Far down in this article, I found the answer to the question that has recently been running around my mind almost non-stop. Do the Bundys actually know they have the Constitution on their side? Please read the following, which tells me that, yes, they do know!
It seems the writer of this article hasn’t a clue about the importance of what he has just been told, and apparently he doesn’t think it important enough to check out this simple little Constitutional fact that could change the direction of this country in a very positive way. (I hope you will all spread this information widely, because wide knowledge of this may protect not only the Bundys, but our country, as well.)
So what will the Federal Government do about this? We need to watch very, very carefully . . . the following is a portion of this article:
Refuge or Sanctuary
We approached the wildlife refuge at around 2pm, soon after a news conference had ended. As the media began to clear out, we entered the compound directly. A large pickup truck was parked with two men inside chatting with a group of people.
“Can we walk in?”
“Are you with media, supporters, militia?”
“We’re with media.”
“You’ve got a first amendment right,” one man told us. “I’m not going to tell you you can’t.”
Walking through the compound, we were surprised at its size. A small house marked museum, comfortable looking buildings with their shades drawn, and a considerable number of vehicles. As the Bundys were in a meeting, we decided to return to the people at the entrance, but then a truck emerged down the path.
We flagged down their truck, and asked if we could speak with the two men inside, both dressed head to toe in camo uniforms. They agreed to talk briefly.
“How would you like to be identified?”
“My name is John Ritzheimer,” the man with a shaved head stated. We had suspected as much. Ritzheimer, the notorious organizer of the anti-Mosque movement in Arizona, found his name splashed across headlines from coast to coast for making threatening statements toward Muslims in the wake of the Paris and San Bernadino shootings. He gives the impression of a man deeply troubled by the state of the world. He also appeared to be a small man, though quite nimble and spontaneous, having served, he claims, 11 years in the Marine Corps.
We asked him about about his response to the Burns Paiute press conference, which he could not speak to, having apparently not heard about, nor did he know the name of the local tribe itself.
“We’re out here in Harney County and Malheur Refuge—I’m not even going to acknowledge it as a national refuge—what we have out here is a group of patriots, ranchers that are very knowledgable about the Constitution, and are willing to lay our lives down and defend that Constitution.”
“This is not an ‘occupation,’” Ritzheimer told us. “We are liberating this land so that it can belong to the local community… We may be witnessing the beginning of the abolishment of the Bureau of Land Management.”
“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 clearly acknowledges to what extent the federal government can own land,” he told us. At that point, two trucks passed, stopped, and Ritzheimer got out to discuss safety with the arrivals.
While Ritzheimer was gone, we talked with his passenger, who identified himself as Blaine Cooper, also of the Arizona Patriot movement. Cooper recalled being present at the Sugar Pine mine and Bundy Ranch, and seemed ecstatic that the police had not intervened.
When Ritzheimer returned, he continued that the militias represented the ranchers who are “tired of being oppressed,” due to grazing fees. “We don’t want bloodshed. Nobody does,” he continued. “But if they want to turn this into another Ruby Ridge or Waco, we’re not going to allow that.” . . .
For those who don’t yet know what is stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here is what it says:
Here is what Kris says in her video: “This is not about the Bundys and Hammonds. It is about a Federal Government that is acting outside the Constitution. The Federal Government has no authority to own land outside Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17! Simply put they can only own the ten miles of Washington, DC, and the land required to operate forts and ports, [but only] with the permission of the States”:
Clause 17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
–And [by way of explanation]
Congress has the power to set up a national capital of the United States that is outside the jurisdiction of any state. (Congress used this power to create Washington, DC, on swampland along the Potomac River that was originally part of Maryland.) Congress also has ultimate authority over all federal military facilities, even if they’re located within particular states. And that “–And” means were getting almost to the end of this long list of Congress’s enumerated powers