U.S. Attorney prosecuting the Bundy’s was fired by President Bush in 2007

U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden

U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden

The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to own state land unless for commercial activity around ports, for military bases under the forts doctrine, post offices and ten square miles around Washington D.C.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no constitutional authority to exist and must be defunded by the Congress of the United States. Ref: Article 1, section 8, clause 17. The federal government can only control land within the states but only with permission of the state legislature.

The U.S. Attorney currently prosecuting the ranchers from Nevada, the Bundy’s, (Ammon and Cliven) and others for their refusal to comply with unconstitutional laws, by trying to force them to pay for grazing licenses (on state land illegally occupied by the federal government) was originally fired by President Bush.

On December 7, 2006 – Justice Department official Michael Battle informed seven U.S. Attorneys with poor evaluations in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ), including Daniel G. Bogden the attorney from Nevada prosecuting the Bundy’s, that they were being summarily dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden of the United States District Court in the District of Nevada was then officially fired by President Bush from his position in the Department of Justice on February 28th, 2007 after failing to perfume his said duties as required, for poor performance evaluations and for lack of loyalty to the President of the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

This is the same man now leading the charge to prosecute ranchers in Nevada for trying to make a peaceful living operating within the confines of the U.S. Constitution who protected their personal property from unlawful rustling by said BLM agents.

Ranchers who then protected their families under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when BLM agents assaulted family members including the tasering of a pregnant woman.

The Obama administration and his DOJ team do not seem to want to follow the U.S. Constitution and are now using a former attorney fired by President Bush in 2007 to take out a family who are trying to bring attention to the unlawful and unconstitutional assault on state land and ranchers by the BLM.

How did this U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden get back into a position of authority to lead this unconstitutional assault on these American ranchers, with many now facing indictment and prosecution including the possible execution of a peaceful rancher by authorities in Oregon named Robert “LaVoy” Finicum ?.

He was rehired by the President Barack Obama on July 31st, 2009.

Wake up America. Your land your life and your liberty could be next.

I call upon Mr. Trump the next president of the United States to investigate, prosecute and punish any and all federal employees who could be unlawfully trying to violate the constitutional rights of the Bundy’s the Hammond’s and all ranchers in the western states and across this nation.

The BLM must be defunded and dismantled and all land currently occupied by federal forces returned back to state control.

The Hammond’s and the Bundy’s are now political prisoners of the Obama administration. They must be released immediately and damages must be paid to these families including the wife and foster children of Mr. Finicum.

15 replies
  1. CP
    CP says:

    For all the prattling you people do about the Constitution, it’s remarkable how little time you’ve spent reading it or studying how the courts have interpreted it. To wit: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the federal government authority to own land within state borders. It has been interpreted this way in a long line of Supreme Court rulings going back more than 150 years.

    The fact that you don’t want to hear it, or perhaps are completely ignorant of it, doesn’t make it any less true. You are simply wrong about federal land ownership, and not by a little. Read it and weep, if you have the courage.

    http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

    Reply
        • John Hackett
          John Hackett says:

          Case Law does not Trump the Constitution….just the opposite and we do not need anyone to tell us what it says….the Constitution is easy to understand if you read english…Articalm1 Section 8 Clause 17 spells it out very clear and a state is nit a territory. Once a yterrirory becomes a state,,,it falls under article one section 8….

          Reply
    • Parfie
      Parfie says:

      I found what you said interesting..here is why..

      The basis for your opinion is…the courts have interpreted it that way for more than 150 years? Would you consider the possibility that its you, who is not getting it? The reason I ask, is why should ANY court be able to “interpret” what is plainly, clearly stated? Then, on a separate issue..

      If our founding documents created 3 co-equal branches of government, why on earth would it be wise, advisable or sane to allow a co-equal branch to “rule” to give another “co-equal” branch more power?

      Our Constitution has been slowly and sneakily corrupted, long before we were born. We have tools available to fix this mess…lets do this!

      Reply
    • CSA AP Hill
      CSA AP Hill says:

      I for one have read that, and let me clue you in on it. For one read what it’s saying previously. It’s talking about statehood, and how it goes, so seems odd that in article 2 which is the actual article, not one, but says only ten square mile, and military outlets. Which the article your referring to is Article 4. But seems odd the founders would say one thing in one article, then completely change it in another don’t ya think? I do so that’s not what they did,. hence the before language, of your mentioned states then I assume the other property would mean the military bases, and not land. besides in my pocket Constitution it says bellow that; that article 4 which is the one your referring to was changed by the thirteenth amendment. So your wrong and so are those judges who’ve wrongfully usurped power to the federal Govt.

      Reply
    • Joseph O'Shaughnessy
      Joseph O'Shaughnessy says:

      Yes we do take the time to read it….Obviously you don’t speak english what it refers to is territories not States….

      Reply
  2. David Strutz
    David Strutz says:

    I totally agree with this article, it took the Bundy’s to bring the issues to national attention.
    As for Trump, his stance is to keep federal control over all the lands, therefore the BLM will never be defunded, and lands will never be returned to the states.

    Reply
    • John Hackett
      John Hackett says:

      Not true…TRUMP has a team that is out west now investigating what is going g on between the ranchers and the BLM and he will get it right. He is a smart man and he is getting the information about what is going on out there. Stay tuned…..he also realises that we can lose this country and we are very close to that happening right now…..our very freedom is at stake here and all you have to do is look at what is happening to the ranchers to see it.

      Reply
  3. sheila
    sheila says:

    I 100% agree! State land should be run by the state. Reparations made to all these persecutors families. Lands returned to these devoted ranchers.
    In God we trust and our Co stitution of our United States!

    Reply
  4. Val
    Val says:

    That’s the problem, courts are not free to “interpret and apply” laws to fit their agenda. Every law we have was debated and the original intent is determined within these debates. That is how the law is to be applied not based on flawed rulings throughout the past.

    Reply
  5. Dan Cosper
    Dan Cosper says:

    Lack of fact checking or purposeful omission?

    Regarding U.S. attorney Daniel G. Bogden. Your readers should be aware that: John Eric Ensign (R Nevada) nominated Bogden for that position and was not pleased with the dismissal.

    Bogden was one of eight attorneys dismissed as part of the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. When Bogden was fired, Senator John Ensign, who had originally nominated him, was decidedly unhappy, particularly after hearing explanations by the Justice Department of the reasons. Ensign commented: “What the Justice Department testified yesterday is inconsistent with what they told me. I can’t even tell you how upset I am at the Justice Department.”[4] A week later, Ensign said “I’m calling on the President of the United States and the attorney general to restore Dan Bogden’s reputation….Everyone in Nevada thought Dan had done a superb job….I believe a very good man was wronged and a process was flawed.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.