Thursday, April 10, 2014

The Valley of Runnymede


John Lackland (so named because his father did not deed him any land) was the younger brother of Richard Coeur de Lion - the lion hearted - and usurper to the English throne.  He was wicked and cruel and his greed knew no boundaries.  His lust for money and power was insatiable.  He routinely had the leading men of his country tortured and killed in order to seize their wealth and exercise his complete and total dominion.

From the safety of Windsor Castle, John Lackland commanded the country people to drive their cattle into camp to supply his soldiers with food.  For the people of Wales, this was one act of tyranny too many.  They refused.  In retaliation, King John seized 28 sons of the chief families and imprisoned them.  With their blood boiling, the Welshmen flew to arms.  Their insubordination quickly resulted in the summary execution of the sons of Wales.  King John had decisively subdued a rebellion and secured his position as Lord and King.  Or had he?

The year is 1215.  The barons and lords have organized themselves into a great army.  In fact, they called themselves the "Army of God".  They will no longer be subject to the King and his tyranny.   They have sent their demands to King John, who, with great oaths and swearing, refuses to grant them liberties.  The Barons determine that if the king will not grant their petition, they will secure it by the sword.

Although a tyrant, King John is also a coward.  He fears being seized by the "Army", and sends word the the Barons that he will meet them at Runnymede, on the 15th of June, and grant what they desire.

The "Army of God" ascends on the Valley of Runnymede.  All of the great men of England are present - lords and barons and nobles.  They wear coats of mail and carry swords and lances.  They are there to obtain freedom and liberty.  They will not take "NO" for an answer.

The Barons produce a great parchment detailing their demands.  Upon its signing it will become the law of the land.  Amidst the vast legion of armed men, King John puts his name and seal to this great document, not even reading its contents.  It is the Magna Charta - the Great Seal - and it is the first document granting freedom and liberty to the people.

Tyrants, whether they take the form of a single Monarch or of a vast government, will never willingly give up their power and authority.  No amount of debating, talking or cajoling will cause them to release their iron grip on the rights of the people.   Their force can only be met by a united people demanding their liberty.

Our Runnymede may well be in a valley in Nevada.  Our Great Charter has already been drafted, signed and sealed - all that is required is an army, dressed in mail, armed with swords and possessing the hearts of free men.

* I wrote this about the current events happening at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.  I must admit that I do not think that the "mob" mentality that is currently being displayed will do anything to encourage or achieve liberty.  Restraint and strength, a discipline of the tongue, will always yield results worthy of truly free men.

42 comments:

  1. What "charter" are you speaking of? And why Nevada?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our great charter is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nevada, because federal troops and militia are gathering there as we speak directing the course of our country.

      Enola

      Delete
  2. Don't think so, Enola. I want to believe that this is going to mark a turning point-- but if it is, I fear it's in the wrong direction.

    What's going down in NV is barely a blip on the national radar-- I finally saw a blurb about it on the local news this morning-- and when it is mentioned it's being painted up as "wealthy rancher vs. helpless turtle."

    I seriously don't think the BLM boys are all that concerned about the tortoise's best interests. Otherwise it would not be so easy to buy grazing rights. This is, as usual, about money, power, and control.

    I think we're going to lose this fight. Dunno about the war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Further research indicates that, behind all the smoke and mirrors about land management and endangered tortoises, there are some pretty powerful natural gas interests pulling the strings.

      Hmmm... Wonder what's more dangerous for the desert tortoise-- cattle, or another fracking operation??

      We've heard this song before. Last time, it was the mine wars in Appalachia and Colorado/Wyoming. That one didn't end as badly as it could have, but it didn't exactly end well, either.

      Follow, unfortunately as usual, the money.

      Delete
  3. As judge judy often says "you cannot come into a court with dirty hands and expect the court to reward you". This is a poor case to take to the court of public opinion. Let's look at the facts as they are not as you wish they were:
    1. The land in question is public land administered by the BLM, i.e. the federal government.
    2. The rancher had been grazing his cattle on this land for years but at some point the BLM put limits on this grazing.
    3. The rancher didn't want to abide by the limits and refused to pay the fees for his use of public land.
    4. The BLM took him to court where the rancher lost his case and was told by the court to remove his cattle from the BLM land.
    5. The rancher refused to comply with the court order for years.
    6. The BLM tried everything to get the rancher to comply and finally resorted to removing the cattle themselves.
    Now how is any of this in any way similar to what Prince John did? Do you think the public land belongs to this rancher? Do you think the BLM doesn't have the rght and responsibility to manage the land? Congress did in fact establish the BLM and empower them to manage the land and all of it is fully constitutional and in fact unarguable nless you believe we should have no laws and no management of public lands.
    This might well be the worst fight to back since as I stated the rancher doesn't have clean hands. I watched the videos and it appears to me the rancher and a few outsiders are trying to gen up sympathy to the cause but legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the info, sounds like a big nothing....Mr bundy sounds a little shady..

      Delete
    2. The family was ranching there, grazing the land before the BLM was in existence. At some point, their land was "taken" for the "public good". Everyone always thinks this is great because they are the "public", so they back the government in what it does.
      Well it can happen to you, too. You can lose your house, just like the lady on the east coast did, because it is more lucrative for the city to have a developer put in ritzy apartments overlooking the bay, and bring in higher property taxes. More public good garbage.
      This man rightfully thinks the land doesn't belong to the federal government. I guess I agree with him.
      As for the turtles, Nevada BLM euthanized about 1000 of them last year.
      This isn't about turtles, as BLM says. It's about the last man standing who finally got attention enough to get help from fellow citizens.
      Just because a court rules on something, doesn't mean it's LAWFUL or Constitutional. Congressional authority doesn't mean it's lawful or Constitutional either. They could create another alphabet agency to micromanage your life, and in essence they have, but just because they do so, doesn't make it lawful or Constitutional.
      Also at issue is the First Amendment. There is no "zone" to the First Amendment. Just because law enforcement and the current administration says there is, doesn't make it so. These problems only get bigger when people roll over and just accept them as "lawful" and "Constitutional".

      Delete
    3. It wasnt their land, did they pay for it? NO..

      Delete
    4. The BLM claims the Bundy family hasn't paid their grazing fees. The Bundy family claims they have worked that land since prior to the creation of the BLM.

      I did a little research:

      1)The General Land Office was created when Alexander Hamilton was Sec of the Treasury, to oversee the paper work for homesteading land claims, before 1795.
      2) The Homestead Act of 1862 allowed settlers to farm land for a year to "prove" their claim & own the land.
      3) This was then modified & the acreage allotment increased to 640 acres per claim with the Stock Raising Homestead Act.
      4) Before 1880, the Bundy family claimed & began to graze & ranch on their land.
      5) In 1934, the Grazing Service was established by the Taylor Grazing Act, in response to overgrazing & the range wars taking place over competing claims on the land. It seems most of the ranchers of that time preferred to settle their difference with a gun instead of paperwork, & were not adverse to burning down a courthouse or two to destroy records.
      6) In 1946, the BLM was created when the Grazing Service & the General Land Office were merged.
      7) At this point, the Bundy family had owned the land they were working for over 71 years. In most states, land can be acquired thru "adverse possession" after 7-10 years of use, without someone objecting. This is the law used when fences are in the wrong place, off by feet or hundreds of feet. So actually, under several different scenarios, the Bundy family very well could "own" this land. I suspect that somewhere along the line, the paperwork for ownership of the land was not carefully preserved, & so now we are in this mess.
      8) Check out the Drudge report for info on the son of Harry Reid being involved in a Chinese solar farm wanting land in Nevada - no great surprise that it is in the area Bundy is grazing.

      I don't think this is about the cattle, or the grazing, or the desert tortoise. I think it is about the almighty dollar and grabbing land that has been in the Bundy family for generations, to make an insane amount of money with a Chinese solar farm. I form that opinion based on the observation that within 24 hours of the solar farm connection hitting the news, the BLM was pulled back, citing safety concerns.

      -M

      Delete
    5. to 2150 comment:
      Many people owned land before the land was a state. Their ownership did not suddenly stop because the land became part of a state.
      The land that the blm claims that the PUBLIC owns, which I guess you think makes it belong to you (one of the reasons so many are foaming at the mouth wanting the Bundy family to go down in flames, literally), was TAKEN from them. Why do you think that was ever okay to do? Because it's someone elses and now you own a part of it as the PUBLIC?
      It's time for all you public school graduates to do some reading outside of what you were required to read as part of your indoctrination, otherwise you will someday find yourself fighting the same fight the Bundy's are, only over your home or your rights.

      Cowards die a thousand deaths, a hero only one -- Julius Caesar. There was a very immature song back in the early 70's which made it to American Top 40. It was titled, "Billy don't be a Hero". At least the hero did what was right, in the song.

      sidetracksusie

      Delete
    6. This a republic governed by LAWS and due process. Bundy LOST in court. You are out of gas on this one....

      Delete
  4. The u.s. constitution was doomed from the start with its rejection of GOD, we are just reaping what was sowed at the constitutional convention. Like Patrick Henry said "I smell a rat in Philadelphia..." Any document that allows religious pluralism, abortion, "no religious test" clause, etc.. is doomed..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this a joke? If the hand of God ever molded the founding of a nation, surely it was America.
      Montana Guy

      Delete
    2. Doesnt sound like a joke, there is some truth to it actually..

      Delete
    3. The hand of God molds everything...

      Delete
  5. Have we not learned anything from Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge Idaho? Right now (Friday morning) more than 200 federal agents surround Cliven Bundy’s homestead. Federal attack helicopters are in place. Federal snipers are in place with their high-powered rifles trained on Mr. Bundy’s family. Wake up folks!! The federal government’s Police State is Domestic Enemy #1. And state law enforcement persons who refuse to honor their oaths are #2.them.

    We have spent the last two days urging NV Governor Sandoval and Sheriff Gillespie to support their oaths and arrest the feds. We are supporters of Richard Mack’s Constitutional Sheriffs cspoa.org, Stewart Rhodes’ Oath Keepers oathkeepers.org and their Chaplain Chuck Baldwin libertyfellowshipmontana.com. ALL THREE will be standing with Mr. Bundy on Monday.

    Do not be surprised if the Feds provoke a confrontation before Monday’s gathering of Patriot leaders. It would be just like the Feds to plant some so-called ‘militia’ dressed in camo to start firing. Ridiculous you say? If so, what did you learn from the federal massacres at Waco and Ruby Ridge? What exactly must occur before you take a stand against the fed’s Police State?
    Montana Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why are they making such an effort with bundy? what he do?

      Delete
    2. You should read what anon at 0848hrs posted.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 0848 isn't a subject matter expert, please go do an internet search and decide for yourself.
      Another thing to keep in mind is this: the media has basically ignored this, WHY?

      Delete
    4. All of the land we now know as Nevada was ceded to the U.S. government in 1848 by treaty. Nevada became a state in 1864. Nevada’s constitution recognizes that all of the land not given to the state at that time is U.S. government land. The Bundy family didn’t even start working land in this area until the late 1880’s. There is zero legal or logical doubt that the land in question belongs to the U.S. government. It does not belong to the state as Bundy would have you believe and it most certainly does not belong to Bundy because of some silly claim of prior rights. You cannot claim “adverse possession” against the government. Bundy paid the BLM grazing fees until 1993 when he quit paying. In 1993 the BLM reduced the grazing allotment on the BLM land in question to 150 cattle. Bundy is an old fool who is trying to make the claim that the U.S. has no rights to the lands in Nevada and 100% of case law is against him. He lost his case in court in 2013 and this action by the BLM was by court order. Bundy is a rabble rouser and the armed people who showed up to help him are the rabble. This is a foolish mistake by these dimwits and I am afraid some people will get hurt. I hope the various nut cases and militias take their weapons and drive home safely without killing someone or themselves...

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your voice of reason!!!

      Delete
  6. ok, Bundy is a clown! he hasn't paid to graze his herd on PUBLIC land since 1993! What did he think was going to happen?! This is no Ruby Ridge...

    ReplyDelete
  7. To the anonymous poster of 0848 April 11: THAT is exactly the story the MSM would like to have passed around. I do not have boots on the ground any more than you (probably) do, but I have been researching the topic all day.

    The focus may be cattle, but they have long ceased to be the topic of this debate. The Bundy family has owned grazing rights and water rights to this land for a century. The BLM was initially developed as an agency to help the ranchers. When this ceased to be the case, Mr. Bundy stopped paying them "grazing fees" and tried to pay locally instead. The BLM successfully closed down 52 other ranchers and now has come for Mr. Bundy. He has decided to make a stand against the overreach of big government that is strangling us all. Many are choosing to stand with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. merryann, finally someone who get the seriousness of this persecution of a good American family and further trampling of our Constitution. While the number of comments here are small, I am frankly horrified by many them. Either a troll is cowardly planting anonymous comments or the apathy and ignorance of Americans is even worse than I imagine. In either case, The Federal tyrants had the audacity to post a sign reading, 'First Amendment Zone'. That alone should have been a Call-To-Action for every liberty-loving American! For this our Founders pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor?
      Montana Guy

      Delete
    2. To all that think the Bundy family owes them "the public" money for the use of public grazing lands, please do more research. This isn't any more about the BLM fees than it is about the desert turtle that the Nev BLM killed a thousand of last year. This man has been fighting the taking of HIS LAND for a long time. He must have felt like the lone ranger. This situation was blown out of proportion by the BLM.
      I can't wait for some of you to try to justify the horrible threat of force and write the Bundy deserved it because he didn't PAY to graze on land his family has grazed on since before the BLM.
      Please also do not forget the very serious First Amendment violation that the BLM committed when they set up Zones in which to practice it. There are no Zones for Free Speech.
      sidetracksusie

      Delete
    3. Would you allow someone to graze his herd on your land and he refused to pay you?

      Delete
    4. This isn't about grazing. It's about taking of land, lying about it (see the turtle excuse), an armed overreaction of the gov, trampling of the First Amendment, and States Rights.

      Mr. Bundy has tried to pay, but let's not forget the envirowackos had their turtle excuse, and that trumped grazing that had been done for a hundred plus years that had obviously done less to harm the turtle than the BLM did when they euth'd 1000 of them last year. They would have accepted his fees, because they didn't want him on land his family had used since the Mormons immigrated west.
      Do you understand what FENCE OUT is? Nevada is a fence out state, if you don't want grazing on YOUR land, you must fence your land. Why do you think the government is above the law?
      sidetracksusie

      Delete
    5. It can't be about "taking of land" because the land in question belongs to the federal government. They can choose for whatever reason to end a grazing lease.

      Mr Bundy didn't "try to pay". What he did was offer to pay Clark County who does not own the land. He knew they wouldn't take the money and he knew this would get him into trouble with the landowner.

      This is NOT about "FENCE OUT". The land in question is fenced and Bundy put the cattle there they didn't wander there. He did it knowing it would cause trouble and now he has trouble.

      The government isn't or shouldn't be above the law. But that's a red herring since this case has been decided by the highest court in Nevada and the government won. That's no suprise because the law is clear and the issues are not in dispute. Bundy is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills and he is going to take some uninformed people with him.

      Delete
  8. You do not "own"grazing rights on BLM land. Just the fact that Bundy thinks he does is part of the problem. Bundy doesn't "legally" get to decide when he can stop paying grazing fees. Jeeez! do you know nothing about the law? Bundy doesn't need to be "closed down". He could have done a number of things to change his business plan if he didn't want to pay the fees anymore. He could have purchased some farmland with water rights and raised hay to feed his cattle. This is an option a lot of ranchers choose to replace BLM land. He could have bought more ranchland to expand his own grazing lands. He could have reduced his cattle holding to what his land could support. There are other otions as well. Instead he threw a hissy fit and provoked a confrontation. He lost in court and now is trying to win by rallying people to his cause. I hope this doesn't get people killed. The militias who are introducing weapons and threats are nut cases and they will provoke a armed response. This is stupid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finally someone who understands the law....bundy is a freeloader no differrnt then an inner city welfare queen..

      Delete
    2. Dont insult the memory of the family at ruby ridge, by putting bundy in the same context.

      Delete
    3. Where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to own property, other than perhaps, the district of Columbia? Jeff

      Delete
  9. Where does it say it cant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about, "U.S. Constitution Enumerated Powers clause explicitly enumerates all the power the Federal Government should have - period!"
      The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Nothing has been delegated to the Feds that empowers them to do this.
      YOU are a great deal of the problem because YOU and the collective YOU that does not care enough to understand their RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, and to KNOW that the Constitution is a LIMIT on the Federal Government NOT THE PEOPLE.

      The Federal Government could own land right up to the point that land became part of a SOVEREIGN STATE. Look it up.

      At the very least where does law allow the feds to bring in hundreds of men with firearms, stun guns, and dogs to commit such an act of fear inducement!? We are supposed to just pay up, look away, just walk between the lines they give us, OR ELSE?

      This man has tried to pay his STATE, who is the lawful recipient of any fees for use of the land. He alone has been fighting this fight. The media is painting him to be some fanatic, but please go back and do read about how the Ruby family was maligned in such a manner. And no, I'm not insulting the fine Ruby family, I'm just stating that smear campaigns are effectively utilized by the gov and their pet, the msm. Just read the comments above to show it's true.

      sidetracksusie, more than a little miffed that so many have missed the point.

      Delete
    2. The point, that you think everyone missed, is you don't like the federal government and you think that this is the case you can hang your hat on. It isn't. The federal government owns the land, not the state, not Bundy. They can indeed legally decide who can use it and how much they can pay. There is considerable case law and legal decisions to support this. Bundy lost in court. You are being intentionally naive because you cannot accept that the state is not the arbitor in this case and because you are blinded by your dislike of the federal government. When the state of Nevada became a state the federal government owned the land. As part of the acceptance into the union the new state of Nevada wrote it into their constitution that the federal government had absolute ownership of all the lands they did not give to the state. Look it up!

      Delete
    3. Anon at 1812hrs, THANK YOU for your voice of reason!!

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous,
      Why don't you do an internet search to find out some new information regarding Harry and Rory Reid telling the BLM to change desert tortoise habitat boundaries to assist in a solar deal with the Chinese.
      As far as the federal government goes, ours is far, far out of control. I am of the prehistoric generation that was REQUIRED to pass a test on my state and Federal Constitution before I could graduate from high school. I am not naive, nor do I dislike the Federal Government. The federal government no longer serves the people, the people running the show in the federal government are their positions for personal gain.
      I guess when you are in a corner you can admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations. You call me naive? You think just because a court case against a citizen was won by the government that the ruling was fair, just or constitutional.
      I guess the citizens of Nevada will keep electing the dirtiest senator in history and people like Bundy will pay the price.
      Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, especially when greasy politicians are involved.
      sidetracksusie

      Delete
    5. This country deserves what it gets....

      Delete
  10. It is Sunday morning at the Bundy Ranch. Jack-booted BLM thugs discovered the real reason for the 2nd Amendment. If our government officials refuse to honor their oath to fight 'all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC', true American Patriots will.
    Montana Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real reason for the whole fiasco can be tracked to Dirty Harry Reid and a dastardly deal with the communist chinese to build a solar farm on that piece of Clark County.
      sidetracksusie

      Delete
    2. I'm not a fan of big government, but this is not the hill to die on...

      Delete
  11. The Federal government has no right to presume to own State land other than such ownership granted and enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. They have no authority to manage or own the lands in question. In fact, most all of the lands the Feds thinks it owns are actually State lands unless the State sold the land to the Federal government. This issue is an Article I, Section 8 issue related to the Tenth Amendment, which clearly says, "...to the States or to the people."

    As for the legalists and lawyer who preach about laws, all unconstitutional laws are by definition null and void as though they do not even exist. Sorry if that does not fit your agenda or unwillingness to take a stand at personal risk for justice.
    Montana Guy

    ReplyDelete