The movement against the BLM and Forestry Service western lands takeover continues to build, with the aftermath of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge demonstration and the slaying of rancher LaVoy Finicum by federal agents serving as a rallying point for those who believe the federal government has grown too big and powerful, particularly in the western states. Don’t miss the video included later in the article.
The compliant media has circled the wagons to declare the demonstrators were radical, right-wing constitutionalists, as if the U.S. Constitution can be protected and promoted too much.
Somehow, those who dismiss the ranchers and their supporters in the western states can’t see that the government, which “owns” over 50 percent of the land in eleven western states, is much more interested in power and control, and much more committed to radical environmentalists than to farmers and ranchers trying to make a living on the land that, like as not, has been a family pursuit and way of life for generations.
To put a finer point on the issue, mere weeks after the Malheur protesters were arrested and the refuge cleared, President Obama declared three more parcels of land in California as federal land, with little or no future access granted to mere citizens of the state. And by parcels, I mean almost 2 million acres that are now set aside as an offering to the Sierra Club and their ilk, with no compensation offered to California for the taking.
Federal government supporters are painting protesters as lawless cowboys, ignoring the fact that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from owning more than a ten square mile plot in Washington D.C., and areas for forts and military installations that require state approval to acquire.
Watch as the Sheriff fights back in video on the next page:
That’s what you call an American Sheriff with Big Balls !!
O yea
Jeremy Henninger,
I first want to say that understand your anger and frustration with tyrannical nature of our federal government, and that I share your distaste for its overreaching strangle hold that it has on us its citizens. However, I still feel that the people who have been leasing, at less than a minimum cost, grazing on federal lands in the west are wrong on this particular issue. I have studied and I have taught constitutional law, and like our Bibles, we simply cannot read it and come up with our own interpretations. That is very dangerous and irresponsible! Article I of the constitution simply outlines the the rights and responsibilities, and some restrictions of the legislative branch of the U.S. government. The legislature (the U.S. Senate and theU.S. House of Representatives) is only 1 of 3 branches of government provided for by the constitution. The other 2 being the Executive branch (the President) and the Judicial branch (the U.S. Supreme Court). The Constitution also establishes a system of a Checks and Balances to ensure that a single branch of the federal government does not gain too much power or control. Furthermore, part 17 of Art. I – Sect. 8 does not restrict the federal government from owning real estate. It simply provides for a maximum of 10 square miles to be provided for a Federal city (by Maryland and Virginia) that is outside the control of those state governments. But, it expressly states that that area is still the property of those respective states. However, the 23rd Amendment effectively changed that too in 1961.
Furthermore, let’s agree for argument’s sake that the federal government does not own the land in question, then we have to ask who does own it? You have stated twice that the people are the rightful owners of this property. Then I would have to ask who are the people, and the correct answer would be every legal citizen of the United States. So, then every vegan, tree-hugger, and animal-rights-activist should have say so in how this land is used as well. Not to mention the rest of us Americans who raise cattle and other livestock that would love to ship ours up there to graze that property for the prices those guys get it for. Face it; it’s basically welfare. We have to pay 10 times as much to private land owners to graze their property than those guys are paying the Feds, and we have zero say in how they use their land or when we have to get our cattle off. They don’t realize what a sweet deal they have, and they still act like juveniles and complain.
Anyway, the Constitution became law in 1788, and 15 years later in 1803 Marbury v. Madison established judicial review setting the precedent for the Supreme Court to be the initial interpreter of the Constitution. Neither County Sheriffs, County Commissioners, State Legislatures, farmers, nor ranchers, and not even Constitutional attorneys have the authority to interpret the Constitution!
Moving on. When you use words like stupid and moron and make statements such as “now try and figure out the difference,” and “learning anything yet,” your emotion is clearly heard and even felt by the people who read your words. This substantially diminishes the validity of your argument. The rational use of logic is much more effective than emotional responses.
Besides, you’re position and mine are both pretty much mute because the Feds are pretty much unbeatable. Because, if 11 southern states which held a majority of the nation’s wealth could not secede and repel the tyranny of the U.S. Government, what leads us to believe that a few hundred or even a few thousand ranchers are going to be more successful at it?
Why can’t we have more like him?
Good luck with that!
Of course they’re animals. After all they’re a Black organization. Not like your heroes, that benevolent group the KKK. Right?
Me too
Are y’all on crack? BLM stands for BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, NOT BLACK LIVES MATTER. sheesh, do y’all read for comprehension? ??
Only in the northwest
Great sheriff