Bundy v. The BLM Is It Over?

By TPATH Contributor
RoseAnn Salanitri

April 14, 2014 ~~TPATH~ Many are breathing a sigh of relief since the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) backed down in their attempt to relieve Cliven Bundy of his cattle and generational grazing lands in Clark County, Nevada.  However, the situation exposed a Pandora’s Box of crimes against the Constitution, as well as the will of the American people.  The list below is not meant to be a comprehensive one, but raises points we should all seriously consider:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) set up a First Amendment Area.    
Perhaps someone should tell the BLM that the entire United States is a First Amendment Area – every square inch, including the 600 acres in Clark County, Nevada.
The BLM usurped the law enforcement responsibilities normally saved for the States. Constitutionally, the highest law enforcement agent in the area should be the county sheriff, who is accountable to the voters directly. Additionally, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), adopted in 1976, stipulated that the BLM had to go through the county sheriff for any action that required law enforcement*. 
 

This begs the question:  do you know where your county sheriff would stand in such a situation?  If not, perhaps you better find out.
 

Congress never gave the BLM this type of law enforcement authority*.
It is reported that the BLM now controls over 60% of all the land within Idaho; over 70% of all land in Utah, and over 76% of all land in Nevada*. 
 

The only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are: Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. Therefore, this power grab is also a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which assigns all other rights to the states*.

*Many thanks to Pastor Chuck Baldwin for drawing attention to these facts.  Pastor Baldwin is not only a man of God but he is a constitutional scholar who was also the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate in 2008.
 

Putting the serious crimes against our Constitution aside, there are a number of other valid questions that should be raised.  For instance, why don’t the feds use this manpower that they garnered to use against our own citizens against those who enter our country illegally at our borders?  This is a hypocrisy that can’t be ignored.  Our borders are being continually violated by illegal trespassers and our border agents are encumbered with Rules of Engagement that fall significantly short of the Rules of Engagement that the agents employed in the Bundy standoff. Does our government consider our own hard-working citizens to be more dangerous than those entering our borders illegally – especially those who are rumored to be drug lords and Al Qaeda operatives?  Perhaps if you’re enemies of the state holding high-ranking positions within our own government, this point of view makes sense.
 

And, more frightening:  why were so many of these American agents willing to point firearms at our own citizens? And…who in the chain of command issued the orders to these agents to take such a militant stand against our own citizens; where did these agents come from; who trained them; and to what division of the military or law enforcement do they belong?

continue reading at TPath.org:

http://www.tpath.org/COMMENTARY_2014.php#Bundy_BLM