Update: Here’s one of the Bundy children telling why her Dad is holding out.
Nevada’s land grab drama continues to heat up. Many many agendas in play here, but I tend to see them all as variations on the theme of the struggle between “bottom up” and “top down” power. Who has the power? The Individual or the State. The Individual or the County. The County or the State. The State or the Fed. And then there’s rumors(?), facts(?) that energy companies want the land for fracking and/or the military industrial complex wants it for god knows what. Then there’s the militia, Blackwater mercenaries in BLM costumes(?) and Agenda 21, oathkeepers, etc. What’s real? Hard to say, except we do know that this multigenerational Mormon ranching family has been saying the same thing for over 20 years, and that they really do believe they are right, and that the timing of this show-down therefore seems either suspicious or perfectly aligned with April’s growing tension of the cardinal grand cross.
It’s crucial that we not let this drama devolve into violence. That would play right into the hands of “the authorities” who would then use the occasion to further the concretization of the police state.
BTW: notice how this story finally knocked Flight 370 off the front page?
I watched most of a fairly lengthy new infowars video interviewing Ammon Bundy (son of stubborn rancher Cliven Bundy) that had Alex Jones interjecting, in his usual fulminating style, a number of times and curiously, for once, his style seemed utterly congruent with the intensity of the issues in play here.
Oops! I can no longer find the article with that video inside it. Go to youtube, and punch in “Ammon Bundy infowars,” and you will see that interview, which has been broken up into a number of shorter ones; or just go to infowars. Huge numbers of articles on this developing drama that pits the still wild west against the forces that would tame it.
infowars.com
0 thoughts on “Nevada Range Wars: Bottom up vs. top down power”
If we are going to be a nation of laws, BLM should balance the demands of their politically correct science with condemnation: i.e., (a) buy out Bundy’s beef on the hoof, (b) appraise and buy out Bundy’s grazing right contracts. But that’s never the mind set of those who prefer top-down regulation. They always first vilify the target population they’re going after, then pull the rug out from under conventional social contracts and practices through revising environmental assessment. Why not for once just try using the law of condemnation – eminent domain.
I’ve always believed eminent domain could be revised to become respected as a fair tool of public-taking by revising it’s most unfair elements of historic practice: (1) Level The Playing Field: Make government pay all court costs and “reasonable” legal fees of the condemned. That one change would do more to insure peaceful solutions to public taking and avoid courtroom entanglements than anything else I can think of. (2) Full Disclosure: Require open disclosure of both parties of all information and planning be placed in neutral escrow accessible by both parties (see more below). (3) Offer the condemned the higher of fair market value of the current highest and best use or the fair market value of the proposed future proposed government allowed/proposed use. The condemned has a choice. (4) Allow the condemned the right and privilege to render to the public a gift for public use, that public use sought by government in return for generous tax benefits should the condemned be so disposed.
This Bundy scenario was not making sense until this interview came out:
Now this starts to make sense:
This land broker probably has the right scoop:
“Rusty Hill a former Land Broker who worked in that area for nearly 20 years issued this to our news room — “It is not about turtles it is about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining weapons grade minerals for industry… they want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it’s close to I-15 and the Bundy’s have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for over 20 years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years. It is prime real estate not worthless desert. There is a natural gas pipeline going through there and lots of water under ground too. Somebody connected to a military corporation is using political power and the BLM to muscle those people out.”
“BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch “We bring you now the latest from the Bundy Ranch, where the militia has arrived”
If BLM where going to be held accountable under my proposed suggested 4 rules of Leveling the Playing Field, all this information coming forth now: Fracking interests, Water, Lobby efforts by Corporate Entities and government agencies and politicians, politicians by name who address or correspond on the issue with the government agency, Military Contracts, Hired Government Contractors … all… this information and costs, and dollars expended, donated and applied, would be placed and/or disclosed into a neutral escrow for the parties in the condemnation suit for full knowledge of long term intent behind the taking. Now I do not expect top-down planners, to like my 4 suggested rules of condemnation suggested above, but it will be in the true public interest in the long run.
Why is making changes to Eminent Domain important: So this kind of talk need not come to pass:
http://youtu.be/ncLjvoTa0Xw
Thank you SO much Rich. Would you mind if I made your highly skilled and deeply thought through comment its own post? If so, I’d like to title it something like “Could these new rules, proposed for “eminent domain,” regenerate the Commons?” — by which you and I mean the common field of inquiry and exploration, the common field of harmony and good feeling, justice, compassion relationship. I’d like to call “culture” the field in which relationships are cultivated, sowed, tended, and harvested, over and over and over again, each aspect of the cycle recognized, honored, and let go of, all in due time.
Let me know if I can make this comment a post, and if you’d rather it have a different title that that proposed above, tell me what you’d prefer. Thanks again!
Yes. That’s very inspirational approach and better expresses the new attitude needed. Brilliant dear one…. rich