Rule of Law Comes From Constitution - Not Agency Regulations

Progressive hypocrites make me ill, like the blogger that writes for Newshounds, which focuses upon Fox News and not the corporate, political media in general. The author, simply known as “Ellen” - has declared:

We watch Fox so you don't have to!

Meanwhile, media like NYT, MSNBC, et cetera reports on news that will not interfere with their personal ideology, and literally, is the mouthpiece for progressive government instead of the eyes and ears of the people to help keep track of government and constitutional law. The media that stands against corruption is persecuted instead.

Here is the gist of what has become known as the Bundy Standoff. …

The issue with Cliven Bundy, southeastern Nevada, is a 20-year legal with the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), beginning in 1993 when Bundy refused to pay bills allegedly owed to the Feds for grazing his cattle on federal lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. IN April of 2014, BLM sent an armed force and with the help of contracted ranchers, rounded up any cattle found on federal “public” land, ordered by the US District Court for the District of Nevada. They were confronted by protestors, some who were armed in support of Bundy.

Up to 1993, Bundy was grazing legally in the area called Gold Butte in Clark County, Nevada. Then court orders, injunctions and notices began to appear, and Bundy refused to accept fees for grazing since his family had used that land for grazing at least twenty years before the Desert Land Act of 1877.

Ellen at Newshounds contends that Bundy is wrong and not adhering to the rule of law, but the rule of law is the Desert Land Act of 1877, passed by the US Congress – not regulations passed by BLM. 

We’ve written a lot about Fox News’ latest cause celebre – the championing of lawbreaking Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the demonization of federal officials trying to enforce the law – and the $1 million bill owed to American taxpayers - Bundy has flouted for over 20 years.
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/fox_news_concern_for_government_overreach_in_bundy_ranch_case_not_seen_for_people_of_color_and_occupiers_04202014#eKIU20ZxmgBRuYAi.99

 We’ve written a lot about Fox News’ latest cause celebre – the championing of lawbreaking Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the demonization of federal officials trying to enforce the law – and the $1 million bill owed to American taxpayers - Bundy has flouted for over 20 years.

We’ve written a lot about Fox News’ latest cause celebre – the championing of lawbreaking Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the demonization of federal officials trying to enforce the law – and the $1 million bill owed to American taxpayers - Bundy has flouted for over 20 years.
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/fox_news_concern_for_government_overreach_in_bundy_ranch_case_not_seen_for_people_of_color_and_occupiers_04202014#eKIU20ZxmgBRuYAi.99

The major issue is that the federal government should not own land within a state. The Feds call it public land, but want to charge citizens for using it.

As I wrote last night, Harry Reid called the armed supporters “domestic terrorists” because one of them, a former Arizona sheriff, announced on video, played at least twice on Fox News, “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

None of the videos show women up front except those that pushed past the men standing in the front lines of the protest group. 

Those were federal ranger officers. Local sheriff did not get involved.

All the Federal range laws concerning public grazing fall under:

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934

National Environment Policy Act of 1969

Endangered Species Act of 1973

Federal Land Policy [regulation]

Management Act of 1976

With those congressional acts, ranchers do not have any legal right to graze on “public land”. Is it really public land, if the federal government forces fees for its use. Does cattle harm or endanger turtles in the area?

Permits are required and must be renewed every ten years and can be revoked during a drought.

Unfortunately, for the Feds, there is no “proof” and his arguments were lost to court decision.

Recently it was reported that the son of Senator Harry Reid had closed a deal to sell Nevada land to a Chinese solar company for one-third its value.

Rancher Bundy cannot graze his cattle on “public” land, but can sell said land to foreign entities.

What's wrong with that picture, and what about the turtles?

Fortunately despite the presence of Nevada militia and armed protestors – no violence erupted into any gun fire from both sides. Reportedly, the cattle was returned, but some calves are ill and may die because they were separated from the cows.

Of course, some neighbors in the area say that Bundy is wrong and fear another Waco or Ruby Ridge incident. There was a scuffle at one point, but injuries were minor – but it led to further resolve by the protestors guarding the area.

It appears that this issue has become personal to Senator Reid.

The standoff has ended, but the Nevada militia remain in the area.

The gist of the issue is principles and the continuing growth of power and control of the federal government, most unconstitutional under the limited powers articles. The Feds exercise one law and ignore another and only abide by constitutional law when it suits them. Regulations is not “the rule of law” - which I tried to briefly explain to Ellen at Newshounds and got the normal progressive reaction. But then again, how can one take a blogger seriously who focuses upon only one media entity – Fox News, when there are several out there that is selective what they report, lost objectivity, and is politically motivated to manipulate events and their reports to match their political ideology.

For decades immigration laws have been circumvented and ignored – not enforced effectively by the executive branch or the legislative branch. Regulations are not the “rule of law” - because Congress has allowed and executive chiefs have allowed or order their agencies to have more power than authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

So, whether you agree with Bundy (who is right under the Desert Land Act of 1877, but wrong under the more recent pieces of legislation and unconstitutional regulations) or not; one thing that has brought the anger of citizens and siding with Bundy is that:

• The federal government ignores state rights.
• The federal government has not fully enforced immigration laws and other laws pertaining to the issue of invaders crossing our borders with intent to occupy and claim rights the same as legal citizens have.
• The federal administration has broken their own laws in the case of Fast-N-Furious and caused the death of a Border Patrol agent and several hundred Mexicans by allowing firearms to illegally cross the border.
• The federal government will confront a US citizen, this rancher, with armed force – but does nothing about invaders from Mexico, many of which are part of the drug cartel; and does not confront the Mexican government on the issue.
• The federal government does nothing about the fraudulent identification ring that is providing illegal aliens false documents and identification.
• The federal government sends our troops to foreign lands to establish law and order and protect their borders – but will not protect ours.

People are siding with Bundy because the federal government has become the same tyranny that caused colonists to rebel against England and secede from its authority. It is no wonder several states are seriously considering the move to separate from the Union. We do not need history to repeat itself. Slavery was the issue over state rights, and slavery is clearly wrong; however, state rights must still be considered and upheld because that is constitutional law – the “Rule of Law”, Ellen at Newshounds. Michele Fiore, Assemblywoman of Nevada states this plainly:

Epilogue: The people who side with the federal tyrants may wonder why the price of beef has rose so drastically; as in many cases, it all leads to a federal government that does not heed to constitutional limits of power and a tax system that is intrusive, unfair and unconstitutional. This is not about Democrats and Republicans in light of principles - for both are guilty to different degrees; it is about liberty and constitutional law.