It took six-days for the national press to release the video showing Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy ‘testifying’ about whether ‘the Negro’ or ‘Mexican people’ are any happier because of government subsidies. There is a reason the complicit media held that tape as long as it did.

They are protecting the Democratic Party – which should have received another black-eye, but didn’t. Instead the progressive media tried to discredit Libertarians and Conservatives by painting them as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ for supporting what amount to a fight over federal overreach.

The video hit the airways the same day the Republican Party of Louisiana filed a formal complaint with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Senator Harry Reid. The subject of the complaint was “Senator Harry Reid’s Use of Tax Payer Resources for Campaign Purposes” and deals with the use of Senate staff and facilities for support of political candidates and for campaign programs aimed against the Koch brothers with false and misleading attack ads in the last election cycle.

Chairman Roger Villere, of the LAGOP, sent a letter to the heads of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics — Senator Barbara Boxer, and Johnny Isakson — calling on the lawmakers to investigate whether Reid has engaged in “campaign activities using staff, equipment and facilities paid for with public funds.”

“Specifically, Senator Reid has violated Senate rules that prohibit Members of the Senate from using websites located on the Senate.gov host-domain for partisan political campaign purposes as well as the prohibitions regarding using official resources for political purposes,” Villere wrote. “Therefore, we respectful request that the Committee investigate Senator Reid’s misuse of taxpayer resources and sanction him appropriately.”

Reid is accused of using his official Senate website and Twitter account to attack the Koch’s, who are helping to finance TV ads against Senate Democratic candidates, including Mary Landrieu, and Louisiana GOP Executive Director Jason Dore says people have had enough of Reid.

“Americans are fed up with the type of hyper-partisan campaigning, and it is appalling that Harry Reid would use taxpayer resources to breach Senate ethics rules and pursue this kind of activity in his official capacity as Senate Majority Leader,” Dore said. “The Senate Ethics Committee needs to make clear this type of behavior has no place in the United States Senate and no one is above the rules, even the Senate Majority leader. It’s time Harry Reid is held accountable for his actions.”

Reid has criticized the Koch brothers on the Senate floor several times over the last few months, calling them “un-American” for spending millions of dollars on ads attacking vulnerable Senate Democrats for their support of the Affordable Care Act.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said the GOP’s latest tactics show that Republicans have a “blind obedience to the shadowy, billionaire Koch brothers.”

“Republicans rushing to defend the billionaire Koch brothers is just further evidence that when the Koch brothers say, ‘Jump,’ Republicans ask, ‘How high?’” Jentleson said.

These new charges fall on top of allegations about the senior Nevada Senator funneling $31,000 in campaign money to Ryan Elisabeth for holiday gifts. It was ultimately revealed Ryan Elisabeth is actually Ryan Elisabeth Reid, the Senator’s granddaughter.

Reid decided after the allegations surfaced to reimburse the campaign.

“I thought it would be nice to give supporters and staff thank-you gifts that had a personal connection and a Searchlight (Nevada) connection, but I have decided to reimburse the campaign for the amount of the expenditures.”

Reid has also been in the news recently after stating that the ongoing struggle between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management wasn’t ‘over,’ then calling Patriots and Minute Men who came to ranch to support the embattled cow herder “domestic terrorists.”

The recent uproar over armed Bureau of Land Management agents descending on small ranch operation in Southern Nevada is shedding light on the fact that 40 agencies, including some not typically associated with law enforcement, have armed divisions. Agencies like the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board now employ armed officers.

Flashback to 2008, when then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama announced his plan to build a massive “civilian national security force,” claiming it would be just as well-funded as our military forces. Today, there are over 120,000 armed federal agents who work for those 40 same agencies.

Following the Bundy Ranch stand-off in Nevada, Texans are becoming concerned about the Bureau of Land Management’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover of privately held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, is making the matter a campaign issue.

“In Texas, the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit,” Miller says, “The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller is talking about the 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations and is now looking at using the case to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and it would fall under federal control. Since 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there has been a controversy over the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.

The boundary is supposed to be the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River. But the river has moved over time. And the BLM is trying to exploit this natural fact to seize the land.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river.

In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas Farm Bureau produced a video explaining the problems left open by the current border definition from Texas’ perspective. The TFB claims Oklahoma believes when the river shifts south, the state line moves south.

But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Meanwhile, as the two states squabble over the definition, the BLM is positioning itself to move in and confiscated all the land in question.

This federal overreach is not isolated to the lower 48 states.

Take the tiny mining town of Chicken, Alaska, home to 17 residents, which was raided by armed officers from the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force in late August 2013. The two agencies claim they were looking for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

The task force’s methods are being questioned by Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski

“Their explanation — that there are concerns within the area of rampant drug trafficking and human trafficking going on — sounds wholly concocted to me,” said Murkowski.

“This seems to have been a heavy-handed and heavy-armor approach,” she added. “Why was it so confrontational? The EPA really didn’t have any good answers for this.”

The EPA continues to refuse explain why it used armed officers as part of what it called a “multi-jurisdictional” investigation of possible Clean Water Act violations.  The task force was made up of members of the EPA, FBI, Coast Guard, Department of Defense, the Alaska Department of Public Safety and Department of Environmental Conservation.

Meanwhile the EPA is in the process of seizing control over all private land in the U.S., following the United Nations blueprint, Agenda 21. Last Tuesday, the agency unveiled proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that will extend their regulatory control to temporary wetlands and waterways.

The new definition consists of any water, including seasonal ponds, streams, runoff and collection areas and irrigation water. It will also include runoff from watering your lawn, or puddles on your own property.

They are expanding the same kind of California fish-based drought or Nevada tortoise land restrictions or Oregon spotted owl ‘protection’ to every square inch of this nation. The EPA’s proposal extends their authority to include “pollution regulations” to “intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands” — which are created temporarily during wet seasons or following rainfall.

Their position is in direct violation of the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006, restricting the EPA to flowing and sizeable, “relatively” permanent bodies of water such as “oceans, rivers, streams and lakes.”  The proposed rule change is now in a 90 day comment period during which they will assess just how much they can get away with, based upon public outcry and pushback.

If this goes through, they will control your right to the water and your actions about water upon your own land, leaving them open unlimited abuse.

When I first read about this, I was sorely disappointed — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy making offensive comments about Black people to the New York Times. But Progressives, Libertarians and Conservatives have been far to quick to jump on the statement, either blasting him publicly or back-off their support for the embattled cattleman.

Lawmakers who have in the past voiced their support for the rancher, including Senators Dean Heller and Rand Paul, have quickly distanced themselves from the comments.

“Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” Heller’s spokesman wrote in an email.

Paul’s spokesman said in a statement, “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”

Even die-hard supporter, Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore got ahead of herself, posting on her Facebook campaign page:

“I strongly disagree with Cliven Bundy’s comments about slavery,” she wrote. “Mr. Bundy has said things I don’t agree with; however, we cannot let this divert our attention from the true issue of the atrocities BLM committed by harming our public land and the animals living on it.”

But there is one thing to consider before jumping ship – the article printed in the NYT and used as ‘race-bait’ by pundits and politicos, is out of context. Bundy said much more and not all of it is about Black people.

Bundy spoke at what appears to me to be an outdoor church gathering last Saturday, after all he had on what my Grandpa called ‘Sunday-go-to meeting,’ clothes.  Finally, after watching the three-minute, 13 second grainy video several times, I did what the rest of the media should have done and transcribed it in its entirety:

“… and so what I’ve testified to you — I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the Negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy — so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom — they got less family life, and their happiness — you could see it in their faces — they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips — so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.”

Then yesterday, Bundy spoke to radio talk show host Peter Schiff, setting the record straight about what the NYT’s had published.

“That’s exactly what I said,” Bundy stated. “I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do?”

“And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies,” he added. “I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”

It’s sad to think that so many intelligent people tend to believe the first thing they hear or read and never  look any further than what has been spoon-fed to them by a lazy press and political system that operates on half-truths. Only with ALL the facts can you really begin to know the truth.

In order to know where we are heading, we have to remember where we’ve been. Thus, the importance of history.

The Bundy Ranch stand-off in Southern Nevada isn’t the first public fight over property rights in Nevada. A battle between the Bureau of Land Management and the Western Shoshone tribe in Northeast Nevada ended with far different results.

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1863 between the federal government and the Western Shoshone tribe included the use of 43,000 square miles of territory extending north from the deserts of Southern California, across much of Nevada, and into South central Idaho, and East into Utah. The treaty gave Shoshone permanent use of land in exchange for “peace,” so that the “Union of the United States” in the midst of Civil War, could guarantee the flow of gold out of California to points East.

Shoshones agreed to end warfare with settlers and the U.S., and to allow transportation and telegraph wires through its territory. Shoshone say the 1863 treaty did not sell their land to a government, but instead secured their rights to own and occupy.

However in 1934, the federal government passed the Indian Reorganization Act, saying that federal recognition and support would depend on the creation of ‘tribal’ governments based on a model devised by the Secretary of the Interior. Unfamiliar forms of governance were then superimposed on traditional Shoshone decision-making, creating artificial divisions and aggravating existing disputes.

In 1946 an act of Congress created the Indian Claims Commission, to investigate suits by Native Americans against the US for illegitimate taking of their land. In 1962, the Commission ruled against a Shoshone suit, stating:

“The Indian title to the Western Shoshone land was extinguished by the gradual encroachment of settlers and others and by the acquisition, disposition or taking of said lands by the US for its own use and benefit or that of its citizens.”

In 1966, without the participation of the Western Shoshone people, the federal government arbitrarily set July 1, 1872, as the date of valuation for Western Shoshone land, and determined that compensation should be paid for 24 million acres.

The federal government paid the tribe $26 million in 1983 through a trust, or $1.08 per acre. Today the amount is $250 to $1,000 per acre.

Furthermore, the tribe has yet to draw on any of the money.

About an hour southwest of Elko, in Nevada’s Crescent Valley, the Dann sisters lived peaceably on a plot of land, raising horses and cattle. Unfortunately, their ranch butts-up against a large gold deposit.

The federal government permitted gold mining at Cortez in 1969. In 2010, the latest available figures, 1,140,000 ounces of gold had been removed from the land.

In September 2002, BLM agents swooped in and seized 227 cattle from their ranch, where the pair were raising cattle and horses on land purchased by their father Dewey Dann in the 1930s. In December 2002, the Danns were ordered to remove remaining livestock, 250 additional cattle and 1,000 horses, and they were charged with trespassing on public land.

They were served with $3 million in fines for past due grazing fees.

Carrie Dann says, “I was indigenous and in one single evening they made me indigent. If you think the Indian wars are over, then think again”.

The Dann sisters did not transfer grazing permits into their name from their late father, Dewey Dann. Instead, they argued that their land was within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone and therefore live under territory rule.

The federal government however claimed the land was public and purchased from the Western Shoshone in 1979.  The BLM, then served the Danns warrants, and followed through with their warning to auction off their remaining livestock in January 2003.

The sisters sued the BLM to prove rightful ownership of land, but watched as agents removed their cattle and horses on January 18th. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the Danns received no money for their land, it was still theirs, but the ruling was overturned in the Supreme Court, using a “bar clause” stating that Indian Claims legislation denotes; when money is paid for land, its use and rights to use are forever barred.

According to the Supreme Court, the Shoshone land had been gradually encroached upon and it no longer belonged to the Dann Ranch.  Furthermore, the BLM claimed that the Dann livestock caused irreparable damage to the countryside due to over grazing.

“Grass grows back, but mining causes irreparable damage to the earth,” commented Carrie Dann.

Their struggle was the cause for a handful of protesters to fight along with the grandmothers, but their case also acted as a smoke screen for the what the government was planning. On September 24^th, 2003, HR 884 made its way to the Resources Committee, which aimed to pay out Western Shoshone land for expansion of the Cortez and development at Yucca Mountain.

Shoshone tribe elders met in Washington DC one month earlier to at least place “hold” on the Bill, but their request was ignored.

Mary and Carrie Dann sued the United States government for violating their rights. The Nevada sisters said the U.S. used illegal means to gain control of Native American ancestral lands by slowly encroachment by industry and private landowners.

The U.S. government says it paid the Western Shoshone Nation for its use of their land in 1979, and has since privatized millions of additional acreage. The Western Shoshone Distribution Bill, HR 884, signed into law by President George Bush in July 2004, relaxes the territorial rules held by Shoshones for 150 years.

About 26 million acres transferred to the federal government and is ear-marked by the BLM for mining minerals, storing nuclear waste, and for geothermal energy production. This includes Yucca Mountain, a historical and spiritual area for Shoshones.

In the late 1970s the U.S. government started using Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste, but it since has maxed-out capacity with 77,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. All except 2 percent of U.S. nuclear waste was earmarked for Yucca Mountain with HR Bill 884, beginning in 2010.

The Obama Administration has since placed a hold on operations at Yucca Mountain, albeit for far different reasons.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found the U.S. government violated the Dann sisters’ rights, although did not state that the Dann sisters owned land. The Commission suggested an “effective remedy” should make sure respect for the Danns claim to their ranch of 70 years.

The Organization of American States human-rights commission reaffirmed land-rights use of the Western Shoshone Indian tribe, rejecting the federal government’s claim the Danns’ live on public land. It was the first time both councils charged the U.S. government with violating human rights.

Carrie Dann says she wouldn’t have sued the BLM had she known the court would favor the government.

The Dann sisters fought the federal government without the help from Human Rights Watch, or the American Civil Liberties Union. The two women committed themselves to preserving their ancestral land.

Mary died following an ATV accident on her ranch in central Nevada while repairing a fence-line on April 22, 2005. She was 82 years old. Mary’s niece, Patricia Paul, said her aunt had “died as she would have wanted — with her boots on and hay in her pocket.”

Two years later, Carrie was arrested with 38 others for trespassing at the Nevada Test Site at a Nevada Desert Experience event protesting governmental programs at the site. She continues with activities to try to end nuclear testing and programs at the site.

Carrie, along with Western Shoshone Defense Project and four other tribal and public interest groups, in November 2008, sued the federal government and Canadian Barrick Gold, seeking an injunction to stop the Cortez Hills Expansion Project on Mt. Tenabo, which the Western Shoshone also consider sacred land.

The case is pending.

“The lions may roar and growl, yet the teeth of the great lions are broken.” 3 Job 4:10 (NIV.) The 50 United States are those lions.

The Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility in Brooks, Oregon is burning aborted babies shipped from British Columbia to generate electricity. The British Columbia Health Ministry admits that “biomedical waste,” including “human tissue” and “fetal tissue” are being disposed of through the energy plant.

This news comes on the heels of a report from England showing that the remains of as many as 15,000 aborted babies were incinerated by British hospital as a heating source. The aborted babies are incinerated as “clinical waste” in “waste to energy” plants at British hospitals.

Read Jeremiah 19:5 and see what the Bible has to say about this practice.

A busy Reno intersection had to be shutdown following reports of gunshots. Authorities say they came from a vehicle that drove into the lot and parked in front of the Corner Minit Mart at Mill and Kietzke.

It began about 7:30 p.m., when gunfire was heard along I-580. They were first reported by officers with the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation, who notified the Nevada Highway Patrol.

Three people are in custody. Its unclear what they will be charged with.

Reno police say no one was hurt and the roadway reopened an hour and a half later. Earlier reports of a standoff inside the mart are incorrect.

Ed. Note: My wife’s store, Port of Subs, is next door to the Corner Minit Mart. She was not there at the time and her two employees are okay.

Senator Harry Reid is getting slammed on his public Facebook page, following statements made about the Bureau of Land Management’s handling of Cliven Bundy’s Ranch.  Reid, who is tied to at least two financial interests in the BLM’s action against the cattle rancher, recently stated the situation is “not over.”

Since then Reid’s Facebook page, has been swamped by people who have very little nice to say too him or about him. For me, level of anger shown in regard to the Bundy Ranch situation provides a telling insight into the prevailing public sentiment.

A downtown tour of Las Vegas with Zappo’s Chief Exec Tony Hsieh, last Tuesday was met with less than 100 ‘likes.’ Many used the posting to express how they feel towards the senior Senator from Nevada.

“Creep! Creep! Go to jail….hang from the peoples rope,” wrote one man. “You are a criminal. I cannot wait until I hear the sound of your neck in a gallows.” Another, this one from a woman, was short and simple: “Harry Reid is a political terrorist.”

Unfortunately, it seems the social site is carrying Reid’s water for him now by censoring other sites.

Last Thursday, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes got tripped up by Facebook’ ever changing community standards.  His post was removed after he wrote something about Bundy’s cows.

“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”

According to Starnes, “I realized I had landed in the Facebook gulag when I tried to post our daily Bible verse.  However, I was unable to post anything because Facebook had taken great offense to something I had written.”

Starnes is quick to point out that Facebook has the right to censor him since it is their company but adds they should be unbiased.

“And while they may censor conservative and Christian postings, Facebook is quite welcoming and affirming to leftwing diatribes against Republicans, religion and the Tea Party,” he writes.  “I just wish the folks at Facebook were a bit more tolerant — and diverse.

However, Starnes isn’t the only online casualty of free speech and opinion. The group “Oath Keepers” found themselves offline after putting out a new call for more Patriots and Minute Men to come and stand watch at the Bundy Ranch.

“We need boots on the ground,” Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes posted, “We want you here, standing watch, which is appropriate for us Oath Keepers since our motto is “Not on Our Watch.”

Since then the site has been re-activated and a new message sent by Rhodes, explaining what happened. They have since resorted to a back-up communications system at oath-keepers.blogspot.com.

The timing of these three events is curious — considering they all happened shortly after a call to action, on news and pictures showing the cows killed by the BLM and word of Reid‘s underhanded dealings with regard to the land.

Jeremiah was called to prophetic ministry around 626 B.C., where he wrote, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal –something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”  Jeremiah 19:5 (NIV)

In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet was preaching judgment against Judah. Jeremiah was concerned about the nation worshiping Baal, the god of the rain, thunder, fertility and agriculture.

King Josiah began a religious reform in Judah at about 622 BC.  When Jeremiah received his call to be a prophet, he spurred Josiah’s reforms on.

But after the death of Josiah, Jehoahaz was placed on the throne but the Egyptians took him into exile after only three months. The Egyptians then made Jehoiakim king; he allowed the swift deterioration of Josiah’s reforms.

Many abuses had found their way into the life of the people. Outspoken heathenism had been introduced by such men as King Manasseh, even the sacrifice of children to the honor of Baal-Molech in the valley of Hinnom, and the worship of “the queen of heaven”

The Egyptians were eventually toppled by the Babylonians (present day Iraq) at in 605 B.C. The Babylonians then laid siege to Jerusalem.

Because the King failed to repent Judah was eventually sacked around 586 B.C., by the Babylonians.

From the time Jeremiah began prophesying to the downfall of Judah, only 40 years passed. The length of time becomes important when you learn that in March 2014 the UK Telegraph reported: The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals.  At least 15,500 fetal remains were incinerated over the last two years alone while he mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

And while the above news story regards the spiritual health of Britain, the U.S. is no better shape.

A New Jersey family is suing the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District and its superintendent, seeking to have the phrase “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance that students recite every day. A lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Monmouth County on behalf of the family, who wish to remain unidentified, and the American Humanist Association claims that the practice of acknowledging God in the pledge of allegiance discriminates against atheists, in violation of New Jersey’s constitution.

This should scare the hell out of you as it has me. Fortunately, there is still time to repent and turn back toward the Lord.

The Laney Cattle Company in New Mexico has used public lands for grazing since 1883 and in 1986; the adjacent Diamond Bar Ranch was acquired by the Laney family. Now the US Forest Service says they’re no longer entitled to do so, and has posted notices along the fence line of their property advising people not to attempt to enter the ranch.

Originally, the Laney property was 115 acres surrounded by 144,000 acres of public lands for which Kit Laney paid grazing rights. But after a “study” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the lands could not sustain his 1,188 head of cattle, the USFWS reduced his cattle herd to 300 head.

Then on April 12th, of this year, Laney was served with a notice that his ranch would be shut down within five days and his 300 head of “trespass” cattle removed from the land. Now they say that the cattle may be redeemed if the Laney’s pay the $40,950 cost of rounding up 80 head of cattle.

New Mexico’s “Brand Law” states that cattle cannot be transported across state lines without permission from the State Livestock Board. News reports say Catron County Sheriff Cliff Snyder notified the Forest Service the law will be enforced.

“I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Sheriff Cliff Snyder.

This comes just a week after Rancher Cliven Bundy experienced a similar situation in Nevada.

And it isn’t all about cattle and grazing rights either. Water is significant issue in for the Laney Cattle Company/Diamond Bar.

The courts have been siding with the USFS, stating that just because someone has been there a long time, doesn’t mean they have rights to use public lands or water. Laney attorneys used the Mining Act to show private rights to the water and land, but the court rejected the argument.

They are working hard to prepare their case for court yet again, this time with references to other cases, including the Wayne Hage decision from last year in Nevada.

There is also the endangered specie called the Gila trout. The same study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that showed grazing had badly damaged the wilderness’ streams and creeks, had also further threatened the fish.

In 2003, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Forest Service. In their court petition, they argued that grazing has been ongoing for at least five months, in defiance of a 1997 federal court order against the same ranchers who illegally grazed these National Forests in 1996.

“These ranchers are treating our public lands like their private property and defying the courts, while their cattle are causing untold damage to wildlife habitat,” said Dr. Martin Taylor, a conservation biologist with the Center. “I saw cattle destroying the few pools where endangered Gila trout were still hanging on during one of the worst droughts in history.”

And just like in the Bundy Ranch stand-off, Laney found himself arrested and jailed for five months after assaulting a federal officer. The Denver Post wrote in 2005:

“When the Forest Service slashed the number of cattle he could run, Laney refused to sign his permit and grazed his cattle in the wilderness anyway. When the Forest Service hired contractors to remove the animals, he confronted them, charging them on horseback and whipping one man with his reins, according to an indictment.”

Lands are being seized, and animals removed one way or the other.

And in Wyoming, BLM agents rounded up 40 wild horses before turning them over to state authorities. At that point, Wyoming officials sold to a Canadian slaughterhouse.

The roundup, which happened about a month ago, concluded with the sale of more than 40 horses to the Alberta-based slaughterhouse, bringing in a total of $1,640.

And though wild horses are protected by federal law, the BLM contends these animals do not qualify for such protection. Instead, the agency claims they are strays — having descended from domesticated horses about 40 years ago.

Colorado’s Cloud Foundation. Paula Todd King asked, “How long does a horse have to live wild and free before its considered wild?”

King may never get an answer because of biodiversity and Agenda 21, which came out of the 1992 Earth Summit, officially known as the ‘United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.’ Proponents of Agenda 21 want more than 50 percent of the U.S. to be set aside as “wild lands”, where no human can enter.

Presidents Bill Clinton, George H. Bush, and Barack Obama, through Executive Orders, have signed onto Agenda 21. In fact, many National Parks already have UN signs at their entrances reading: “World Heritage Site and International Biosphere Reserve.”

Obviously, the BLM, the USPS and the USFWS all have more than just a public relations nightmare on their hands, they are a part of the nightmare befalling the U.S.

Nevada gas prices are on the rise reports AAA.  The average price per gallon for regular unleaded fuel is $3.50, up 17 cents from a month ago, although it’s still down from the same time last year when it was $3.83.

Reno drivers are seeing the most expensive gas prices in the state at $3.75 per gallon, while in Elko, prices rose by 5 cents to $3.64. In Las Vegas, the average price per gallon is $3.42.

AAA says gas prices are following their usual trend of rising in the spring and heading toward a peak in the summer. Prices are expected to rise in the next month due to seasonal refinery maintenance and a mandatory switch to summer-blend gasoline.

“There is a reason why we typically see gas prices rise as the weather becomes warmer. Each spring, refiners must start producing their summer-blend gasoline by May 1, and that process is well underway,” said Rolayne Fairclough, AAA Nevada spokesperson. “Additional additives are put into the gasoline to make it burn properly, so that it will meet clean-air standards. The cost of those additives is passed on to the consumer.”

Of cities surveyed in the Lower 48 states, the lowest price, $3.29 a gallon, was in Salt Lake City. Los Angeles had the highest, at $4.26. The lowest price in California was in Sacramento, $3.95, with Eureka coming in 16 cents higher.

However, the average price of regular in California is now $4.16, up 19 cents from two weeks ago.

Industry analyst Trilby Lundberg says the average U.S. price of gasoline has jumped 9 cents a gallon in the past two weeks, bringing the total increase to 40 cents over 10 weeks.

The average for a gallon of regular is now $3.69. Midgrade averages $3.88 and premium is $4.02, with the national average price at $3.49 per gallon.

Meanwhile a new study, commissioned by the federal government, says that biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are actually worse than gasoline when it comes to global warming. The research published in the journal Nature Climate Change challenges the Obama administration’s conclusions that biofuels are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help fight climate change.

The study is being criticized by industry experts and Obama administration as being flawed. Both claim biofuels are better for the environment than are gasoline and corn ethanol.

A 2007 law requires they release 60 percent less carbon than gas to qualify as renewable fuel. They have struggled to reach the volumes required by law.