[Editor’s Note: The following post is by TDV contributor, Wendy McElroy]
President Obama seems to want a range war. On one side would be pro-gun anti-Democrat ranchers; on the other side would be militarized federal agents and local law enforcement. The proximate cause is the ongoing restriction of ranchers' traditional right to graze cattle on public land.
A range war almost erupted in April when agents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) laid seige to Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch. Helicopters hovered over 200 law enforcement agents; BLM snipers were strategically deployed. Bundy and his supporters pointed their own guns directly back and declared an intention to shoot if fired upon. The Washington Times (May 28) reported, “the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force.”
Obama considered using the US Military against Americans on American soil; and he did so over one man's refusal to pay grazing fees or cease to graze his cattle on public land. Of course, it was about far more. Bundy openly challenged the authority of the federal government, and he won…for the moment. Now Obama is taking the offensive in his own behind-the-scenes, manuevering fashion.
On May 21, Obama flexed his muscle under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The obscure Act gives the President the authority to restrict use of federally-owned public land in order to protect national treasures. Through an executive order, Obama created a “national monument” site that consisted of nearly a half-million acres in New Mexico. According to the protesting National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the area “encompasses 68 percent of public grazing lands and 9,000 head of cattle in Dona Ana County, threatening the livelihood of these family ranching operations.”
The President publicly said local ranchers supported the designation; the NCBA denies this. Obama assured ranchers that grazing would continue; the NCBA points to the monument proclamation which “excludes livestock grazing in the purposes section.” This gives “the managing agency the power to diminish or eliminate existing ranching operations in an effort to 'protect' the land.” The Antiquities Act specifies limiting monument areas to the smallest area that is compatible with management of protected objects; Obama ignored the 'inconvenient' part of the Act and grabbed a half-million acres instead.
The land grab came with a particularly chilling announcement. In a speech accompanying the order, Obama stated an intention to make “many more” national monument designations before his second term expires. Gold Butte in Nevada was explicitly mentioned as an active possibility. This is approximately 350,000 acres of public land in Nevada; it includes the land over which Cliven Bundy and his supporters almost went to war with BLM agents.
Obama's pointed reference to Gold Butte means he has not forgotten the challenge to his federal authority. Nor have other powerful Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly referred to Bundy and his supporters as “domestic terrorists.” The label is absurd. There is no valid parallel between a domestic terrorist like Timothy McVeigh who bombs occupied buildings and a family who defends their own home under seige. But Reid's label hints at the rationale with which federal agents could open fire the next time. Some of the public wouldn't mind:
Designating Gold Butte as a national monument risks a range war. Obama knows this. In April, Bundy went on Sean Hannity's FOX News show and declared himself willing to go to war against the federal government. But Obama has converted federal agencies into de facto armies under his command, complete with S.W.A.T. teams and snipers. Local law enforcement has been equally militarized.
In a June 8 article entitled “War Gear Flows to Police Departments,” The New York Times reported on Neenah, a Wisconsin town of 25,000 people where there has not been a homicide in over five years. It recently received a large number of armored “mine-resistant trucks.” One resident objected to obscuring “the lines between soldier and police officer.” He protested, “This is not what I was looking for when I moved here, that my children would view their local police officer as an M-16-toting, SWAT-apparel-wearing officer.”
William Pollnow Jr., a Neenah city councilman, also spoke out. “Somebody has to be the first person to say ‘Why are we doing this?’” It is a question more Americans are asking. Machinery is constructed to be used.
Obama already has the ability to authorize deadly force against American citizens on American soil, including the use of the military. Directive No. 3025.18 is entitled “Defense Support of Civil Authorities.”
The Washington Times (May 28) commented, “The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.” The directive identifies one of the circumstances in which the military can be employed. “Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions.” [Emphasis added] There is debate about whether public grazing land belongs to individual states; for example, Bundy argues the disputed land in his case belongs to Nevada. But national monuments are federal property.
A theory is gaining traction; namely, Obama wants civil unrest in order to justify sweeping measures such as gun confiscation. Noting the extraordinary militarization of virtually all federal agencies “under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials,” the Washington Times continued “[it] comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding.”
Such “theories” used to be preceded by the word “conspiracy.” But, when The New York Times and The Washington Times begin to ring alarm bells, it is well past time to become alarmed.
Wendy McElroy is a regular contributor to the Dollar Vigilante, and a renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at www.wendymcelroy.com.
What were on those 500,000 acres of gold anyway? In my blog for GoldSilverBitcoin, I pondered the question.
I found a report on the environment around the recently nationalized land in New Mexico. When I CTRL+F for key term "Gold", a section "low-grade gold and silver deposits (D16)" shows up. The very next result brings up:
"Copper resources are present at the Torpedo mine; silver, lead, zinc, and possible gold resources are present at the Stephenson-Bennett mine; and fluorspar resources are present at the Ruby mine (fig. 2). . The mineral resource potential for copper, molybdenum, gold, and silver is high in an area along the northern edge of the study area, where a porphyry coppermolybdenum system has been emplaced at the margins of a granitic batholith of mid-Tertiary age (see geologic time chart in the Appendix for geologic time terms). The potential for lead, zinc, copper, silver, gold, and fluorspar resources is moderate near the western edge of the study area, where steeply dipping, faulted Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are.
There are many other sections underscoring the mineral and commodity wealth in the area. How do the residents truly feel about this, despite Obama indicated the contrary?
"The controversy around a National Monument in Dona Ana County has moved from local to national input. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell came to Las Cruces a few weeks ago for a listening session on the 500,000 acre Organ Mts-Desert Peaks National Monument. The environmental supporters had ample time to get notices out to rally support for the large national monument. Supporters of a smaller national monument for just the Organ Mountains had only 2 days to notify the local citizens of the meeting. The Sun News did not report about the meeting until the day of the meeting. Buses were used to bring supporters from Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Silver City and El Paso. Consequently, the room was packed to over capacity with monument supporters and the Secretary may have left with a false impression that the majority of the local people were in favor of a large national monument.
I have developed an online petition for those opposed to a large national monument to make it known to the President, Secretary Jewell and as well as Senators Udall and Heinrich that there is not a consensus in favor of the 500,000 acre national monument.
In the New America, overnight, your livelihood could be stripped away at the whim of bureaucrats and politicians. Click here to learn about how to secure your wealth for a better tomorrow.
