The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Regarding the cattle ranch dispute that I posted earlier, CBS News in Nevada is reporting that protesters are being rounded up and herded into penned-in areas that the feds are calling "First Amendment Free Speech Zones."

According to the CBS news report, "BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon and Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover have told reporters during daily conference calls that free-speech areas were established so agents could ensure the safety of contractors, protesters, the rancher and his supporters."

How absurd is that!? Since when were First Amendment rights to exercise free speech limited to a federally designated and fenced in area? Governor Sandoval apparently voiced his concern over this tactic by saying that this “tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” and went on to say that the site should be dismantled. Notice, though, that he didn't say "or else." This situation calls for a display and exercising of strength and determination by all Nevadans. Of course that would include "Dirty Harry" Reid. His only statement so far, and released by an aide, though, was that he "hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.”

"Trespassing cattle?" Give me a break! What about the 15 million or more trespassing illegal aliens currently in our country? Why aren't they being rounded up, Harry, instead of cattle that wouldn't have a clue that they are breaking any man-made rule of supposed law?

[5150]

I sure hope the Militia arrive and stand up to the Government thugs. Until the people revolt these thugs will continue to walk all over the people and abuse them and their rights.

I support Mr Bundy!

[aljhoa]

Go Wild!


Go Wild...for history,
for nature, for fun during
National Park Week, April 19-27!
No entrance fees April 19 & 20.





The U.N. Conference on Human Settlements states:

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”
private property rights | UN Agenda 21


Al

[dutchdivco]

BLM 'mandate'

You might find it interesting to look at the legislation establishing the BLM. I believe it has something about how the land is being held and maintained in a kind of 'trust', for the AMERICAN PEOPLE; the way its worded, the property that is 'designated' as BLM land is to be maintained/managed, in such a way as to equitably make it available for use to US.
They DO have a complicated mandate; 'balancing' the sometimes conflicting 'needs' of ranchers, campers, etc. And then you get environmental regulations and protecting endangered species into it.
Point is, its not REALLY "BLM land", its OUR land, 'set aside' (i.e. not to be commercially developed) in perpetuity, for the USE of the American people.

This 'idea' of establishing 'free speech' zones was used during the 'occupy' movement, as I recall. Or perhaps it was during the last Presidential conventions. Needs to be taken to the SCOTUS. If $ is Free speech, and shouldn't be restricted, I should think the idea that "Oh, you have the right to free speech, and therefore to protest, but ONLY if you allow us to herd you (like cattle) into areas that we chose, and control access to" would be a no-brainer Unconstituitonal Act. In addition, during SCOTUS, local government officials tried to say "This isn't excercising free speech, its 'camping', as if free speech (Constitutionally) meant you can stand up (in the 'public square', say your 'piece', and then sit down and shut up, (or go home), but you can't repeatedly, over and over, 'excercise' your free speech.

Madison, Jefferson etc. must be rolling in their graves over that whole notion, huh? Unfortunately, Gov't. is exploiting 2 'loopholes', and has done so, before; 1) someone with 'standing' has to bring suit, in order for case tobe heard by SCOTUS, and 2) except in 'extraordinary circumstances' (rare) case has to go up through lower courts, first, before being 'heard' by SCOTUS, which can take years. So, Gov't. CAN, and has, do/done things which it KNOWS are Unconstitutional, and get away with it, either because there IS no one with 'standing', or no one with standing who wi;ll 'bring case', or that by time case gets to SCOTUS the deed will have been done. FDR used the 3rd, in several instances, while simultaneously trying to 'stack' the SCOTUS, and while was unsuccessful in the stacking, the programs he enacted, which were rued unconstitutional, were in place for several years, which was what he wanted. This idea of 'free speech zones', needs to be taken up by someone, 'with standing', so SCOTUS can say, once and for all(?) that its unconstitutional, as is the idea that there is a 'time limit' on free speech, any more than there is a 'place limit'. Jim

[aljhoa]

They DO have a complicated mandate; 'balancing' the sometimes conflicting 'needs' of ranchers, campers, etc. And then you get environmental regulations and protecting endangered species into it.
Point is, its not REALLY "BLM land", its OUR land, 'set aside' (i.e. not to be commercially developed) in perpetuity, for the USE of the American people.

Published on Apr 9, 2014

Government is using environmentalism to confuse the public and the Left/Right paradigm to divide the public so they can enslave us in an Agenda 21 future where we have no property and no rights. The last rancher — "the last man standing" — across the Mojave Desert to the Pacific Ocean, Cliven Bundy, is in a fight for his rights and your rights against a federal bureaucracy that's out of control.

The government preaches "sustainability" and preservation of water and endangered species. But people who collect rainwater on their own property are fined and thrown into jail in Oregon. And in Florida, the government tries to evict a woman because she's off the grid using solar power and rainwater, citing violation of "international codes". And in Nevada, the same bureaucracy that is closing public lands to ranchers who have had grazing rights since 1877 in order to save a tortoise, is killing over a thousand of the same tortoises in their care.
If Feds Take Your Cattle & Property, YOU Become Cattle - YouTube

These 9 States Have Outlawed Agenda 21 to Protect Property Rights - Top US World News | Susanne Posel Daily Headlines and Research


Al

[rickoff]

Update on Bundy "cattle trespass" issue

For the time being, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reversed its course or rounding up Clive Bundy's cattle and hauling them to auction. About 300 head of cattle have now been returned to Bundy by the BLM, and BLM says it will pursue other avenues in their attempt to force Bundy off the land and make him pay the $1.1 million in "grazing fees" they claim he owes. So what's going on here? Did the feds really back away from this because of some protesters, and threats that militia groups would intervene if they continued, or is something else involved? I believe that "something else" is the answer in this case, and here's what I believe it is:

You may remember in my previous post about this issue that I quoted what Nevada Democrat "Dirty Harry" Reid had stated (through his spokesperson) when a reporter asked for a statement. Harry didn't voice any concern whatsoever for Bundy's rights, or outrage over BLM attempts to herd protesters into penned-in "Free speech zones). Instead, his only stated concern was that he "hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” As it turns out, there's a very good reason why "Dirty Harry" Reid hoped for that outcome, and it has absolutely nothing to to with the Desert Tortoise. It is all about greed. You see, during the last three election cycles, Chinese energy giant ENN Group has contributed $40,650 individually, and through its political action committee, to Reid's re-election coffers. ENN wants to build a huge, $5 billion solar panel manufacturing facility on a 9,000 acre plot in Nevada, and guess who has been designated as the primary legal representative for ENN Group? None other than "Dirty Harry" Reid's lawyer son Rory Reid! And as you may have suspected, Harry's involvement doesn't end there. His close association with BLM director Neil Kornze, who was formerly a senior adviser to Reid before joining BLM in 2011 (the same year Reid was recruited by ENN during a trip to China), is rotten to the core. So is the fact that Reid's top campaign contributor in 2007, Harry Whittemore, had illegally funneled $150,000 to Reid's campaign after urging Reid to have the habitat of the Desert Tortoise moved. In 2012, Whittemore was granted his wish when BLM and the DOE published a joint Environmental Impact Statement regarding solar industry development which established the basis for allowing the Desert Tortoise to migrate habitats, thus setting the stage for development of solar energy projects on land which is now in dispute in the Bundy case.

Clearly, "Dirty Harry" is up to his eyeballs in this whole thing, and doesn't want the kind of publicity about his involvement that would most certainly surface if the BLM and other federal agencies were to continue their strong arm tactics against angry Nevadans. This was never about the Desert Tortoise being threatened by grazing cattle. After all, what about the thousands of buffalo that coexisted with the tortoise on these same lands for centuries, until humans devastated the buffalo herds?

[aljhoa]

As it turns out, there's a very good reason why "Dirty Harry" Reid hoped for that outcome, and it has absolutely nothing to to with the Desert Tortoise. It is all about greed.

Agenda 21

BREAKING! Sen Reid Chinese Gov't Takeover Of Ranch For Solar Farm - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

The Bundy saga continues...

One might ask why the "government" is suddenly so concerned about "protecting" the desert tortoise, or any other species common to the Nevada desert, when in fact these same "protectors" have done far more to wreak havoc upon countless species, as a result of nuclear testing in Nevada, than all other causative factors combined.


What we saw unfold last week gave the appearance that the BLM has peacefully agreed to back off from their demands and pursue other actions which are less confrontational and aggressive. But don't be deceived - this was only round one of their plan. This first step was taken purely for observational reasons. They wanted to determine how much resistance there would be against such a land grab, determine exactly who the active resisters and defenders are, and determine what and who's weapons of defense they would be facing during a real takeover. So what played out last week was only a gathering of useful information for planning the next phase, and we can be certain that there will be a next phase. In fact, "Dirty Harry" Reid has already stated that, "It's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it, so it's not over."

Notice the smirk on Harry's face after he says this. He's smiling because he knows that it is not over, and has full confidence that his own interests will prevail over the interests of the People. How arrogant! Harry needs to be reminded that we, the American People, can not have "government" representatives and agencies that violate the Constitution - the supreme law of our Republic while acting to enforce "laws" which are repugnant to the Constitution, are fictions, and only exist under color of law. Harry is right about one thing, though - it's definitely not over.

It's not difficult to see where this is all heading. Those who believed they had won round one as a result of their resistance and courage in standing their ground against the BLM are sadly mistaken. The feds cannot let this be the end of the matter, and are determined to let the final outcome stand as an example to any and every individual or group that opposes their tyranny. The next phase will utilize whatever the feds deem necessary in bringing the situation under control. And, after all, total control is what this is really all about.

[rickoff]

While Clive Bundy's plight appears to be at the top of the list of current events issues, he is not the only rancher under attack by a tyrannical federal "government." What makes his story an important one is that he is the last rancher still standing his ground in Nevada. In other western states, though, the same story is playing out as federal agencies continue with their plan to force all ranchers off their lands and seize these lands as "government" property.

A case in point is that of Kit Laney, a New Mexico rancher who has been handed a notice by the US Forest Service stating that his ranch operations would be shut down and his cattle removed by whatever means necessary. There is a very interesting article about this that explains all the details about this dispute, and which also goes over the historic aspects that led to western land grabs by the "government" under the guise of "protection." You can read the article at this link.

[aljhoa]

And, after all, total control is what this is really all about.

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube


Al

[Danny B]

Consent of the goverened

I found an excellent comment at the Daily Bell concerning the mess in Nevada. It is well worth considering.

"First, a little review.

Undeniable Truth of Life number one states:

"The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Such behavior is only checked by the relative possibility of an effective violent response."

It would appear at face value that this is exactly what happened in Nevada when the uniformed thugs retreated before a crowd of protestors. However all is not as it seems. You had better believe damn well that the forces of evil here far out match those of this little band of refuseniks.

What we witnessed was a calculated withdrawal before a situation erupted which could not have turned out well for either side.

Analysis.

We foremost must stop thinking with outdated thought processes. The battle is NOT, and never will be one of violence. In that respect, Beck is correct. Not that we collectively could not defeat the enforcers, because we probably could. Given the right circumstances.

As I have stated many times in the past, one cannot use the tools of Evil to defeat it. Lest you become Evil's replacement.

Had the BLM officers shot in self defense, had they been shot, or in any way physically molested, NO MATTER WHO SHOT FIRST, this would have turned out very differently. Undeniable Truth of Life number two:

'All governance is by consent of the governed; how that consent is generated is immaterial. The State in saying so, does not make it so. The masters of the State amount to no more than a fraction of a percent. Government has never maintained law and order, society is self regulating. For those who mean to rule, their greatest weapon against the populace is that the people
themselves do not understand this and instead demand “order”.'

Let that sink in and fully realize what's going on here.

Yes, we know that this is a ultimately a crooked land deal by corrupt politicians. Yes it has been thwarted by circumstances they failed to fully understand once they unleashed them.

That is precisely what is undoing the entire system. They no longer control the narrative. Once their monopoly on information was lost, everything they do becomes undermined almost immediately. Witness their most recent failures in Syria and the Crimea. The system is always seeking to gain your consent and everything you see in the corporate monopoly media and much of what you find in the alternative media is designed to that end.

With dissenting information and news which was once suppressed now widely available via the internet, the crimes of the State are open for all to see. The government's failure to carry out their mission in a quick fashion is the main reason the alternative media was able to both rapidly get this story out and then for enough protestors to arrive. This made it difficult for a Waco/Ruby Ridge event to occur.

And don't doubt for a second that that's what would have happened.

Thus, it was NOT the threat of violence which made the State take a back step. It was the fear of loosing consent of the governed. It simply would not do for the tax cows to see a member of the herd being slaughtered by the plantation overseers. It spooks the human chattel and looses their consent.

Failure to understand this, and a persistence in believing that violence could over come the State is a good part of what the system is trying to instill in the sheeple as part of a salvage effort in the aftermath. But make no mistake, Mr. Bundy is nowhere near the end on this. With limitless resources, and institutional memory which will survive long after those responsible
have retired, the State is relentless."

[aljhoa]

The government's failure to carry out their mission in a quick fashion is the main reason the alternative media was able to both rapidly get this story out and then for enough protestors to arrive. This made it difficult for a Waco/Ruby Ridge event to occur.

And don't doubt for a second that that's what would have happened.

Thus, it was NOT the threat of violence which made the State take a back step. It was the fear of loosing consent of the governed. It simply would not do for the tax cows to see a member of the herd being slaughtered by the plantation overseers. It spooks the human chattel and looses their consent.

Failure to understand this, and a persistence in believing that violence could over come the State is a good part of what the system is trying to instill in the sheeple as part of a salvage effort in the aftermath. But make no mistake, Mr. Bundy is nowhere near the end on this. With limitless resources, and institutional memory which will survive long after those responsible
have retired, the State is relentless."

JOHN LENNON The World Is RUN by INSANE PEOPLE! √ ((MIRROR)) - YouTube

Relentless - Hillsong UNITED (Live at Passion 2014) - YouTube


Al

[dutchdivco]

Excellent post, Danny B!

Of coarse, I say that because it comports with views i've long held, LOL

"'All governance is by consent of the governed; how that consent is generated is immaterial. The State in saying so, does not make it so. The masters of the State amount to no more than a fraction of a percent. Government has never maintained law and order, society is self regulating. For those who mean to rule, their greatest weapon against the populace is that the people
themselves do not understand this and instead demand “order”.'

I would say it slightly differently; or with a different emphasis; "All Governance can ONLYoccur, with the passive or active nsent of the governed"; by which I mean, people can 'grumble' about the governments actions, and talk about it around the water cooler, etc. BUT, so long as they continue to go to work, and pick up some groceries on the way home, i.e. continue to be 'active' producers and consumers, BY THEIR ACTIONS, they are 'consenting' to being governed. If they STOP such behavior, (going 'on strike', 'civil society' breaks down; it all stops working. The Government, ANY government, NEEDS 2 things from 'the people' (governed); Active production, and Active consumption.
And its not even 100%. (You'd never get anything LIKE 100% of the people to agree on anything!) If as little as 25-35% of the people go 'on strike', the whole system 'breaks down'; and there isn't anything the Government can about it.
Your absolutely right; armed conflict is what they ARE fully prepared for, so 'storming' the castle, pitchforks waving, won't bring about change.
However, they CAN'T go 'door to door', and FORCE people to go to work, and shop. They can't FORCE people to 'go back' to being active producers and active consumers.
There are still far too few people, who have no idea about whats going on in Nevada. We have become 'outrage depleted'; Benghazi, Fast and Furious, O'bummercare, etc.People, (too many people) have just come to expect D.C to be corrupt, and Wall Street to be corrupt, and our political system to be corrupt.
But, the awareness IS there; you see it in the polls, on "Are we headed in the right direction, or off on the 'wrong track', with more people than ever before, a majority, saying 'off on the wrong track'. Its as if even those who are trying to bury their heads in the sand, are aware on an almost subliminal level, that SOMETHING is seriously wrong.

This situation in Nevada obviously isn't 'it', but something is going to cause the sheeple to wake up. People are 'conservative' by nature; we ALL tend to prefer the 'devil we know, to the one we don't; we have a certain amount of 'fear' of the 'unknown', and so will connue to live wi an unpleasent situation, because its prefereable to doing something, to bring about change.
And, we are inherently self-centered; as long as OUR ox is being gored, we 'go along to get along'.

Something LIKE O'bummercare, that effects a majority of people, and makesTHEIR lives more difficult, less certain, etc. MAY be the triggering effect.

Or, something that 'touches' them, and there is no way to judge what that will be. Remember the old lady on the school bus, who was humiliated by students, who then posted videos? (Outpouring of support, etc.) Every so often, ONE story like that 'stands out' amongst perhaps hundreds that don't. Its 'like' that; the 'Arab spring' took off becasue of video of a young boy, (fruitseller) who was killed by the police; probaly hundreds of similar events had occurred over the years. But THAT one, (like the old lady) uniquely got people's attention and outrage. At some point, SOMETHIN will cause the sheeple to wake up. No telling, in advance, WHAT it will be, and no way to 'speed' the process. But, no doubt that it WILL happen,either. Its just a matter of,....WHAT and WHEN. "Human nature" will assert itself, it always does. Jim

[rickoff]

I just got to thinking about whether or not Clive Bundy may actually be able to press a claim to ownership of the land which he has been using to graze his cattle. He may well have a legal right to claim this land under the law of Squatter's Rights, which appears to remain valid in nearly all the states. Here's a basic description of such rights:
-----------------------------------------------------------
squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sound familiar? Bundy has grazed his cattle on public Nevada land for a long time, and in open defiance of government orders to either pay grazing fees or shut down his cattle ranching operation. Remaining on land that one does not own without permission from the owner of that land is what legally defines a person as a "squatter." And if that squatter is known by the owner to be using the property, for any purpose, without the owner's consent, and uses the property for at least the required number of years stated in a state's law, then the squatter meets the requirements to lay claim to the land. The only recourse the owner can use to prevent such a claim from succeeding is to either have the squatter legally evicted from the property before such time as the squatter meets the required time interval to lay his claim, or (in some states such as here in Maine) the owner can have a sheriff post a legal notice at several places of high visibility on his property which forbids any such squatter's claim to be made. Such notice would have to be posted for a certain period of time (I think it is 30 days here in Maine) before the owner is protected against such a claim, and since the posting would immediately alert the squatter of the owner's intentions, the squatter could immediately file his claim if he has already met the requirements. Therefore, the owner would actually have no recourse unless such a posting, or eviction action, was carried out before the squatter met the requirements. You see, the reason why a squatter is afforded such rights is that he legally becomes what is called a "tenant at will" if he remains upon land, or in any building on that land, which is owned by someone else, without permission of the owner. And if the owner does not take legal steps to have that unwanted person evicted then the law says that the owner is tacitly in agreement that the squatter has a legal right to remain upon and later lay claim to the land when the required time period has passed.

Bundy has been using this property for many years, so would certainly meet the time requirement, whatever it may be in Nevada. And squatter's rights apply to public land as equally as they do to private property. Squatter's rights laws were first recognized and utilized in the United States around 1855, and have remained as viable law ever since.

[aljhoa]

-----------------------------------------------------------
squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."
----------------------------------------------------------------

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.

Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
Adverse possession is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions, viz: proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.
Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.

Cliven Bundy's Daughter, Shiree Bundy Cox, Explains Why the BLM Came for Her Father |


Al