of any recognition by Sheriff Gootkin that terTelgte’s abduction traumatized his eleven-year-old son and made him “live in fear.” Apparently the impact of violence on Mundanes and their children doesn’t concern the Sheriff.

Gootkin also berated members of the proposed citizens’ grand jury for “bypassing” the criminal justice system. The real scandal here is the effective destruction of the grand jury, which was intended to be a citizens’ assembly rather than a government entity.

From the Founding era until the early 20th Century, grand juries were bodies that could carry out independent investigations of official corruption and deliver “presentments” to prosecutors in search of redress. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots observes that the grand jury, “in its primal, plenary sense … was a group of men who stood as a check on government, often in direct opposition to the desires of those in power.”

Writing in the Fordham Law Review, Kevin K. Washburn points out that the grand jury “came to us as an institution that was respected for its profound ability to protect local communities – indeed, possibly rebellious ones – from central government authority. It was, in essence, a local check on Crown authority.” In that capacity, grand juries not only conducted rigorous review of facts, but also “nullification of validly enacted laws,” Washburn continues.

During the reign of FDR, an executive branch Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure – an unaccountable body with no legislative mandate – imposed regulations intended to destroy the independence of grand juries. As a result, “the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor, who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury,” wrote federal District Judge William J. Campbell, who urged the formal abolition of the institution in the interests of efficiency.

Judge Campbell offered those observations in 1973. Since that time, the US criminal “justice” system has reached almost Soviet levels of prosecutorial efficiency. Under the reign of Josef Stalin, Soviet procurators were ordered to achieve a 100 conviction rate. In the current federal system, notes Lew Rockwell, the defendant “wins once every 212 times.”

Once the grand jury was re-purposed as an arm of the state, prosecutors were free to commit routine due process violations and destroy what remained of the institution of trial by jury. “Waiving the Criminal Justice System,” a study recently published by the University of Texas School of Law, describes how the adversarial process through which the state must prove the guilt of a defendant has been supplanted with a system of administrative law in which prosecutors extract plea bargains in exchange for relatively lenient sentences. This is why federal prosecutors win well more than ninety percent of their cases through plea bargains, rather than jury trials.

This is a lamentable state of affairs, and, to many observers, a familiar story. This study, however, breaks new ground by showing that prosecutors at both the state and federal levels require defendants to waive due process rights that are vital for post-conviction appeals – such as the right to effective assistance of counsel, and the right to obtain exculpatory evidence that can be used to overturn a conviction or at least obtain a new trial.

In the American tradition, the purpose of a trial was to establish the truth of an accusation against a defendant who is presumed to be innocent. The purpose of our post-constitutional criminal system is to ratify the defendant’s guilt, irrespective of the facts or the law. This is not the doing of eccentrics and “extremists” like Ernie terTelgte, but rather of the respectable people who employ the exercise and the threat of violence to force others to submit to their will – and who can rely on the unconditional support of the SPLC and others of their contemptible ilk.

Roughly a week ago, while the SPLC was pretending that terTelgte and his supporters are a threat to the republic, the US Supreme Court put an end to the illusion that something worthy of being called a republic still exists, or that citizens have any reasonable expectation that, if accused of an offense, they have a right to a trial of some kind.

The High Court refused to hear an appeal filed by Chris Hedges and several other activists challenging a provision of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act under which the president can order the indefinite military detention – without trial or legal recourse — of any U.S. citizen he regards as an enemy of the state.

That provision was struck down as unconstitutional by US District Judge Katherine Forrest, who ruled that it could lead to the seizure and imprisonment of people who exercised rights supposedly protected by the First Amendment. As is their habit, the executive branch’s legal minions greeted that ruling with an indifferent shrug and filed an appeal before a more complaisant federal judge, who ruled that no citizen has legal standing to challenge the NDAA. That ruling was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.

As a result, summarizes progressive commentator Thom Hartman, the military “now has the power to label us terrorists, capture us, lock us up in jail, and hold us there without any regard for our Constitutional rights to due process or a fair trial.” That power very nicely compliments Obama’s routine practice of executing people without the benefit of trial – including at least one teenaged U.S. citizen.

Ernie terTeglte’s view of sovereignty is that he has a right to feed himself and be left alone. Barack Obama’s view of sovereignty is that of Vladimir Lenin – the supposed right of the Dear Leader to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” Not surprisingly, the SPLC and its allies consider the first view unacceptable, and regard the second as mandatory.

Pushback starting from the Bureau of LandGrabs' Bundy Family Ranch episode!

This is so much bigger than just the Bundy family and their cattle. This is about Freedom from Tyranny by an out of control Federal monster that will gorge itself on land and power every chance it gets until We the People stop it.

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 9:12 AM
To:
Subject: Plan to Liberate Western Lands and Evict Fed + Legislator Mtg. Utah to debate Fed. Lands Take-over

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp   (Photo: Western Lawmakers meeting for Debate on Public Lands Take-over) 

Wednesday, 23 April 2014 16:00
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18114-lawmakers-unveil-plan-to-liberate-western-lands-and-evict-feds

Lawmakers Unveil Plan to Liberate Western Lands and Evict Feds

Written by  Alex Newman         

With the now-infamous federal abuses against the Bundy ranching family and its supporters in Nevada helping to awaken a sleeping giant, liberty-minded elected officials from Western states are coming together with citizens to take action in defense of the Constitution and the West. Their mission: to wrest control over the vast expanses of land and wealth in the region that are unconstitutionally claimed by the Washington, D.C.-based political and bureaucratic classes. Now, a new alliance of lawmakers and citizens has a concrete plan to make those goals a reality.   

As The New American reported this week, more than 50 elected officials from nine Western states met on April 18 at the Utah Capitol for the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands. Among them were state House speakers, state senators, a U.S. senator, county commissioners, and more. The goal, multiple organizers and attendees explained, is to strip the federal government of the almost 50 percent of land in Western states that it claims to “own” in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and various agreements.      

One of the lawmakers who participated, Washington State Rep. Matt Shea, a liberty-minded Republican who also stood with the Bundy family, says that lawmakers from Western states are determined to protect the Constitution and their constituents. “Legislators from across the West are saying enough is enough,” Rep. Shea told The New American after the summit in Salt Lake City. “We are banding together to fight federal overreach wherever it rears its ugly head, not just talk about it.”

To do that, last week, another alliance of lawmakers, citizens, businessman, ranchers, sheriffs, officials, and more came together and created the Coalition of Western States United Against Tyranny, or COWS for short. Already, the network has seen phenomenal growth, with more than 25 lawmakers joining up by April 22, Rep. Shea explained. “COWS has grown massively in just one week and legislators from all over the West are jumping on board,” he said, adding that he was “absolutely” optimistic about their prospects for success.

COWS advocates a five-step process to evict the self-styled federal landlords from the Western United States, Rep. Shea explained. In the short term, county governments should draw up management plans for the land in coordination with state and federal agencies. Already, federal law requires that U.S. bureaucracies work with local officials, though in practice, that rarely happens. At the same time, states should also introduce and pass legislation to prohibit any net loss of private land to government.

In the longer term, federally (mis)managed lands should be transferred over to state authorities, “because government closest to the people is best,” Rep. Shea continued. “The federal government cannot possibly know how best to manage land in the thousands of different locales like the people of those areas could,” the popular Republican lawmaker explained, echoing the sentiments of countless other policymakers and activists who say the federal government needs to be stripped of its vast, unconstitutional land holdings.

“Clearly,” Shea says, “the people of Western states would do a better job managing those lands.” In fact, among the most common complaints on the issue in the West is the fact that the feds have done a terrible job maintaining the land they purport to own — especially when compared with the areas managed by state and local governments, or even private citizens. The COWS lawmakers said an excellent, proven process for transferring federally managed lands into state control has been laid out by the American Lands Council and others.

Then there is the issue of keeping promises. As the Western territories were officially becoming states, like in the East, the federal government agreed to eventually transfer those lands. However, as with so many other promises made by the D.C.-based political class, so far, it has not been fulfilled. “The enabling acts of the Western States make it clear the federal government was meant to be a steward only until such time that the states could manage,” Rep. Shea explained.

The state of Utah has taken the strongest action thus far toward ensuring that the feds comply. In 2012, lawmakers passed and the governor signed a law demanding that the federal government relinquish control over much of the estimated two-thirds of territory inside Utah’s borders it claims to control. The law specifically cited those agreements from when Utah joined the Union, threatening a lawsuit if Washington, D.C. refuses to comply. 

Perhaps the most important issue at play in the whole land issue, though, is the U.S. Constitution. “Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution spells out what types of property the federal government can ‘own’,” Rep. Shea continued, pointing out that, outside of a few limited exceptions, it is not constitutional for Washington, D.C., to own or control land — much less half of the Western United States, and as much as 85 percent of some states such as Nevada.    

Rep. Shea also pointed to The Federalist, No. 45, which (he notes) “makes clear the intent” of America’s Founding Fathers. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined,” the document states. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Eventually, also in the long term, some of the land wrested from the federal government should be sold off to private parties “as required in the enabling acts of most of the states,” Rep. Shea continued. Indeed, numerous lawmakers and analysts say at least some of that land should be privatized, allowing the Western states to boost their economy and tax base while extending private-property rights to a broader area and a potentially greater number of individuals. Exactly how much land should be kept in the hands of state and local authorities could be decided going forward. 

The economic and environmental benefits, though, would be significant. “It would have a massive positive impact putting that land back into productive use for both the economy and the tax base,” Rep. Shea explained, again echoing the recently expressed concerns of dozens of powerful lawmakers and countless Western-state citizens, with some estimates suggesting that there is around $150 trillion in mineral wealth alone. “In fact, in the enabling act that brought Washington State into the Union, the proceeds from a portion of the sale of that land must go to specifically funding education.” 

Finally, the fifth step in the process would be to disarm federal bureaucrats — a demand that is growing increasingly urgent after the federal terror unleashed by heavily armed Bureau of Land Management officials against the Bundy family and friends in Nevada. “This is not an isolated incident and is part of a broader war on rural America,” Rep. Shea explained. “Bureaucratic rules and regulations are functionally disallowing the viable economic use of large swaths of land in the West. Regardless, a sniper rifle and killing instead of seizing cattle is not due process.”

With the public increasingly galvanized against federal abuses and lawlessness after the Bundy ranch fiasco, now is a perfect time for state governments and the American people to put the U.S. government back in its constitutional cage where it belongs — and where it cannot send in heavily armed storm troopers to terrorize ranchers and protesters over alleged unpaid “fees” or tortoises. The alternative is more and more Bundy ranch-style paramilitary disasters, along with eventual tyranny. With optimistic Western lawmakers making strong and popular moves to protect liberty and evict the feds, though, liberty-minded Americans have good reason to be optimistic as well.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, environment, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land

War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming

Feds Exploit “Threatened” Bird for Massive Land Grab

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

Burning Up the West: Feds, Greens Cause Catastrophic Fires

Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!

The EPA's Property Wrongs in America

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

This Land Is My Land — Isn't It?

National Heritage Areas: The Land Grabs Continue

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

Bundy Ranch after action report by Stewart Rhodes and others who were there!

The following Advisory is also online at Oath Keepers' national website. Please comment there:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/30/oath-keepers-debrief-on-bundy-ranch-what-happened-and-how/

 

Here is more info from Stewart Rhodes and company on the rift between the alleged "leaders" of the militia down at the Bundy Ranch. This debriefing focuses on just a few men who would sabotage Oath Keepers' mission at the Bundy Ranch. It explains some sequences and some activities which you've not heard about before.

Please understand that Oath Keepers has great faith in the majority of good men and women in the militias represented at the Ranch. We just have problems with people who want to stir up trouble, for such people are most often what we call "Agents Provocateur".  

We are not accusing anyone of being an agent provocateur, but we are definitely identifying certain actions and statements by questionable men as being exactly the sort of activity an agent provocateur would display.  It is just a few, and we think that the greater majority of militiamen and militiawomen serving there are tops. To you we say: You have our support and our gratitude for your sacrifice for the Bundy Ranch mission. Well done.  However, Oath Keepers suggests that you do question your leadership to be sure they are who and what they claim to be. We would especially encourage people to look into any claims about any specialty service in the military that any of the current leaders might claim.

Mike Vanderboegh posted this video at his Sipsey Street Irregulars website. Mike accompanied the posting of this video with a well-informed and therefore informative article of his own. Mike was there and gave a great speech. He also kept a close eye on unseen trends in behavior patterns and cultural earmarks. This is not his first rodeo. He sums up with an excellent and generously written article of his own. We would like to invite you to also read Mike's take on the Bundy Ranch excitement.    

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/05/there-is-no-teacher-but-enemy-bundy.html 

Oath Keepers Bundy Ranch Debrief

- 

But note please - this debriefing session with five Oath Keepers is important, but this only covers one aspect of our work at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada.  

Oath Keepers marches on, and our reports will continue to dispel the psy-op rumors about our work at the ranch.   

View this video to find many answers to questions currently flying about the Internet. Try to help people learn the truth by sending this to your lists. Thanks!

Salute!

Elias Alias, editor

  

 The share-link for the Debriefing video above on Oath Keepers YouTube channel:

http://youtu.be/4HkSAewoESg