Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher [Archive]

Sdiver

04-08-2014, 22:22

Saw this on one of the talking heads broadcasts tonight. Looks like this has been going on for some time, but is finally coming to a head al-la "Ruby Ridge" style.

:munchin

Ruby Ridge-style standoff brewing as Bundy says he is prepared to be killed

A Ruby Ridge-style standoff is brewing in Nevada, where dozens of armed federal agents are closing in on cattle rancher Cliven Bundy over claims that Bundy has allowed his cows to graze illegally on government land, endangering a protected species of tortoise.

Vowing to take a stand for, “your liberty and freedom,” Bundy says he is prepared to be killed as authorities surround a 600,000 acre section of public land as a result of Bundy violating a 1993 Bureau of Land Management ruling which changed grazing rights in order to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

“With all these rangers and all this force that is out here, they are only after one man right now. They are after Cliven Bundy. Whether they want to incarcerate me or whether they want to shoot me in the back, they are after me. But that is not all that is at stake here. Your liberty and freedom is at stake,” Bundy said.

Bundy’s refusal to recognize federal authority over the land under dispute and his failure to pay tens of thousands of dollars in grazing fees stems from his assertion that his family’s history trumps bureaucracy.

“My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,” Bundy said.

Accusing feds of seizing Nevada’s sovereignty, Bundy says he has fought the battle legally, through the media, and is now gearing up to fight it physically.

“Armed agents are forming a a military-like staging area to prevent anyone from approaching the area,” writes Mike Paczesny.

Bundy asserts that his case is emblematic of how America has been transformed into a “police state,” labeling the government’s actions “pathetic”.

Hundreds of federal officials, aided by helicopters, low flying aircraft and hired cowboys, began rounding up Bundy’s cattle on Saturday as Bundy accused them of “trespassing,” adding that the impact will only serve to raise beef prices for residents of Las Vegas 80 miles away.

Feds postponed a similar raid in 2012 over fears the action would spur violence. Bundy has drawn a lot of support from the local community and protesters are heading to the area to demand authorities back off. Officials have created a taped off “First Amendment Area” where demonstrators can voice their concerns. A sign placed inside the area reads “Welcome to Amerika – Wake Up” alongside a hammer and sickle logo.

“The rights were created for us,” Bundy told the Las Vegas Review Journal. “I have the right to use the forage. I have water rights. I have access rights. I have range improvement rights, and I claim all the other rights that the citizens of Nevada have, whether it’s to camp, to fish or to go off road.”

Addressing the justification of seizing the cattle to protect a species of tortoise, Bundy stated, “I’ll never get it. If it weren’t for our cattle, there’d be more brush fires out here. The tortoises eat the cow manure, too. It’s filled with protein.”

The standoff has echoes of the 1992 Ruby Ridge incident, during which Randy Weaver, accused of selling an ATF agent two illegal sawed-off shotguns, became embroiled in a tragic confrontation with the the United States Marshals Service (USMS) and the FBI, resulting in the death of Weaver’s son Sammy, his wife Vicki, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan.

The story also brings back memories of New Hampshire couple Ed and Elaine Brown, who were involved in a nine month standoff with armed law enforcement and feds as a result of their refusal to pay income tax. The Browns were later convicted of “plotting to kill federal agents” because of their refusal to surrender and were both given de facto life sentences.

Link with video(s) .... http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/07/armed-feds-prepare-showdown-nevada-cattle-rancher/

Jim72

04-09-2014, 01:25

Farmers can be funny people, in Australia there's been a few instances of where they declare/create their own 'country' so don't acknowledge the laws of the land as they are not a part of it.....they mysteriously seem to take this stance when they owe others money, funny that.

Sdiver

04-09-2014, 18:07

Could this be the "Taser" heard around the world ???

Probably not, but it is starting to get "snarky" on the ranch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA&feature=youtu.be

:munchin

SFOC0173

04-10-2014, 16:11

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/expect-to-see-a-band-of-soldiers-militia-members-arrive-at-nevada-ranch/

http://www.infowars.com/20-cowboys-break-fed-blockade-in-nevada-retrieve-cattle/

Sdiver

04-10-2014, 16:23

Reports are coming out of the Bundy Ranch that some militia have arrived. Let's see what that brings.

One interesting tid bit from the below link, the beginning of the tape tells of one guy who says the Feds aren't pushing Bundy off this land just for the sake of the Desert Tortoise, but for something more, ie. water and mineral rites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfOVg5R4ngA

:munchin

GratefulCitizen

04-10-2014, 20:09

The State of Nevada should exercise imminent domain power and kick everybody off of the land.
Including the turtles.

Such an action would reveal the true motives of all the involved parties.

Oldrotorhead

04-11-2014, 06:45

Here is someone adding fuel to the fire. FWIW I don't think this is the start of a second revolution.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/10/militias-route-2nd-american-revolution-starting-bunkerville-nevada/

An area just outside of the little town of Bunkerville, Nevada, with a population of around a thousand people, may go down in history. This little spot in the desert may be compared with Lexington, Massachusetts, the site of the “shot heard round the world” – the first shot fired in the American Revolution. Because it looks like the second American Revolution may start there…and soon.

Yesterday, The Daily Sheeple reported that tensions were running high outside of Bunkerville. It seems that the US government, in all of their infinite wisdom, has declared war on a cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy.

In a stand-off that has been likened to Ruby Ridge and Waco, the federal government has now deployed armed agents in a case of what the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has deemed “trespass cattle,” escalating a 20-year battle over grazing rights and what actually constitutes “public land” use in Southern Nevada.

Cliven Bundy, a 67-year-old rancher says his family has worked the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s and that they were there well before the government’s Land Management Bureau ever came along. (source)

Armed federal officers have arrived to steal Bundy’s cattle and close down the land he is using. What’s more, they have declared a zone around the area to be free of the restrictions of the Constitution, specifically, the First Amendment right to assemble and speak freely. They’d like to keep their reprehensible actions quiet and out of the public eye. It’s really difficult to mow down a bunch of protesters ala Waco with the whole world watching.

Yesterday, tensions began to rise even further and numerous protestors were tazed and assaulted. (You can see the actions of those brave BLM officers on this video HERE).

It looks like tensions will rise even further because Americans have had enough.

Militias have been mobilized. It’s going to get real.

Bundy may be facing down a bunch of armed federal thugs but he’s going to be backed up by militia members from across the country.

This is the day that Patriots have been talking about and training for. They will not stand down.

CBS reports that militias from Texas, Montana, Utah, New Hampshire, and Florida will be standing with Bundy against the Bureau of Land Management.

If you aren’t a combatant, this doesn’t mean that you can’t participate in this revolt against tyranny. This is a call to action.

Here are the pertinent email addresses and phone numbers:

Bureau Of Land Management Phone Number: (202) 208-3801
Brian Sandoval Email Contact Form- http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Governor/
Brian Sandoval – Carson City Phone # - (775) 684-5670
Brian Sandoval Las Vegas Phone # -(702) 486-2500
Senator Dean Heller Contact Form -
Phone #’s For Heller – Reno: 775-686-5770/ Las Vegas: 702-388-6605/ Washington: 202-224-6244
Sheriff Douglas Gillespi - (702) 828-3231 or (702) – 828 – 3111
Email: Sheriff@lvmpd.com

(source)

Share information in support of these people who refuse to stand idly by while theft, violence, and tyranny occurs at the hands of the government. If we all spread the word, there is no way that another Ruby Ridge or Waco can quietly occur. We can combat the disinformation spouted by the mainstream media by publishing REAL photos, REAL videos, and REAL accounts of what is happening. We can keep the communication open and tell the world what the United States government is doing to its own people.

Share this and other stories through email, through social media, through links in the comments sections of mainstream news sites. Whatever you do, don’t wait for someone else to take action. Now is the time to speak up for liberty. Make this story too viral for the mainstream to ignore. Do not allow these brave people staring down the barrel of a gun to do so without our support.

The Bureau of Land Management has picked up a snake by the tail, and it looks like that snake is going to bite.

Dean Jarvis

04-11-2014, 14:59

Brush has a point. The rancher has been paying Nevada land use but not the Federal Government. What you're seeing from the reaction (or some might say over reaction) of the people is due to a history of the Federal Governments land grab out west.

You might recall when Pres. Clinton established the Grand Staircase Escalante. This also forced ranchers and their cattle off the public lands that they had been using for generations. The BLM went so far as to round up all the cattle and move them to Salina, a town about 100 miles from Escalante to auction them off. We're talking about the BLM taking the ranchers cattle and selling them before any due process. The people from Escalante showed up at the auction with cattle trailers and started loading them up. The BLM told the local sheriff to stop them. He asked what do you want me to do shoot them?

I work in the international shipping business. Soon after the Kaiparowits Plateau was closed I received calls to move Coal Hanlding Equipment to Indonesia to be used in filling ships that would tranport the coal to China.

Note the following:

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

Why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The unfriendly Utah natives might have spoiled his photo-op.

The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah already was in federal hands. Still, the land grab was sold as a move to protect the environment.

At the time, the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook Congress two years earlier.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

He's the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. James was found guilty of — and paid a multimillion dollar fine for — funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's presidential run in 1992.

Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan.

The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur, low-ash and therefore low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.

"The mother of all land grabs," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at the time. He has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the "Saudi Arabia of coal."

When Clinton signed the proclamation, he promised to exchange other federal lands for the land that was taken. But a fair exchange was impossible, Hatch said, since no other land in Utah had a trillion dollars worth of clean coal.

Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, pointed out that a large portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits Plateau within the monument belonged to the children of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres were set aside for development, and a trust fund was created to collect and hold all the revenues directly for the benefit of schools.

Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that because the land will not be developed, the schools stand to lose as much as $1 billion over the next 50 years. Phyllis Sorensen, head of the Utah chapter of the National Education Association, called Clinton's action a "felonious assault" and "stealing from the schoolchildren."

Stealing from children to reward Indonesian billionaires. How pathetic.

JJ_BPK

04-11-2014, 15:31

The State of Nevada should exercise imminent domain power and kick everybody off of the land.
Including the turtles.

Such an action would reveal the true motives of all the involved parties.

We don't need no stink'n motive..

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

Maybe Harry Reid does??

Bob45nm

04-11-2014, 15:34

A couple sites to explain what the uproar is all about.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/04/shiree-bundy-cox-on-the-bundy-family-allotment-that-was-bought-blm-background-and-public-lands-2834896.html

mark46th

04-11-2014, 15:57

I agree with JJ_BPK. I smell Harry Reid. It is not a very well kept secret that Harry Reid grabs land at every opportunity...

Sdiver

04-11-2014, 17:07

Sdiver

04-11-2014, 17:08

I agree with JJ_BPK. I smell Harry Reid. It is not a very well kept secret that Harry Reid grabs land at every opportunity...

Funny you should mention that ...

These stories have been popping up all this afternoon.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

:munchin

Richard

04-11-2014, 17:30

Funny you should mention that ...

These stories have been popping up all this afternoon.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

:munchin

YGBSM - Alex Jones, Mr Innuendo and America's Conspiracy Theory K-Mart. :rolleyes: There's a confirmed E5 source.

As for this so-called 'land grab' - this case has been on-going for two decades, and everything I read from sources other than the blogosphere's expectedly hyperbolic OMGOMGOMG self-proclaimed real 'merican defend the hearth bloviating say what is happening right now has to do with Mr Bundy's not complying with two separate court orders in regards to his family's issues with the BLM and the public lands he's been using.

I'm sure we'll find out at some point and it'll be interesting - or maybe not so much.

Richard

MtnGoat

04-11-2014, 17:45

You can touch this with a 5' pole. Henry Ried and his son is 110% behind this.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocking-allegations-link-harry-reid-nevada-ranch-standoff/

They pushed two years ago for the Nevada Land Commision to sell public land to a Chinesee ECC Solar company.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/04/Harry-Reid-s-Son-Representing-Chinese-Solar-Panel-Plant-In-5-Billion-Nevada-Deal

As someone said, follow the money. Nevada needs to be thrown in jail.

Sdiver

04-11-2014, 18:18

YGBSM - Alex Jones, Mr Innuendo and America's Conspiracy Theory K-Mart. :rolleyes: There's a confirmed E5 source.

Richard

You are of course correct on me posting that link from Alex Jones .... (conspiracy theory K-mart ... I like that. Ha Ha :D )

It was maybe the fourth one I clicked on that didn't cause a "virus warning" pop up on my computer. I should have looked at the source and chose another one.

More along the lines of the one MtnGoat posted.

Richard

04-11-2014, 18:36

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees of about $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair in 1993, ignored the government's cancellation of his leases and defied federal court orders to remove his cattle, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. But it took more than 20 years for the government to forcefully intervene.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-seizes-cattle-rare-fight-over-federal-land-110731078.html

I'm sure Harry Reid has been in cahoots with the Chinese over the Bundy issue for the last 20 years. :rolleyes:

Richard

futureSOF

04-11-2014, 19:36

In regards to the confiscation of weapons:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/breaking-unconfirmed-reports-of-weapons-confiscation-near-bundy-ranch/

GratefulCitizen

04-11-2014, 20:17

PSM

04-11-2014, 20:25

Mark Levin (formoer Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese under President Reagan) on this: http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=2667713 Skip to 37:08.

Pat

Lan

04-11-2014, 20:47

Mark Levin (formoer Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese under President Reagan) on this: http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=2667713 Skip to 37:08.

Pat

So the government wants to protect the desert tortoise from the cattle, but the government kills the desert tortoise... Sounds like something they'd do.

PSM

04-11-2014, 21:02

So the government wants to protect the desert tortoise from the cattle, but the government kills the desert tortoise... Sounds like something they'd do.

Did you miss the Reid connection?

Pat

Lan

04-11-2014, 21:07

Did you miss the Reid connection?

Pat

I didn't miss it but I forgot the specifics so here's what I got from a google search.

Neil Kornze, former Reid aid, is now a BLM Director and is well involved in the Bundy seige.

DailyPaul (www.dailypaul.com/316556/harry-reids-connection-to-bundy-ranch-siege)

Kai

04-11-2014, 21:33

PSM

04-11-2014, 21:41

I didn't miss it but I forgot the specifics so here's what I got from a google search.

Neil Kornze, former Reid aid, is now a BLM Director and is well involved in the Bundy seige.

DailyPaul (www.dailypaul.com/316556/harry-reids-connection-to-bundy-ranch-siege)

And the land developer connection?

Pat

Sdiver

04-11-2014, 22:07

Someone just posted this up. Looks like the FAA has placed a NO-FLY zone over the ranch.

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html

This after these pictures, taken today, were posted on various social media outlets.

This is apparently the BLM's command post that they set up on the ranch.

.

PSM

04-11-2014, 22:36

GratefulCitizen

04-11-2014, 23:00

YM Cating

04-12-2014, 02:38

Last report I saw indicated that Militias are arriving. 50 men so far, but 5,000 reported on the move to be there by saturday (an optimistic number yet to be confirmed.) Oath Keepers are also inbound as well as representatives from the constitutional sheriffs and peace officers association.

I can only speculate as to what is going to happen next but people are angry and they are tired of being told how and where and when to live their lives.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/11/oath-keepers-salutes-emerging-new-american-iconic-hero-cliven-bundy/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/armed-militias-rally-in-support-of-nevada-rancher/

Paslode

04-12-2014, 07:14

I'm sure Harry Reid has been in cahoots with the Chinese over the Bundy issue for the last 20 years. :rolleyes:

Richard

Stranger things could have happened....

Mao Zedong was one of two of Obama Debate Coach Anita Dunn's favorite political philosophers.

Former Obama Car Czar Ron Bloom said

“We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.”

“We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

Jay Carneys kitchen is accented with Soviet Propaganda posters.

Elizabeth Warren, that said America should be more like Communist China.

Oldrotorhead

04-12-2014, 07:46

The Feds are painting themselves into a corner.
Impossible to control/spin the message at this point.

If they push, it stirs up dissension.
If they yield, it just encourages more challenges.

A bridge to far.

On a side note, I wonder how all of this will affect the politics of taxing cow flatulence?
:D

If Michelle would just change her diet.:D

I don't know enough of the back ground to make an informed decision about the stand off in NV. But how much Federal control is enough?

Richard

04-12-2014, 08:43

I don't know enough of the back ground to make an informed decision about the stand off in NV. But how much Federal control is enough?

Nevada

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing/history_of_public.html

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/more/trespass_cattle.html

National

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more.html

Richard

Stargazer

04-12-2014, 10:45

Why does a rancher who has paid the permits up to 1993, stop? There can be no argument that Mr. Bundy has not paid the permits (since 1993) or followed the court orders. Opposing parties have expressed their justification for current actions.

I have heard opinions from ranchers in neighboring states who share the same concern surrounding the actions of BLM.

Were the laws not initially enacted to keep the land healthy to support the future of grazing? Wasn't that what the government promised the ranchers in exchange for their money? What started out as a necessity to protect the future and livelihood of the ranchers becomes the very threat to their survival and heritage. Sheepdogs have tipping points, I suspect the Bundy Family's has been met.

I pray reason and cool heads prevail on all sides.

Team Sergeant

04-12-2014, 10:51

Nevada

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing/history_of_public.html

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/more/trespass_cattle.html

National

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more.html

Richard

A very "one sided" source if you ask me.

Sending hundreds of law enforcement "agents" to intimidate a little old man is beyond my ability to comprehend. The encroachment of federal law into private citizen's life needs to stop.

Don't be surprised if you see me, armed, standing next to a certain cattle rancher.:munchin

GratefulCitizen

04-12-2014, 10:51

Water rights.

Follow the money.
Water rights are worth a great deal in the Colorado River Basin.

Seize control of the land.
Sell the water rights (to the people with the political connections).

Sdiver

04-12-2014, 11:44

Just like the overwhelming majority of Colorado Sheriffs who will not comply with the draconian gun laws passed last year, this Nevada sheriff took a stand against the Feds and told them to "get lost."

:lifter

EXCLUSIVE: Sheriff Gillespie Announces to Bundy Ranch Crowds: ‘BLM Activites Will Cease’

At 9:45am PST, Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, sharing the stage with rancher Cliven Bundy, addressed the crowd of protesters and announced that the official process has begun whereby the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) operations in and around the Bundy Ranch ‘will cease’, and the the Gold Butte area will be reopened to the public.

This potentially game-changing announcement came as total a surprise to the 2,000 strong crowd at Camp Bunkerville, many of whom were skeptical of the County Sheriff’s previously aloof stance on the BLM’s armed federal occupation and cattle rustling operation.

Cliven Bundy also demanded that the Sheriff must agree to “disarming the park service rangers”, and that the arms and equipment, structures erected by the BLM must be “torn down immediately, within the hour”.

Crowds roared and cheered as Cliven Bundy left the stage, and minutes later a line of Bundy cowboys could be seen riding their horses along the ridge above the crowds, with cattle in tow.

Now the focus will be on the BLM and federal government to see if they will withdraw in a timely manner, or indeed comply with Cliven Bundy conditions.

From this link that also has a LIVE FEED .... http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/12/exclusive-sheriff-gillespie-announces-to-bundy-crowds-blm-activites-will-cease/

Sdiver

04-12-2014, 12:00

Now, on to Texas .....

BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

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. The problem is the definition of that boundary line- Oklahoma and Texas each use different semantics to define it. And the BLM is finding ways to use the disputed words to give them the ability to seize the land.

According to the BLM, the Red River is always Accretion (gradual accumulation of sediment) to the south, and always Avulsion (rapid formation of a new river channel) to the north. So according to the BLM, the boundary only moves one direction, never in the direction that favors the ranchers. They are looking to re-draw the entire portion of the Red River boundary. That includes 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the river.

“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.” January 2014

Land that has been in the families of ranchers is to be seized as “public lands” that would be subject to fees or blocked off entirely from rancher’s use. Or in some cases, moving the boundary line over to Oklahoma, where Texas ranchers can lose their rights to the lands that they have owned for more than a century. The BLM had open meetings back in January to “take input” from the public …but they are moving forward with their plan to seize the land anyway. There was likely never any intention of actually listening to the rancher’s stand.

http://misguidedchildren.com/domestic-affairs/2014/04/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/18596

Surf n Turf

04-12-2014, 12:27

These "militia" groups are demonstrating poor tactics.

They need to research the chain of command for the involved decision makers (Reid?).
Then publish the personal addresses of these decision makers and rally for "protests" at the doorsteps of their homes.

Best defense is a good offense.

Sending hundreds of law enforcement "agents" to intimidate a little old man is beyond my ability to comprehend. The encroachment of federal law into private citizen's life needs to stop.

GratefulCitizen,
Looks like someone has started the effort..at the operational level.
No longer anonymous shooters ala Waco, etc.
If they can't get someone to do the dirty work, maybe there will be less of it.
Glad to see the sheriff is tamping down the situation, no matter the reason.
SnT

27766

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143424/posts

Richard

04-12-2014, 12:33

A very "one sided" source if you ask me.

Background info on what the BLM does and how it came to be.

Riichard

Bob45nm

04-12-2014, 17:22

Just when you thought it was over.

Here in New Mexico: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-familys-ranch-property-owners-fight-government-land-grab/

and Texas: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/

akv

04-12-2014, 18:37

I pray reason and cool heads prevail on all sides.

Me too.

It also helps midterm elections are around the corner...

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 01:47

Give this a listen, clearly this officer doesn't understand States Rights. These feds honestly believe they own the country.

That aside we've seen this before. BLM has gone into places it shouldn't be and the sheriff, specifically sheriff Demeo of Nevada, forced them out. They said "well we'll come back with a SWAT team." and he said "that's okay I've got one to." (Paraphrasing Sheriff Mack)

Lot's of credit to all the Soldiers and Law Enforcement and everyday citizens who stood up for the rights of Americans and stood against an illegal and oppressive action.

It's a good day to be an American!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p0YemhFnw8

MtnGoat

04-13-2014, 07:07

These "militia" groups are demonstrating poor tactics.

They need to research the chain of command for the involved decision makers (Reid?).
Then publish the personal addresses of these decision makers and rally for "protests" at the doorsteps of their homes.

Best defense is a good offense.

I'm with these people standing along side this rancher need to go to Henry Reid's house, state house and local officials offices or where ever and protects to get the word out. You see if spreading, these different areas also need to file legal counter action on top of any kind of social movement.

JJ2K1

04-13-2014, 09:20

I was out there this weekend, pretty wild vibe and atmosphere.

I found this posted on a different forum which is pretty much the best summary of why Clive Bundy was fighting the Feds, that the news won't seem to get right or disclose fully.

From : [link to www.facebook.com (secure)]
Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

MR2

04-13-2014, 11:13

This came in today's email...

DJ Urbanovsky

04-13-2014, 11:57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4#t=287

Get a load of the guy speaking with the Bundy at the gate.

Lan

04-13-2014, 12:13

Cut the head off the snake!!

GratefulCitizen

04-13-2014, 12:14

I should retract my earlier comment about the "poor tactics" of the militia groups.
Looks like they were well-organized and maintained excellent restraint ("well-regulated militia"...)

The tactics demonstrated by the BLM/NPS seem odd.
Take the low ground, threaten/provoke a larger force, and hold it with "tactical beards". :confused:

Sdiver

04-13-2014, 13:20

Some pictures from yesterday right before the cowboys were able to retrieve the cattle.

If you're on FB, check out these two pages for some up to date information.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1437116463202158/

https://www.facebook.com/support.cliven.bundy

This is NOT over .... Not by a LONG SHOT.

:munchin

ETA ... Link with video of the below pictures.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=2479

Sure is funny how the government can put a fence up as quick as they did to pen cattle and keep protesters out, but they can't do the same thing along our southern boarder with Mexico.

:munchin :munchin

Sdiver

04-13-2014, 14:22

Here's one AAR from yesterdays cattle retrieval.

From the FRONT LINE!
This is an account from the front line of the Bundy cattle siege! 9 AM we all gathered for the opening press conference! We were told that the sheriff wanted to discuss things with the Bundys the night before! The Bundys had told the sheriff that if he had anything to say, he could say it in front of the people.

We started off with the Pledge of Allegiance! Then a prayer was given! Immediately after the prayer I saw several people pointing toward the sky! We we all awe struck while looking at hundreds of birds that gave us a personal, God sent flyover! They formed 4 large "V's"! In after thought! They were flying toward were the cattle had been corralled! And the 4 "V's" ended up being the 4 more hours we would have to wait before victory!

After several patriotic songs, the sheriff showed up at 9:30. He was given the mic, and announced to Mr. Bundy that the BLM has been told to cease the operation! Immediately many from the crowd, that was short of 1000 at the time, hollered "what about the cattle"! Mr Bundy then took the mic and told the sheriff that he had 1 hour to take down the fences, and release his cattle! Then the sheriff left!

The cowboys on horseback had just arrived in force! They took turns galloping up the hill with flags in hand! They place the American flag atop the hill where the Federal snipers once stationed themselves. After all the flags were atop the hill, a rider took up an unmounted horse in respect for all the service men, alive and deceased, and in remembrance of our fore fathers!

The hour went pretty fast, but in the meantime the crowd had now doubled! Mr. Bundy addressed the media, asking them for a report! As is usual, the media had nothing to say! They were given five more minutes by Mr. Bundy! After the five minutes were up, the media was still silent! With the peoples encouragement, we were left with no choice but to go get them ourselves! We all went to our vehicles, most cramming into truck beds, and headed over to where the cattle were being held. Half of us headed East, while the other half headed west to circle around on I15. Because of the many cars involved, it caused quite a traffic jam both East and West.

Eventually the whole freeway became a parking lot! We arrived to about 100 or more Federal vehicles scattered through out the area! Our Militia and Oath Keepers were busy surveying the surrounding area! There were many federal vehicles also stationed out of the way, on nearby dirt roads! For the most part, I could tell we were surrounded if something should happen. There were also several helicopters, and a plane, constantly circling overhead!

To get to the cattle, we needed to go under the South side underpass, and then the North. There was about 80 feet of open space between the two overpasses! As I got under the South overpass, about 50 people were standing in the overpass shade. As i was moving closer to take pictures, I could see the rangers stationed behind the open doors of their trucks! Swat teams and other fully equipped personnel were stationed in various strategic positions behind the north overpass! As I was walking closer to get better pictures, an guy grabbed me and told me I was warned not to take another step! I could hear them on a megaphone, but didn't understand what they were saying, and to whom. I'm thinkin it's time I give serious thought to hearing aids! So I moved back into the shade with the others! As the crowd started to swell below the overpass, the rangers demanded that we disperse, or we would be arrested.

Our numbers continued to grow with people now lining the overpasses, and surrounding inlets! As the sheriff had told us they were told cease this illegal operation, many of us felt they had any legal right to threaten us in this manner! They just kept reminding us that they had some sort of court order and we needed to disperse! Several top Militia members came forward and we all advanced to the halfway point! There were many verbal exchanges between the our Militia, and the rangers! The rangers ordered us to stop, and we did! They said they were authorized to use lethal force if needed! Our Militia ordered them to stand down and let us through, or they would be the ones to be arrested!

This went back and forth for about 10 minutes, with neither side budging! In the mean time our militia members had taken up its own strategic stations, for a possible engagement! Then the cowboys on horseback showed up! More than 40 of them! The crowd parted as they drove up the center of our line! Again the rangers ordered them to stop! I don't know if they couldn't hear with all the noise, or the just didn't care anymore! But they went rite up to the North overpass before coming to a stop!

Everyone was surrounding, and moving with them at this time! There were now several thousand on scene! Both sides of the freeway were totally shut down. The overpasses were now flooded and overflowing with spectators, militia, and other patriots! And neither side was budging! After about a 30 minute total stand off on both sides, the county sheriffs showed up and asked of one of the Bundy family to speak with him! After another 20 minutes more; of most likely some sort of a negotiation, we were asked to move back, and allow them time to withdraw! We backed up to the halfway point again and held our line!

The rangers slowly, cautiously, retreated! It was a tense withdraw on both sides! Cooler heads prevailed! After about another 2 hour wait, with NO ONE leaving, the cattle were finally released to go home!

In retrospect, it turned out to be the Oath Keepers from both sides that prevented some serious bloodshed! As both sides were Americans, I would have to say America won! Liberty prevailed! And Gods was watching over both sides! GOD blessed AMERICA! So many people deserve so much thanks for what took place! Much food and water was donated! People from all over the country who came so far to stand up against tyranny! The many prayers from all around the world in our behalf!
THANK YOU!

pcfixer

04-13-2014, 17:45

A couple sites to explain what the uproar is all about.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/04/shiree-bundy-cox-on-the-bundy-family-allotment-that-was-bought-blm-background-and-public-lands-2834896.html

Very good information on who own's the property. '

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/04/shiree-bundy-cox-on-the-bundy-family-allotment-that-was-bought-blm-background-and-public-lands-2834896.html

The following statement is allegedly from Shiree Bundy Cox, a daughter of Cliven and Carol Bundy. She explains the land allotment that her Great Grandpa, Grandpa and Dad paid for many years ago. She said her father paid his range fee for many years, until the money began being used against the ranchers in the area. She indicates that other ranchers left because the BLM bought-them out, using money that could have been ranging fees. Below her letter is information on how government became involved in “managing” grazing, under the “National System of Public Lands,” and how in 2011 the BLM changed their privacy policy regarding those who graze on “allotments,” But look at this quote (the way it used to be in America):

The rights to the land use are called preemptive rights. [which Cliven Bundy has cited.]
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the Bureau of Land Management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

JMHO as I'm not a lawyer. "Ex Post Facto"

No...ex post facto Law shall be passed. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 3

The Reaper

04-13-2014, 19:19

I strongly suspect that this isn't over yet.

TR

akv

04-13-2014, 19:46

I don't known the history or details of Mr. Bundy's differences with the BLM.

In hindsight it makes sense, if the decision to pullback the BLM came from above, an administration that wasn't willing to enforce a red line it drew on WMD in Syria or impose any meaningful sanctions on Putin for invading Ukraine, was never going to risk the spreading budding images of big government pushing around middle aged ladies or imagine the media storm of federal agents in gunfights with American civilians, not from some isolated cult, but instead from different parts of the country who felt there was enough injustice to stand with Bundy.

However despite differences of opinion on Mr. Bundy's arguments; the question remains for the anti 2nd amendment crowd, did the BLM pull back here because they realized they were wrong, and thus would have done the same if the protesters where unarmed and just singing Kumbaya? Or was it the calculus of an armed citizenry having the tools to force the government to reconsider the risk/reward of their position and response? IMHO the latter, but I doubt this is done yet for anyone involved including the turtles...

GratefulCitizen

04-13-2014, 19:55

Woudn't be surprised to see someone get arrested for "domestic terrorism" under the PATRIOT act.

Paslode

04-13-2014, 20:39

I strongly suspect that this isn't over yet.

TR

I read somewhere that Bill Clinton signed something where if say 600,000 acres were used for something like a wind farm, then the .GOV had to return 600,000 acres to natural habitat.....which in turn allows the .GOV to confiscate land as needed.

From what I have read it would appear this is an on going problem between ranchers and the BLM in several states, so in a manner of speaking we may have just witnessed the first shot in a war or sorts.

GratefulCitizen

04-13-2014, 21:00

You really think it could have started a larger revolt?

Certainly a regional one.

Different regions of the country have different cultures.
BLM bureaucrats unfamiliar with the culture have been running roughshod over the people of the Colorado Plateau for decades.

(Technically, the Bundys are just off the edge, but it's the same culture).

Spent the vast majority of my life on one part or another of the Colorado Plateau.
I remember when clinton administration BLM managers/policies started pissing off locals more than 20 years ago.

The locals have seen this coming the whole time.
They've also been preparing.

I suspect this incident is a microcosm of the nationwide disconnect/clash between urban and rural culture.
Democracy makes the problem worse.

Rural populations don't believe that superior numbers give urban voters the right to rule over them.
Many would prefer to be incarcerated or killed rather than be ruled by a distant government.

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 21:20

Something about these particular feds seemed off. I've seen a few of them in video with rough and unkempt "tacticool beards." It was my understanding that Law Enforcement in general had grooming standards. I realize that different departments maintain different standards but they didn't look like they had any standards. These guys looked a lot more like PMCs

(Oakley sunglasses, rough beards ect...)

Thoughts?

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 21:28

Relaxed grooming standards are normal for some federal LE. In particular BLM USFS etc have been allowed to have long hair and beards since their outdoor culture allows it. Also many departments are allowing beards etc. My department allows beards and long hair.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Cheers!

Penn

04-13-2014, 21:36

Rural populations don't believe that superior numbers give urban voters the right to rule over them.
Many would prefer to be incarcerated or killed rather than be ruled by a distant government.

That rings true, but more importantly is the disconnect between the ruling elite and what once was the middle class, arguably, the stabilizing influence of any democracy.

I would venture that we will soon see statues presented in congress that addresses and limit arm citizens protesting any gov't agency actions. Mirroring the restriction placed on citizens that confronted legislators after the passing of the affordable care act.

As a result of those confrontations, Ii is now a criminal offense to verbally confront a congressman, or senator. Image, criticism of special interest, a First Amendment right places you in harm way.

Incredible, but that is why I believe, that the confrontation concerning this issue caused the BLM to back down, they underestimated the disaffection the middle class has experienced, but they will adjust and limit any future confrontation as a criminal act, or, an act of subversion, a threat to good social order.

Somewhere on this site is a post commenting on HLS with Janet P. stating that returning veterans would be a threat to our democracy... that is all you need to know when considering the stand you are going to forced to take in the near future.

That said, I can't, for the life of me, understand why agency personnel would draw down on their fellow American citizen, its incomprehensible, but may reflect the Kent State episode 40+ years ago.

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 22:04

That rings true, but more importantly is the disconnect between the ruling elite and what once was the middle class, arguably, the stabilizing influence of any democracy.

I would venture that we will soon see statues presented in congress that addresses and limit arm citizens protesting any gov't agency actions. Mirroring the restriction placed on citizens that confronted legislators after the passing of the affordable care act.

As a result of those confrontations, Ii is now a criminal offense to verbally confront a congressman, or senator. Image, criticism of special interest, a First Amendment right places you in harm way.

Incredible, but that is why I believe, that the confrontation concerning this issue caused the BLM to back down, they underestimated the disaffection the middle class has experienced, but they will adjust and limit any future confrontation as a criminal act, or, an act of subversion, a threat to good social order.

Somewhere on this site is a post commenting on HLS with Janet P. stating that returning veterans would be a threat to our democracy... that is all you need to know when considering the stand you are going to forced to take in the near future.

That said, I can't, for the life of me, understand why agency personnel would draw down on their fellow American citizen, its incomprehensible, but may reflect the Kent State episode 40+ years ago.

I think I can offer some insight into that. On page three I posted a recording between what I assume was a reporter and a BLM agent. The BLM honestly believe that what they are doing is perfectly legal and morally right. They are caught up in the Federalization of this country. I don't think it's too dissimilar to the way the Nazi's followed Hitler. The man was captivating and people just get caught up in it.

I was also watching an interview between talk show host Adam Kokesh (USMC) and Sheriff Mack. And they were talking about how some of these guys have/had good intentions but aren't properly educated. Some of them are guys who went over seas and never saw combat, never got to get their aggression out, and decided that they'd come back here and start beating on people. Some of them think it's an "us against them" war zone. But I'm sure there are those that disagree but are afraid to speak out. They know, if the Gov't can steal someones land like that they can ignore them or disappear them for questioning orders (Fired, Prison, Overseas assignment, or they can go the Ruby Ridge route.) But who knows, we might start seeing people take a stand now that the Bundy's showed the world that it isn't and won't be that easy to take their land.

The next great American Civil War very well might be around the corner. However if Mark Levin is successful with his Article 5 convention this will likely be averted.

Here's that interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srtvBXdgxU

Sdiver

04-13-2014, 22:05

Here's a few pictures that have been made up .... :D

MR2

04-13-2014, 22:14

At this point, what difference does it make... :eek:

You know that they would not have backed off if this was not an election year.

They are so afraid of what happened that the President brought up the Birther thing to try and distract. He should have blamed it on a YouTube video or something. Oh...

GratefulCitizen

04-13-2014, 22:16

Here's a few pictures that have been made up .... :D

MOOO-lon labe

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 22:28

What is a "tacticool" beard? :confused::cool:

I think this will explain it xD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf0R7n02owM

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 22:47

I would hope an actual civil war wouldn't start over this, as I think it would destroy the republic, and come out very badly for everyone involved. However, this Bundy protest is kind of an example, IMO, it seems of when Jefferson said:

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

I to would hope it doesn't occur. That being said, the Feds need to stop trying to change things. They should simply, kick back, relax and crack open a cold one. They've got good lives why do they need our land to?

At this point I don't know where their intentions lie but they are not honorable. But I am very glad this event took place, it was an excellent show of true patriotism and courage.

Let's see what happens next. We might see history repeat itself. If there is a raid and it turns out like Waco it might be the start of the next Bloody Kansas. That will start a war, the Feds would be well advised to cease these type of grabs.

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 22:57

One of the great things about the Internet and social media these days is how it gets the word out so quickly and prevents the government from able to just run roughshod right over people's rights in the way it used to be able to do. Some on the left have even lamented this, saying in one article about how the New Deal would not be doable today because of social media. It apparently went over their head that they were essentially saying that they didn't like that social media would prevent the government from being able to just run right over people the way it could in the 1930s.

Social media is a wonderful thing. I can see why the left would detest that. Makes things hard. They even tried to stop it with 1st amendment zones. Just the fact that they had those signs prepared (manufactured) is horrifying. Last time I checked we weren't in the USSR but hell what do I know, I'm just a naive American who believe that the constitution still holds meaning. Silly me.

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 23:09

GratefulCitizen

04-13-2014, 23:20

I'm sure Harry Reid has been in cahoots with the Chinese over the Bundy issue for the last 20 years. :rolleyes:

Richard

http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0103/03011.html

Similar situation 20 years ago.
Look whose name pops up at the end of the article.

Some leopards don't change their spots.

There's plenty out there about Hage vs US and abuse of power.
http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-su13-hage-decision.pdf

The people of the region know government oppression when they see it.

YM Cating

04-13-2014, 23:35

Take a look gentlemen, the Revolution has begun! Well, it seems more like an Occupy Movement, except this one has the intent of protesting some of our politicians out of office. We'll find out may 16.

http://operationamericanspring.org/

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

Pete

04-14-2014, 05:51

U.S. Senator Reid, son combine for China firm's desert plant

Dated story from Aug 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

"...Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.

Reid has been one of the project's most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission...."

Didn't he just say a few days ago there was no connection and he never talked with his son about this?

Toaster

04-14-2014, 11:47

pcfixer

04-14-2014, 12:00

Woudn't be surprised to see someone get arrested for "domestic terrorism" under the PATRIOT act.

Maybe not a domestic terrorist by your meaning. But someone could go to jail
and much depends on what the government will react too.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/14/3426222/militia-rancher-behind-bars/

In an interview with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Bundy claims that “this is a sovereign state of Nevada.” Though he swears that he will “abide by all of Nevada state laws,” he adds that “I don’t recognize [the] United States Government as even existing.”

He is treading on thin ice here.. Ya think!:munchin

Stargazer

04-14-2014, 15:20

Maybe not a domestic terrorist by your meaning. But someone could go to jail
and much depends on what the government will react too.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/14/3426222/militia-rancher-behind-bars/

He is treading on thin ice here.. Ya think!:munchin

Perhaps he is taking a page from the Executive Branch of the government that selectively picks laws and takes court orders lightly to the point of being held in contempt.

PSM

04-14-2014, 15:26

He is treading on thin ice here.. Ya think!:munchin

I've been on the road for the last couple of day and heard several interviews with Bundy. I think that that quote is out of context. Beck pinned him down directly asking him if he recognizes the Federal Government. He said that he does, but only as defined in the Constitution. The point that he is trying to make is that the Federal Government "owned" the land when it was a Territory. But, in his view, that once the Nevada Constitution was approved and the state was granted statehood, the ownership of the land reverted to Nevada (and all other former territorial states).

Pat

PSM

04-14-2014, 18:01

I strongly suspect that this isn't over yet.

TR

Reid agrees with you: http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx

They'll be back after the election. And, with a better plan. I hope the cowboys are adjusting their strategy, also.

Pat

Richard

04-14-2014, 18:07

21st Century Teapot Dome Scandal? Swell.

Richard

MtnGoat

04-14-2014, 18:31

TR I guess your right.. Fall back and group

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jer1YidkfPY

rubberneck

04-14-2014, 18:35

Reid agrees with you: http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx

They'll be back after the election. And, with a better plan. I hope the cowboys are adjusting their strategy, also.

Pat

We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it.

Unless you break the law by entering the county illegally. In that case not only will Harry Reid let you walk away from it he'll make sure you're rewarded with citizenship. Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes: Asshole.....

cbtengr

04-14-2014, 18:37

Reid agrees with you: http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx

They'll be back after the election. And, with a better plan. I hope the cowboys are adjusting their strategy, also.

Pat

Quoting further from the article RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn't been very vocal about the cattle battle showdown in recent days, but says "it's not over."

Reid tells News4's Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," Reid said.

So I guess this means he is finally going to do something about the Obama administration as well.

GratefulCitizen

04-14-2014, 18:46

TR I guess your right.. Fall back and group

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jer1YidkfPY

http://www.examiner.com/article/bundy-ranch-warns-of-false-information-conspiracies

Noise generation?

The Reaper

04-14-2014, 19:01

I wonder if the British soldiers expected the reception they got at Lexington, Concord, and the North Bridge?

Revolutions have started over less.

TR

Sdiver

04-14-2014, 19:47

What does this say about the state of our country .....

Just saw this on The Kelly File, where the reported stated that FOX was the only MSM outlet who had a truck at the ranch and was reporting on the events. NO other company/broadcaster (ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, etc.) were on scene.

In fact, the local stations here in town (Denver) only reported on the events of the BLM's pullback, almost as an after thought. One even went so far as to call the protesters "Right Wing Extremists." :rolleyes:

Only FOX and those "fringe" newsgathering outlets (you know the ones ... ones that are labeled "conspiracy" type outlets) had any up to the minute reports.

This is a MAJOR event that took/is taking place and a majority of the American populace has largely ignored this or have not been informed by the MSM.

What's the first rule of taking over and controlling a country/populace ????
Something about controlling the media.

:munchin

NurseTim

04-14-2014, 20:09

I hear james yeager is heading there to bring a peaceful resolutio. Of course he's humbly accepting donations for his endeavors.

This reminds me of when Bo Degritz was involved in, I think it was the Ruby Ridge incident. The Col. Is a QP if I'm not mistaken.

With sunny Jim on scene the feds wouldn't dare do a thing.:rolleyes:

alelks

04-14-2014, 20:29

I'd say they are definitely re-grouping.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/sheriff-mack-confirms-feds-are-planning-to-raid-bundy-homes-2938210.html?utm_medium=facebook-share&utm_campaign=&utm_source=http%3A%2F%2Fl.facebook.com%2Fl.php%3Fu %3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fb4in.info%252FiXPD%26h%3DTAQ H3eacaAQE-jIvls_IXnaJtSNSULJ85u6RtCLIYjLOjdQ%26enc%3DAZOQ1vJ 5LYOXuOi8j6hQfhacF8myf8OXYVxDlTWgcSrmyISrDRsqa60F6 ssnnfjmV_L4b0OZT3NuEdgvilHouixI5dikQ1E_iuumSxeNp3w XftWdwm0qq5KJmETbCjWlrfK-L4Q8Y6l6E6Qvu9vrCFXM%26s%3D1&utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2FiXPD

futureSOF

04-14-2014, 20:31

Richard

04-14-2014, 22:30

Sdiver

04-14-2014, 23:07

It started before that ....

In 1986 R.R. just extended the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 which created the current system of charging rental fees for ranchers to use these acres to feed their private livestock.

P.R.I.A. of 1978, in PDF .... http://www.publiclandscouncil.org/CMDocs/PublicLandsCouncil/Public%20Rangelands%20Improvement%20Act%20(PRIA)%2 0-%201978.pdf

From this link ... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/Nevada-Ranch-War-Feds-Right-on-Property-But-Wrong-on-Constitution-and-Limited-Government .... it says that Bundy has/had been paying fees up until 1993, when he says he "fired" the BLM. I saw earlier that Bundy claims the reason why he "fired" the BLM was he felt the taxes he had been paying up until 1993, were not being used as the BLM had promised, by improving the "public lands", ie. repairing fences, improving back roadways, improving water cisterns, etc. No, in fact, Bundy was doing repairs of those listed above with his own money.

Right or wrong on Bundy's part, for the BLM to originally say, when this current event started last week, they were removing Bundy's cattle for the sake of the desert tortoise, it just stinks to high heaven, IMO.

Then when the story(ies) of Harry Reid and his son being involved in a possible land grab with the Chinese and THEN the BLM pulling back and complying with the Bundy's and gathered protesters ... there's something strange stirring the Kool-Aid.

As Harry Reid himself said .... "This ain't over."

YM Cating

04-15-2014, 00:04

So my question now is, will this be the next Bloody Kansas? The feds should stow their pride, it's not worth what's coming.

miclo18d

04-15-2014, 05:53

So my question now is, will this be the next Bloody Kansas? The feds should stow their pride, it's not worth what's coming.
I will probably be more like an event that happened closer to where you live now.

Bloody Kansas was a fight for how the territory of Kansas would fall to slave or anti-slave state. These were slavers vs anti-slavers, not citizens vs oppressive government. For that scenario, look up Boston Massacre.

Stargazer

04-15-2014, 08:04

I wonder how "The Gippper" might have handled the situation if he hadn't been tied up with Iran-Contra and such.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12548.html

Richard

I believe President Reagan attempted to put a policy in place to sell federal lands to private or state/local control. So....

Maybe he would have transferred ownership of the Bunkerville allotment to Mr. Bundy since his family had been doing the job of the BLM and call it a day.

badshot

04-15-2014, 10:46

Look to Nevada and other Western Ranchers that know first hand how important self determination is. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Senator Reid, you continue to astonish in a myriad of delusional ways. Does your faulty wiring understand why 'wise' men put 'shall not' in the fundamental law of our country? It isn't up for interpretation and was dumb downed on purpose so a third grader would understand it.

You and the many others like yourself need to go to church and ask for forgiveness for your souls sake. Yes, God was instrumental in the founding of this country like it or not. Conditions now are the same as they were before our great country was created. The Templar and many others came here many centuries before Columbus to escape persecution, as before, there is now no other place to go. Let us hope it doesn't have to happen again because of selfish greedy ones.

Whatever is hidden will come to light - those hiding behind it and in the shadows will be revealed

TrapLine

04-15-2014, 11:54

A point someone made on another website I saw was that maybe the Feds should have this kind of presence at the border as opposed to dealing with a cattle rancher.

I agree that the borders would be a better use of LEOs time and attention; I would suggest first dealing with the lawbreakers in the DC area.

booker

04-15-2014, 13:02

I agree that the borders would be a better use of LEOs time and attention; I would suggest first dealing with the lawbreakers in the DC area.

Not even close to enough LEO to control the lawbreakers in the greater DC metropolitan area.

pcfixer

04-15-2014, 13:48

I've been on the road for the last couple of day and heard several interviews with Bundy. I think that that quote is out of context. Beck pinned him down directly asking him if he recognizes the Federal Government. He said that he does, but only as defined in the Constitution. The point that he is trying to make is that the Federal Government "owned" the land when it was a Territory. But, in his view, that once the Nevada Constitution was approved and the state was granted statehood, the ownership of the land reverted to Nevada (and all other former territorial states).

Pat

Aha moment, Okay. I understand your point. Thank you, Pat.

Kenny

badshot

04-15-2014, 13:57

Ruby Ridge incident.

What's is happening now is not even close to events in recent history.

As someone said if the Fed's and Reid don't stow their pride it'll be the second shot heard around the world.

If the worst does happen, to those that have opposed or corrupted the intent and purpose of the founding documents - I'll gladly help get you on a plane or boat for Russia or China, which ever you prefer, just don't whine about it.

Stobey

04-15-2014, 15:17

TR is exactly right about this not being over. Rumor has it that the Feds will choose May 16th to return - when most others who want to bring our country back to following the Constitution will be in Washington DC. Rumors are just rumors. I have a feeling that they are going to drag this rancher through the courts and tie up any/all of his assets in the process.

The Feds learned something last weekend - that they underestimated the size and scope of Americans pissed off that our country seems hell-bent on the socialist "New World Order" route; and that the Federal government has for too long over-stepped its constitutional bounds. (A similar case was Hage v. the US, in which a federal judge ruled on behalf of Wayne and Jean Hage.
The link is here: http://americanstewards.us/hage-v-us)
Cliven Bundy was the "Last Man Standing" out of 53 ranchers who had originally called that area home. And (to paraphrase), this particular rancher said: "No more".

I don't think the Feds will make that mistake again. They also made it a point to observe any/all vehicles and the license plate numbers. I wonder how many people will wind up with an IRS audit - or worse?

FWIW, I've included a link to an article on the DC Clothesline.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/13/bundy-affair-tip-iceberg-whats-coming/

This might give you some idea of the extent of the proposed "federal" land grab:
http://cofarmbureaublog.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/complete-federal-land-grab-document-released/

The Bundys won this round; but since the Chinese have apparently already paid 4.5 million dollars for the 6,000 acres in question (yes, that's right, pennies on the dollar based upon what the land was assessed), I'm sure that the Bundys have not heard the last from the Kleptocrats in Washington DC. I guess we will just have to wait and see...

Sdiver

04-15-2014, 15:36

While nothing yet on any MSM outlets (go figure :rolleyes: ), this could be, if true, something to watch ....

:munchin

Issa Launches Federal Investigation Into Obama/Reid Involvement in BLM Land Grab

Washington, DC–While Cliven Bundy’s decades long battle against the federal government over grazing rights on his Nevada ranch continues, news from the nation’s capital has confirmed that Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has launched a full federal investigation into President Obama and Senator Harry Reid’s involvement in the attempted land grab by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

In a Fox News interview aired today, Issa told Gretchen Carlson that he has launched an investigation to find out what exactly was Obama and Reid’s involvement in the siege of the Bundy Ranch. Issa went on to reference a 2010 memo titled “Internal Draft – NOT FOR RELEASE” that appears to lay the groundwork for such a seizure to take place. The memo reads, in part: “The areas listed may be good candidates for National Monument designation under the Antiquities Act; however, further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional support.”

According to a source within Issa’s office, who spoke with National Report on the condition of anonymity, “Rep. Issa is taking this issue very seriously. This scandal has the possibility of being a huge blow to the Administration and could overshadow recent scandals involving HealthCare.gov and Benghazi. This man [Obama] has repeatedly ignored the Constitution and initial reports show his hands all over this violation of Clive Bundy’s Constitutional rights. It is imperative we understand how much he knew about the violation of Bundy’s freedom to graze his cattle on Federal land and to what extent the deal Harry Reid’s son negotiated with the Chinese in order to build a solar farm on the land had to do with the final decision. We have what we believe to be the smoking gun in this investigation and subpoenas will be sent out and those responsible will be forced to testify in a court of law.”

Feds raided the ranch late last week under the guise of an unpaid land-lease dispute dating back to the late nineties and have been met with resistance from Bundy and local militia groups. Mainstream media outlets have been slow to cover the unfolding situation as to not embarrass the President. Fox News has devoted the most comprehensive coverage of the events and have sided with Bundy in defending his right to graze cattle on federal land without pay setting what could be a dangerous precedent in the region.

Issa is the Republican Party’s leading watchdog in the House. In 2012, Issa led the investigations into the attack on the Benghazi consulate and is currently embroiled in an investigation into politically-based targeting by the IRS.

National Report will have more on this story as it develops.

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches-federal-investigation-obamas-involvement-clive-bundy-land-grab/

Stobey

04-15-2014, 15:52

They threw Jim Traficant in jail for less. (But he was one Democrat that the so-called "progressives" desperately wanted gone from their ranks.)

badshot

04-15-2014, 16:37

Boy all those investigations so far have gone so well...and been going on for years - Hey maybe they'll get the Attorney General to investigate LOL!

Javadrinker

04-15-2014, 17:09

Boy all those investigations so far have gone so well...and been going on for years - Hey maybe they'll get the Attorney General to investigate LOL!

Does he even know what the word "Investigate" means?:munchin

GratefulCitizen

04-15-2014, 20:04

The Bundys won this round; but since the Chinese have apparently already paid 4.5 million dollars for the 6,000 acres in question (yes, that's right, pennies on the dollar based upon what the land was assessed), I'm sure that the Bundys have not heard the last from the Kleptocrats in Washington DC. I guess we will just have to wait and see...

Nothing profitable will ever be built there if the Bundys are forcibly removed.
To much area to protect from vandalism.

It's incredibly difficult even to pave a road in this area of the country, if the locals have a problem with it.

YM Cating

04-15-2014, 21:32

Nothing profitable will ever be built there if the Bundys are forcibly removed.
To much area to protect from vandalism.

It's incredibly difficult even to pave a road in this area of the country, if the locals have a problem with it.

That's a good point. However I'd be willing to bet that all the personnel that aren't being used to protect the border would probably be used to protect whatever installation they build. All about priorities.

But that's a moot point, I can see it in Mr. Bundy and both his sons, they will die before they leave that land. That's a fact.

All I can hope for is that someone in Washington grows the balls to stand up to the rest of these politicians and actually do something about it. So far all I've heard is talk. It's down to the people to decide what happens now.

YM Cating

04-16-2014, 01:08

First off, this is a great press conference. Cliven Bundy is a no bullshit man.

The most interesting thing here is that it looks like the Militias are organizing and growing and they intend to stay together as a well regulated Militia until the Federal bureaucracy is disarmed. I 100% agree with this. A department like BLM should have an office with a few employees armed with telephones and staple guns. Not M4s and teargas.

But I find it interesting that they're all getting together under one banner and their in it for the long haul. Just from the demeanor of his body guards (I've seen multiple protection details in the various videos) they look like they're truly here to see this through and disarm the departments that should never have been armed in the first place. It's a hell of a thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4weoG__0fE

YM Cating

04-16-2014, 02:23

I am awaiting April 15th to see how many people in my state (New York) disobey Herr Cuomo's diktat to register all "assault weapons." Some suspect that more than 90% may refuse, but I'll believe that when I see it. But the massive number that have refused compliance with registration in Connecticut have apparently stunned the Connecticut government who aren't quite sure how to respond.

The thing is, Cuomo is a spoiled brat with an ego and extreme level of arrogance, and he may not stay quiet about this if massive numbers refuse compliance in the way Governor Malloy of Connecticut is doing.

@Broadsword2004

I've just had a thought. I don't believe the intent is to get people to register, they knew that'd be an issue right from the beginning (unless they're complete morons.) No I think it's because Gun Retailers can't sell "assault weapons" therefor manipulating the market. As more and more states adopt these laws the gun manufacturers will have fewer consumers for those weapons that the politicians call "assault weapons" and that will force them to reduce and eventually stop production.

They couldn't go right after the manufacturers for various reasons so now they're attacking it from the other end. That's a brilliant strategy. Most of these gun owners can get away with not registering. But no store owner will get away with selling. It looks like a long term strategy. Not to mention once their are fewer weapons in production you can then use that list to confiscate without the fear of people getting their hands on those same type of weapons.

The last bit of this theory is making a big assumption, though there is plenty of historical basis for it. However the first part of the theory is Macro econ 101. It's market manipulation of supply and demand, they know what they're doing. There is no reason to believe that New York would react differently than Connecticut.

Your thoughts?

pcfixer

04-16-2014, 02:29

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to denounce the federal government’s operation against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, asserting that BLM agents should have been arrested for seizing his property and that the case represents a “line in the sand” for Americans who have had enough of big government tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayVoKJbRNo

I like this Judge. There are too many sheriff's in this country that do not
abide by their Oath.

Sigaba

04-16-2014, 02:34

Bloody Kansas was a fight for how the territory of Kansas would fall to slave or anti-slave state. These were slavers vs anti-slavers, not citizens vs oppressive government.The more than 3.2 million Americans living in bondage and the more than 424 thousand "free" Americans subject to kidnapping and enslavement might have disagreed.*

FWIW, court documents relevant to Mr. Bundy's disagreement with the BLM, including the most recent court order, are attached to this post.

IMO, Mr. Bundy is playing his supporters and the American people in general. The former for free security and public relations services, the latter for subsidizing the interest on the $300,000 he owes to .GOV.

My $0.02/YMMV.

__________________________________________________ ___
* Figures from 1850 U.S. census data available here <<LINK (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1850)>>.

SF-TX

04-16-2014, 07:09

The following editorial from Investor's Business Daily offers a different perspective on the issue:

Inside the Bundy Ranch standoff: The stakes go far beyond cattle

For now, that volatile Bundy Ranch confrontation has been defused. But it's not over by any means. And we may well experience others that do not pause in non-violence.

These are profound disputes illustrative of abiding suspicions among average Americans and their government headed by a man who promised to bring people together but didn't. And it comes in an uncertain economic time when so many have given up big dreams to just keep what they have...

...Now, here comes the political part that will seem quite familiar to Chicagoans:

A Chinese company has wanted to build an immense solar-panel farm in Nevada under the name ENN Mojave Energy. It would need additional tortoise habitat to mitigate its complex.

The local lobbyist who's represented the Chinese-backed firm is a failed Democrat politician named Rory Reid, who got his gully washed in the 2010 race for governor by Republican Brian Sandoval.

Oh, look! Reid also happens to be the son of Harry Reid, the dottering Democrat Senate majority leader for a few more months, who's somehow managed to become a millionaire on congressional pay.

Now, perhaps you understand why Bundy Ranch supporters smell a cattle-thieving, land-grabbing Washington political conspiracy where, clearly, none exists.

Oh, one other thing. Last week the Senate confirmed a brand-new director of BLM. He's Neil Kornze, at 35 an unusually inexperienced youngster to be running such a powerful agency with sprawling powers.

However, Nevada native Kornze had something special going for him in the Senate and Obama White House drive to get him the job. He was a senior policy aide to -- Wait for it! -- Harry Reid, whose son represented the Chinese solar farm...

Link (http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/041514-697169-bundy-ranch-harry-reid-rory-reid.htm?p=full)

Pete

04-16-2014, 07:35

The BLM agents and other Feds who will return to the Bundy Ranch now know there is something smelly behind the deal.

If its that smelly there must be something to it.

So if they stage a SWAT raid at O'dark thirty in the near future somebody just might get killed.

I wonder if the thought of if they did the right thing will ever cross their minds - or would it be "The turd and his family had it coming."

I'm telling you guys - the Federal agencies are full of folks who will do what they are told.

tonyz

04-16-2014, 07:36

I don't know much about Bundy - Bundy's a rancher.

Seems Harry Reid's name is also consistently involved - Reid is a DC politician.

This guy Kornze just joined this organization in 2011 ( BLM ) and now he's the head of it...????

More Obama sycophant empty-suit phenomena...???

Empty suits are a decidedly bi-partisan DC phenomena..."doin' a heck of a job Kornzey..."

DC needs to be flushed.

Some additional background on "Kornzey..." below...

**********************************************

Since March 1, 2013, Neil Kornze has been leading the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the agency's Principal Deputy Director. Kornze oversees the agency's management of more than 245 million acres of public land nationwide.

Prior to serving in his current role, Kornze was the BLM's Acting Deputy Director for Policy and Programs starting in October 2011. Kornze joined the organization in January 2011 as a Senior Advisor to the Director. In these roles, he worked on a broad range of issues, including renewable and conventional energy development, transmission siting, and conservation policy.

Kornze was a key player in the development of the Western Solar Plan and the agency's successful authorization of more than 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy, surpassing a congressionally-established goal 3 years ahead of schedule. He has also been active in tribal consultation, especially as it relates to oil and gas and renewable energy development.

Before coming to the BLM, Kornze worked as a Senior Policy Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In his work for Senator Reid, which spanned from early 2003 to early 2011, he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife. Kornze has also served as an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and Georgia, and he is co-author of an article in “The Oxford Companion to American Law.”

Raised in Elko, Nevada, Kornze is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate with a degree in Politics from Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. He earned a master’s degree in International Relations at the London School of Economics.

http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/blm-dir.cfm

pcfixer

04-16-2014, 07:44

Something does smell fishy. Empty suits and progressive agenda.

JimP

04-16-2014, 08:09

Sig - my understanding is that the appeal was through the 9th Circuit, (the most overturned District in the country).

Also - I am a little leery when they send armed agents to enforce what in reality is a freakin' turtle. Trace the lineage of all this back to the '70's and the freaking desert tortoise. Hell, the BLM has to stop and hose the shells of the freaking turtles out of their tire treads whenever they venture into the desert. The little hard-shelled bastiges are EVERYWHERE. they are no longer threatened.

Also - if they have an issue with a rancher, why not just put a lein against him and let the Sherriff handle the seizure like everywhere else? Why the show of force?

This is as much about "federal land" as obamacare is about healthcare. it's all about the feds and increasing power.

Additionally - all I need to hear is that smarmy politician's name (Harry Reid) and you just KNOW that something ain't right. That guy is dirtier than "Chollie" Rangel.

JJ2K1

04-16-2014, 10:07

I like this Judge. There are too many sheriff's in this country that do not
abide by their Oath.

Many of them are too accustomed to the Federal money kool-aid they have been receiving and allocate that funding into their budgets. They don't want to risk having allocated funds cut short if they speak out or act against the Federal governments objectives. They have been bought and paid for.

Streck-Fu

04-16-2014, 11:30

I found this to be a very intetresting Op-Ed....LINK (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php)

Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

The bedrock issue here is that the federal government owns more than 80% of the state of Nevada. This is true across the western states. To an astonishing degree, those states lack sovereignty over their own territory. Most of the land is federal. And the federal agencies that rule over federal lands have agendas. At every opportunity, it seems, they restrict not only what can be done on federal lands, but on privately-owned property. They are hostile to traditional industries like logging, mining and ranching, and if you have a puddle in your back yard, the EPA will try to regulate it as a navigable waterway.

That is only a slight exaggeration.

One could say that Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores. The federal government has gotten more environmentally-conscious, and now we really, really care about desert tortoises. (It was the designation of desert tortoises as an endangered species that gave BLM the opportunity to squeeze Bundy in the early 1990s.) But here’s the thing: the Bureau of Land Management–the federal government–is not necessarily anti-development. Rather, its attitude depends entirely on what sort of development is in question.

Thus, BLM has developed a grandiose plan to develop vast solar energy installations on federal land across the Southwest. Wind power projects are favored, too. In fact, the same BLM that has driven Nevada’s ranchers out of business has welcomed solar projects with open arms. Some have claimed that Harry Reid is behind the BLM’s war against Cliven Bundy, on the theory that he wants the land for a solar project in which his son Rory is involved, along with the Chinese. I don’t believe this is correct. The solar projects are located north of Las Vegas, 30 miles or so from the area where Bundy ranches.

But the connection is nevertheless important in two respects. First, BLM has promulgated a regional mitigation strategy (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf) for the environmental impacts of the solar developments. Let’s pause on that for a moment: the excuse for limiting Bundy’s rights is the endangered desert tortoise. But wait! Don’t they have desert tortoises a few miles away where the solar projects are being built? Of course they do. That’s where they get to the mitigation strategy, which may involve, among other things, moving some desert tortoises to a new location:

The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ.

Gold Butte is the area where Bundy ranches. There are a few problems with the Gold Butte location as a mitigation area; one of them is that there are “trespassing” cattle:

The resource values found in the Gold Butte ACEC are threatened by: unauthorized activities, including off-road vehicle use, illegal dumping, and trespass livestock grazing; wildfire; and weed infestation.

So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

Stargazer

04-16-2014, 12:36

Your post

Most excellent and better expresses my sentiments surrounding this situation than I could.

I have also been doing a lot of research. Reading over Desert Land Act 1877, Preemptive Act of 1841, Homestead Act 1862, BLM history, Nevada's Constitution, Cessations to the Federal Government and much more.

The irony that one of the big threats to the tortoise has been human.... energy and urbanization. The author of the Op Ed goes into the energy initiatives.

I found this publication in general to be interesting and the below noted article in particular

Desert Report, Will There Ever Be A Desert Tortoise National Wildlife Refuge? http://www.desertreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DR_Spring_2014.pdf

See pages 3 and 17

As a side note, there is also an article beginning on Page 8 that pertains to wind energy and eagle conservation.

The Reaper

04-16-2014, 12:43

Kind of like wind generation, killing of endangered species is fine as long as the right people (i.e., the US government and their envirowhacko buddies) are doing it.

TR

tonyz

04-16-2014, 13:21

Conceding that the rancher owes someone some money...a couple of issues (of many, many issues) strike me as capturing the general sense of angst with this specific BLM operation and current oversight of the growing federal government bureaucracy...

"BLM snipers..."

And,

"First Amendment zones..." in the desert...

Moreover, it seems now when a citizen runs afoul of a federal bureaucracy they are not so gently reminded...

"All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun..." Or, an audit...

In a government of the people, when and how, if ever, should the bureaucracies to be reminded of the same?

The mid-term elections are fast approaching.

GratefulCitizen

04-16-2014, 13:41

Kelo vs City of New London

Plenty of federally-owned land in the west could be used to generate tax revenue for the states.
For most of it, the Feds have proprietary jurisdiction, not exclusive jurisdiction (forts, magazines, dock-yards, etc).

Eminent domain power.
The states should just take it, and pay the Feds what they think it's worth.

Paslode

04-16-2014, 13:57

Kind of like wind generation, killing of endangered species is fine as long as the right people (i.e., the US government and their envirowhacko buddies) are doing it.

TR

Or kind of like Al Sharpton.

NBC News reported back in 2008 that Al Sharpton owed in excess of 1 million dollars in back taxes. The New York Post reported back in 2011 he owed nearly 3 million dollars in back taxes......yet unlike Mr. Bundy there has been no armed incursion by a small army of Federal Agents to confiscate Sharpton's property or collect the debt Sharpton owes the Federal Government.

Sdiver

04-16-2014, 14:34

Or kind of like Al Sharpton.

NBC News reported back in 2008 that Al Sharpton owed in excess of 1 million dollars in back taxes. The New York Post reported back in 2011 he owed nearly 3 million dollars in back taxes......yet unlike Mr. Bundy there has been no armed incursion by a small army of Federal Agents to confiscate Sharpton's property or collect the debt Sharpton owes the Federal Government.

Saw this today ....

badshot

04-16-2014, 18:29

Or kind of like Al Sharpton.

Sounds about right...

Is it Evil or a Mental Defect?

No need to answer it can only be either one or both

Paslode

04-16-2014, 19:19

Saw this today ....

Putting aside all the things other than the Back tax aspect if 'equal justice' were the intent Bundy would have had a lien filed filed against him as Sharpton has....or Sharton would have long ago had a army of heavily armed jack booted Federal thugs beating down his door as Bundy has.

Other than that....it appears Bundy has been a producer his entire life, whereas Rev. Al has been leech on society and pads his wallet by peddling racial strife.

PSM

04-16-2014, 20:31

A lot of people agree that Bundy is legally in the wrong,

Is he really? His family has lived there for over a hundred and forty years. It became a state and they were citizens of that state and paid open range grazing fees to the state. Then the feds decide that they need grazing fees, too, and his family paid them. Then the feds decide that his herd is to too large and on and on and on until they drove all the other ranchers from the land. How was the armed federal response on the illegals and drug mules crossing the border? How would you like to have the feds charge you a fee for living where you live just because they say they can and have judges that will support them?

On Tuesdays my wife volunteers at a BLM facility. The BLM folks didn't show up yesterday. They seem like good guys. My guess is that they were too embarrassed to show.

I live on land surrounded by BLM land and if I don't support the Bundy family, who will support me when they come? It's pushback time! :mad:

Pat

badshot

04-16-2014, 20:53

Now lets say Bundy is 100% illegal. The govt can round up his cattle and remove them from the land with court order etc, but it seems a little bit of an overreaction bullying on the part of the govt. the way they went about it. Minimum use of force is the rule. Another case of using SWAT team because they have one not because they need one.

Hence the Lady Justice image or Scale shown at most older Court houses...it is SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED! About as mentally balanced and of high moral character as the Reid's are.

The continual 'unbalanced' reaction by the gov't should give one pause for thought. One should also seek the truth behind such unbalance and remove those from office whom make choices for their selfish interests, and not for the country's best interest.

EDIT: I'm with PSM on this

YM Cating

04-16-2014, 20:54

I live on land surrounded by BLM land and if I don't support the Bundy family, who will support me when they come? It's pushback time! :mad:

Pat

Agreed!

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."-Martin Niemöller

GratefulCitizen

04-16-2014, 21:21

A lot of people agree that Bundy is legally in the wrong

The 13 American Colonies rebelling against England were legally in the wrong.
Harboring fugitive slaves prior to the Civil War was legally in the wrong.

From whom do we derive our rights?
From whom does the Federal government receive its authority?

The Bundy fiasco is a topic.
It is not the issue.

frostfire

04-16-2014, 23:32

The 13 American Colonies rebelling against England were legally in the wrong.
Harboring fugitive slaves prior to the Civil War was legally in the wrong.

From whom do we derive our rights?
From whom does the Federal government receive its authority?

The Bundy fiasco is a topic.
It is not the issue.

great post!

Something tells me the civilians could be better armed than the "opposition." Heck....some folks in Montana are making deadly accurate semi-auto 300winmag...so accurate that 400m movers were a joke, the DTA, Horus, etc. The ingenuity, redneck engineer type makes this country super great IMHOO. Unless the fed brings AH64 type arsenal , you just never know what some 'ol regular joe brings to the Bundy Party:D

On the lighthearted side:

mojaveman

04-16-2014, 23:46

Looking at the images of all of those armed people milling around can you imagine what might have happened if someone on either side would have caused a negligent discharge?

Agree with some of the others here that this isn't over. I'm pretty sure that there are some higher ups in the ranks of the federal offices involved that don't like what happened there (them backing down). I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a much superior force. A few Battalions of the Nevada National Guard or maybe even regular Army?

If Mr. Bundy chooses to go out in a blaze of glory will it incite more anti-government sentiment? A lot of people in this country are fed up with the Federal Government right now and I have a feeling we're going to see more incidents like this in the future.

Looking at the issue from both sides I can't take a strong stance on it.

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 00:13

Looking at the images of all of those armed people milling around can you imagine what might have happened if someone on either side would have had a negligent discharge?

Agree with some of the others here that this isn't over. There are higher ups in the ranks of the federal offices involved that that don't like what happened there (them backing down) I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a much superior force. A few Battalions of the Nevada National Guard or maybe even regular Army?

Well it would be an extreme and blatant violation of the law if they deployed the U.S. Army. That would most definitely be the beginning of a Civil War. There is an interconnected web of well regulated Militias in the country, with branches in every state. They would call to arms, form their own regiments. Probably starting with the 1st Nevada and it would all go down hill from there. There's also the State Defense Force which only answers to the governor however given his inaction they would probably abandon their posts to join what I assume would be called the 1st Nevada.

If the politicians really want to go down that road then they seriously underestimate the people in this country.

And at that point every soldier would have to really search their soul and pick a side. The line between who the enemy is isn't always so clear, and I'm sure it'd be a tough decision for some. Some of your buddies might be on the other side and you'd have to ask yourself "Can I really shoot at this man, this brother I've spent the past 4 years training with and fighting with?" It would tear families and friends apart. I've got family and friends that lean left and this is something I've had to think about. If it came down to it could I really kill someone I love, that I grew up with, that helped raise me? These aren't fun questions but that's the reality.

I hope it doesn't come to it, but I know where I stand.

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 00:24

Regular military can't be used for law enforcement purposes due to the Posse Comitatus Act, but I believe Posse Comitatus does not apply to National Guard, which can be used by a state for law enforcement purposes. Something like that though would be very bad in terms of the visuals though IMO. However this isn't a state issue, it's a federal issue (BLM), so I don't think they could use the National Guard, right?

True, although Presidents suspend that act whenever they want. During Katrina the 82nd Airborne Paratroopers were deployed to the ground in full kit. So shit happens.

But like I said in my above, they do that and they kill someone, the war starts.

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 00:33

Yes, I don't know how Posse Comitatus works with regards to something like that. If the president can suspend it whenever they want though, what is the point of it? Or is it where it can be suspended for special emergencies?

I believe there has to be an emergency session of congress. However when they did it during Katrina it was kept very very quiet. They could have done it already but we just haven't heard because who's going to publicize it?

Apparently the same was done during the Boston Marathon Bombing. I remember seeing up-armored humvees and MPs patrolling along with every other agency. Hell we even had ICE agents and Embassy Security (guess there were no illegals to go after or diplomats to protect.)

I can tell you one thing, when they had that "shelter in place" order. I said F that, this is my city and I'm going to live my life. What I will say is I was a whole lot more worried about getting shot by a cop or secret service agent than I was of someone blowing me up. You couldn't spit without hitting an LEO

As long as congress is involved in the process and Obama doesn't use an "executive" order than yeah, there's a time to do it, but by that same token, I have a feeling this administration will abuse that emergency exemption to harm us.

Pete

04-17-2014, 04:05

I believe there has to be an emergency session of congress. However when they did it during Katrina it was kept very very quiet. They could have done it already but we just haven't heard because who's going to publicize it? ....

This story is from 09/21/2005

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17253

"NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 21, 2005 – The Army's 82nd Airborne Division took to the water soon after it deployed to New Orleans to provide disaster relief assistance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the unit's two-star general said here Sept. 20...."

miclo18d

04-17-2014, 05:50

The more than 3.2 million Americans living in bondage and the more than 424 thousand "free" Americans subject to kidnapping and enslavement ...

YMMV
Yes, my mileage does vary.

I wasn't referencing slavery at all. Thanks for bringing that up. Someone mentioned that it would be like "Bloody Kansas" if the shooting started. I said basically that no, that would be wrong because Bloody Kansas was over whether Kansas Territory would be a slave state or not. I said the Boston Massacre would be a more appropriate reference.

Unless you are trying to compare modern American Citizens being governed by an oppressive government to slaves of the Civil War era?

YMMV

sg1987

04-17-2014, 07:38

SPEC4

04-17-2014, 08:49

:D:D

pcfixer

04-17-2014, 10:32

Pericles

04-17-2014, 12:09

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 22:03

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 22:07

This story is from 09/21/2005

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17253

"NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 21, 2005 – The Army's 82nd Airborne Division took to the water soon after it deployed to New Orleans to provide disaster relief assistance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the unit's two-star general said here Sept. 20...."

Ahh fair enough, I had gotten the story by word of mouth from a buddy in the 82nd. Should have fact checked it.

YM Cating

04-17-2014, 23:45

According to Reid any one who supports Bundy is a "domestic terrorist." Yeah me and George Washington both. But that aside he's also flat out lied saying that they had the women and children lined up first. While it is true that Sheriff Mack said they'd have the women up first he never said they'd have children. Second you can see in the videos that they never actually followed through on that strategy of placing the women in front. Third, and I hate to say it but Mack was incredibly unwise for saying that, he should have known better. It's a good strategy but not if you tell people. Art of war 101. He's going to lose a lot of hearts and minds because of that statement.

According to Reid he is going to be working with the FBI, BLM and no doubt DHS and try to get Holder to turn this into a Domestic Terrorism case.

So how do yall see this panning out?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/17/sen-reid-calls-supporters-nevada-rancher-bundy-domestic-terrorists/

YM Cating

04-18-2014, 01:49

Saw this from someone at another forum:

Fort Hood shooting was just "workplace violence"
Benghazi was just an unruly crowd responding to a video
Protesters in Nevada over heavy-handed federal government tactics regarding cows grazing = domestic terrorists

Come on dude, you gotta get with the times. Defending freedom is a no no. Only illegals and turtles get rights. I've just come up with an easy fix. Renounce your citizenship become illegal and you'll get to do whatever the hell you want. Ah yes D.C. Logic at work.

But in all seriousness Reid and is ilk need to go, they've got no place in our government.

Peregrino

04-18-2014, 06:09

I wonder what Reid et al would have said about Lexington and Concord. :munchin

miclo18d

04-18-2014, 06:16

Though I don't think it would start a revolution, I think it would be more akin to a Civil War.
Unfortunately I think you're correct in that statement. What ever happens it won't be pretty.

Paslode

04-18-2014, 06:27

A lot of people agree that Bundy is legally in the wrong, but do not agree at all with the federal government's heavy-handed militaristic tactics against him, as it isn't like he's a terrorist or anything. For example, liberal Kirsten Powers was making this point on O'Reilly tonight.

'The Law' is a living, breathing entity that is worshiped as the mold-able, end all, say all, all seeing by many that practice it, as much as 'The Street' is a living, breathing entity that is worshiped Wall Street Traders and bankers.

Much of time the conclusion of right or wrong is based on a interpretation of 'The Law' which is often referred to as Color of the Law.

Clive Bundy has his interpretation and the Federal Government has theirs.

The Law is only as good as the people that write, interpret and enforce 'The Law'

Harry Reid and the other Schmucks in DC commonly write laws or have laws written that apply to YOU, but don't apply to them and their supporters, and/or do not benefit YOU, but benefit them and their supporters. They also write laws to skirt existing laws and agreements, and take 'The People' out of the equation.

The Law can also be a scapegoat for those that enforce it.... I was reading the Letter of the Law, I was merely enforcing The law aka I was just following orders.

According to these folks you mention Clive Bundy has broken The Law........but so has Al Sharpton and many others, yet no army of Feds is setting to vandalize their their property and breach their doors. Frazier Glenn Cross is a very bad person, who had been in the witness protection program, allegedly on the FBI payroll and last week he killed 3 people.......and Eric Holder, accomplice in CBP Agent Brian Terry's murder was here yesterday to offer his condolences.

It's not about right or wrong as much as it is about how, why and when 'The Law' is applied.

Badger52

04-18-2014, 15:14

I wonder what Reid et al would have said about Lexington and Concord. :munchinThe little quisling's FB page (https://www.facebook.com/SenatorReid) gets some interesting visitors, not exactly an adoring fan club. If he was younger he'd be getting "bullied."

Gonna need a few good carpenters.

PSM

04-18-2014, 16:07

As a side note, where do these protesters get the money to be out protesting like this? Do they not have jobs?

Ranchers are cowpunchers, not clock punchers. ;)

Pat

ETA photo. Domestic terrorists:

badshot

04-18-2014, 16:22

Ranchers are cowpunchers, not clock punchers. ;)Pat

...and they work their asses off 24-7 365 days a year in extreme conditions...

cbtengr

04-18-2014, 17:03

As a side note, where do these protesters get the money to be out protesting like this? Do they not have jobs? I don't mean that in any condescending tone at all, I just mean out of curiosity.

Now that is a question that is seldom asked of the left as they turn out protesters by the thousands for whatever reason. I have always assumed that the left always had greater turnouts because those folks naturally had more time on their hands. The left counts on the right to not be as vocal and in this case the fact that there was a great turnout finds them at a loss. Perhaps the silent majority has had enough.

Badger52

04-18-2014, 17:16

Now that is a question that is seldom asked of the left as they turn out protesters by the thousands for whatever reason. I have always assumed that the left always had greater turnouts because those folks naturally had more time on their hands. The left counts on the right to not be as vocal and in this case the fact that there was a great turnout finds them at a loss. Perhaps the silent majority has had enough.That's how they dramatically filled the streets awhile back around the Capital building in Madison. Bussed-in members of locals from out of state, with a stipend from their union. Lots came down I-94 from Twin Cities area & up from Rahm-country. When the "furriners" got back on their charter bus it wasn't all that big a crowd that mustered. The pay those cowboys got for their actions is not something that one folds in a wallet. And that is a lesson the left will seldom get.

GratefulCitizen

04-18-2014, 22:24

The Left are absolutely enraged over this whole affair (not the federal government's actions, but Bundy and the protesters) when you read the comments at various articles. It is amazing. The Left are suddenly all gung-ho the government using whatever means necessary to take out these protesters. Usually they are supposed to be the ones who are all about checking the police state.

One NYT commentator said they almost wished it would be another Ruby Ride of Waco (I forget which) because they so can't stand these protesters standing up to the government, another said the feds should cordon in the protesters with an electrical fence and starve them to death or until they surrender, etc...

As a side note, where do these protesters get the money to be out protesting like this? Do they not have jobs? I don't mean that in any condescending tone at all, I just mean out of curiosity.

The left is raging because their illusions are being shattered.
At some psychological level, they are realizing that they can't impose their will.

Consider these questions:
What would happen to the people on the right if all the people on the left suddenly disappeared?
What would happen to the people on the left if all the people on the right suddenly disappeared?

The left needs the right in order to survive.
The converse is not true.

They are dependent, and desire to control those upon whom they depend.
If the right says "screw you, we don't want to play anymore", then the left is truly screwed.

Sigaba

04-18-2014, 22:32

Yes, my mileage does vary.

I wasn't referencing slavery at all. Thanks for bringing that up. Someone mentioned that it would be like "Bloody Kansas" if the shooting started. I said basically that no, that would be wrong because Bloody Kansas was over whether Kansas Territory would be a slave state or not. I said the Boston Massacre would be a more appropriate reference.

Unless you are trying to compare modern American Citizens being governed by an oppressive government to slaves of the Civil War era?

YMMVFYI, the contemporaneous understanding of the Kansas Nebraska Act was that what was at stake went beyond "popular sovereignty" as a mechanism to extend slavery in Kansas to include the extension of slavery to all American territories--even those north of latitude 36°30′ latitude. This point, evident in newspaper editorials of the day <<LINK (http://history.furman.edu/editorials/see.py?menu=knmenu&sequence=knmenu&location=%3E%20Nebraska%20Bill%20)>> has been central to the teaching of the causes of the American Civil War in American colleges and high schools for decades.

By pointing out the population of American slaves and "free" blacks in the 1850s, I was highlighting an approach to America's past that I think is compromising the intellectual integrity of the American political right. This approach reflects a casual--even careless--interpretation of the past in which certain groups simply do not matter. This approach was evident both in the post to which you replied and in your reply as well.

In the case of the latter, it is not intellectually sustainable to argue now that the American government was not oppressive in the 1850s given the fact that politicians conspired to preserve and to extend human slavery and that these politicians used the resources of government at the federal, state, and municipal levels to do so.

Similarly, it is not intellectually sustainable to say that the struggle was simply "slavers vs anti-slavers" because that reductive thumbnail reflects an anachronistic "top down" approach that casts American blacks as objects rather than as subjects in their own right.

This top down approach allows for an unbalanced accounting of violence in Antebellum America. That is, then and now, Americans can wring their hands over the 200 or so Americans who were killed as a direct result of Bloody Kansas yet sidestep the question of how many more died as a direct result of America's peculiar institution during that same interval.*

In turn, this approach allows for the perpetuation of a variety of myths about the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War and Reconstruction. MOO, the willful perpetuation of many of these myths in the discussion of current events is destroying the Republican Party. Within the context of this thread, likening the unfolding events in Nevada to those in 1850s America simply gives added political mileage to the left's enduring critique of the modern GOP -- that its core values have been turned on its head by the party's conservative wing and by populists.

__________________________________________________ ______
* A curious example of this dynamic can be found in Dale E. Watts, "How Bloody Was Bleeding Kansas? Political Killings in Kansas Territory, 1854-1861," Kansas History 18:2 (Summer 1995): 116-129.

Richard

04-18-2014, 23:17

Well stated, Sig.

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

YGBSM. Some "principle."

“Therefore, while I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely, that a Federal Government cannot without violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several States; since however, Abraham Lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been, at an early day of this Southern republic assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner-stone of a Western Republic.”

Jefferson Davis, Richmond Enquirer, 3 Jan 1863.

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses.... We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him — our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude.... You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

Jefferson Davis

And so it goes...

Richard

YM Cating

04-18-2014, 23:59

This.

Texas Rep. Steve Stockman writes to President Obama, Sally Jewell, and Neil Kornze, stating the misuse of Federal power as described in U.S. Code - 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C.

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-pens-letter-obama-blasting-lawless-blm/

pcfixer

04-19-2014, 14:12

GratefulCitizen

04-19-2014, 16:28

More to follow, and the story is not over yet.

Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/

"Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented, but none of the other states has gone as far as Utah, where lawmakers passed a measure demanding that the federal government extinguish title to federal lands."

A Revolutionary War veteran named Levi Preston was interviewed about his perspective some 67 years after the war, and specifically, why he went to fight at Concord.
He didn't remember much about tax acts, stamp acts or oppressions.

What he had to say:
"Young man, what we meant in going for those red-coats was this: we had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should."

In practice, the rural areas of the western states have always governed themselves, and mean to always; arbitrary rules about federal "ownership" notwithstanding.
The Feds don't mean they should.

Golf1echo

04-20-2014, 12:29

Harry Reid is becoming the poster child of what is wrong with government in this country, it is all becoming very transparent. The BLM Head, Harry's Son, The Chinese, on and on...We have come along way from a congressional inquiry, no this is a Powerful Senator creating his own Fiefdom and ruling it himself...The Libs are cashing in and the left thought they had their interests at heart, darn that Nancy Pelosi she is still got more money than Harry...

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-assets/member/nancy-pelosi/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3483794789001/harry-reid-wont-back-down-from-domestic-terrorist-claim/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3473180762001/investigating-harry-reids-connection-to-ranch-standoff/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

Put in the context of the Federal Government owns about 90% of Nevada... Maybe that is the problem :confused:

View of one of the plants in question, from aprox. 30,000'

Pete

04-20-2014, 13:18

As a side question is it true that the protesters, or the Sheriff Mack, were intending to use women and children as shields?

Depends on which news source you listen too.

I've taken my kids out of school and to a protest I felt was worthwhile more than once.

When I told the school it was a civics lesson they were not too happy.

I don't think most Americans would expect Federal Agents to open fire on protestors.

rubberneck

04-20-2014, 13:28

Now that is a question that is seldom asked of the left as they turn out protesters by the thousands for whatever reason. I have always assumed that the left always had greater turnouts because those folks naturally had more time on their hands. The left counts on the right to not be as vocal and in this case the fact that there was a great turnout finds them at a loss. Perhaps the silent majority has had enough.

A fairly significant number of protestors on the left are paid for their activity. Groups like the now defunct Acorn, organizing for America, the action network, the teamsters, the uaw, afscme, etc all employ professional activists/protestors to organize and staff their protests. I'm sure it exists to some degree on the right but not nearly to the same degree.

pcfixer

04-20-2014, 18:25

GratefulCitizen

04-20-2014, 18:49

Penn

04-20-2014, 19:53

PETE I don't think most Americans would expect Federal Agents to open fire on protestors.

What's of some interest is the period of 1950-1975, where people believed that the constitutional guarantees in the bill of rights were being violated at the state level; resulting the civil disobedience, protest marches, sit-ins, and ultimately, riots. All of which, was in reaction to a non-responsive, but oppressive government to civil rights.

One of the great disconnects of the period, in my mind that occurred between citizens at the height of public protest is Kent State, which clearly examples state agent's willingness to act.

Although, I agree that most American would not expect Federal Agents to fire on protesters, I have no doubt that will not only happen, but will escalate across the country, as the once and now disenfranchised middle class mirrors and supports a "change" , not unlike the riots in the summer of 1968.

MR2

04-20-2014, 20:01

Harry Reid is becoming the poster child of what is wrong with government in this country...

If anyone is truly guillotine worthy.

mojaveman

04-20-2014, 20:21

One of the great disconnects of the period, in my mind that occurred between citizens at the height of public protest is Kent State, which clearly examples state agent's willingness to act.

Exactly what I was thinking. Under the right circumstances and with a few bad variables thrown in a scenario like that could easily happen again. ;)

Sdiver

04-20-2014, 21:03

I don't think most Americans would expect Federal Agents to open fire on protestors.

How quickly those people forget ....

GratefulCitizen

04-20-2014, 21:14

How quickly those people forget ....

Emotions overruling common sense.

Don't bring rocks to a gunfight and expect to be able to hurl rocks with impunity because of inferior weaponry.
Self-preservation is a powerful motivator.

If the civilian force is large, peaceful, and well-armed, it is unlikely government agents will start a firefight.
Again, self-preservation is a powerful motivator.

An armed society is a polite society.

akv

04-21-2014, 01:45

I understand we are in tough economic times and beyond frustrated with the dog and pony show that is the Obama administration. How is the Bundy Ranch in anyway more than an obscure blip in the eyes of the majority of Americans? Yes I agree the BLM handled this like heavy handed asshats, and Harry Reid is a dirtball.

I read the word revolution in this thread, yet is there anywhere near the breadth of national outrage, or support for Bundy that we saw in the anti-Vietnam war movement or MLK's Civil rights movement? As previous posts have expressed this is a 20 year business dispute between two parties. Bundy has had his days in court, and lost. Few if any are defending the legal merits of Bundy's argument. Is there enough indisputable clear and present injustice here for folks to leave their homes and take his side, risking a gunfight with the government over a guy who has run his cattle on land he doesn't own for years without paying for it? Clearly some of the militia folks did, but is it that clear to most?

I think it is a good thing the government is reminded of the wisdom of the 2nd amendment. As far as revolution goes, historically it has not been an effective vehicle for fostering freedom. Just ask the people of Russia, China, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Cuba, to name a few. Even France in the short term.

My $.02 the American revolution was somewhat unique, the respective states were fairly set with infrastructure in place and the for the most part the same state leaders were in place afterwords to agree on a constitution, They didn't tear down the existing system so much as push out an occupying force.

Yes we were very lucky to avoid bloodshed and a major clusterf*ck here, ( possibly another example for the warrior cop thread) but where we really that close to revolution?

GratefulCitizen

04-21-2014, 09:05

My $.02 the American revolution was somewhat unique, the respective states were fairly set with infrastructure in place and the for the most part the same state leaders were in place afterwords to agree on a constitution, They didn't tear down the existing system so much as push out an occupying force.

Exactly.

Western states have governments.
People in the area have been going about their lives and using the land for generations.

Along comes the federal government asserting themselves.
From the perspective of the locals, this qualifies as an occupying force.

The federal government certainly has invested in infrastructure in the west (kinda like everywhere else...).
Perhaps they are justly trying to recoup some of their expenses.

England invested plenty fighting the French and Indian Wars.
They were just trying to recoup some of their expenses.

Parliament claimed supremacy and asserted they could do whatever they felt was appropriate (Declaratory Act).
The Colonies' response: Molon Labe.

The federal government goes to a federal judge who "orders" them to do what they already wanted to do (not just in the Bundy case).
Some of the people out west have a response: Molon Labe.

The Feds lack the actual manpower to enforce their will nationwide and are reliant upon "consent of the governed".
The people have discovered this fact.

"Revolution" is neither necessary nor desirable.
Resistance is sufficient.

Oldrotorhead

04-21-2014, 09:29

Once the Federal Government starts working through the courts unless you are very rich or poor already they will keep you in court until you are broke. I don't think any citizen can win in Federal court if the Feds want to win. I think that Bundy had two choices, give in or fight and if the press and militias didn't show up his cattle would be gone and he would be waiting for the next legal attack by the Feds.

Stobey

04-21-2014, 17:21

Slightly OT, but here is something that should have happened long ago: State legislatures in numerous western states trying to retrieve land the Fed government retained when they became states.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/west-will-won-utah-8-states-form-summit-wrest-land-feds/

Oldrotorhead

04-21-2014, 17:29

A difference between Kent State and here is that the people were armed, or at least enough of them were.

Your statement is way too simple. Kent State was a demonstration against the Vietnam War where students attacked a poorly trained National Guard unit. This resulted in a loss for the kiddies. First the NG shot IIRC without orders. Second the NG's shooting skills were lacking and as a result more students lived and Darwin was cheated.

The stand off in NV was armed citizens refusing to comply with a Federal Government demand.

Both were civil disobedience but they shared almost no other similarities.

PSM

04-21-2014, 17:38

Mass grave of cattle found: http://www.inquisitr.com/1220627/bundy-ranch-cliven-bundy-discovers-blm-mass-cow-graves-graphic-images/

Pat

Dai Uy

04-22-2014, 00:07

As a side question is it true that the protesters, or the Sheriff Mack, were intending to use women and children as shields?

Straight from the horseʻs mouth... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cllweBGE3Ak

Penn

04-22-2014, 05:59

AKV but where we really that close to revolution?

A revolution is not going to occur, the story has been marginalized in the media, with the rancher painted as a tax dodger and free grazer. This is not to say, there won't be a confrontation, but if there is, the BLM will lower the hammer.

oldrotorhead students attacked a poorly trained NG unit

I mentioned Kent State as an example of Federal agents willingness to follow orders. Regardless, of what your opinion is of that period in history. You, I, and everyone who has signed the dotted line and taken the oath to protect and defend, did so, to afford those students that right.

In my mind, there is no argument that satisfies that National tragedy, poorly trained will not be a shield for the BLM, nor should it be for the ONG.

Oldrotorhead

04-22-2014, 07:50

Penn

"I mentioned Kent State as an example of Federal agents willingness to follow orders. Regardless, of what your opinion is of that period in history. You, I, and everyone who has signed the dotted line and taken the oath to protect and defend, did so, to afford those students that right.

In my mind, there is no argument that satisfies that National tragedy, poorly trained will not be a shield for the BLM, nor should it be for the ONG. "

I did sign the dotted line and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer I didn't intend to justify Kent State. I do think there is a big difference between throwing rocks as a form of protest and taking up arms and refusing to comply with a government agency. My point was and is there is a big difference between Kent State and the confrontation in NV with the BLM.

On this site where I am a guest people know the difference between blindly following orders and compliance with the oath we took. Part of what I wrote was was out of line by being sarcastic after I made my point and I will be more careful in the future..

If I'm out of line tell me and I will shut up.

Golf1echo

04-22-2014, 08:32

Even in training Civil Disturbance actions can go South very quickly.

What if the Federal Government designated the Bundy Ranch a National Heritage Site and started paying him some subsides for his hard work in maintaining a authentic AMERICAN Ranch. It's hard to imagine there is not also room for another couple of AMERICAN Solar plants out there in all that expanse...what is so special about his land? Maybe just convenience ( shorter transmission lines, highway off ramp, ???

Now if Harry Reid is involved in any of this other than opening doors to facilitate this, I'd put his first pay check at the back of an open jail cell...the door would not be open when he tried to leave...

Professional Politicians are dragging us all down, perhaps there should be a separation of business and state?

Snaquebite

04-22-2014, 08:35

Got this in an e-mail. Thoughts?

The Bundy Family purchased all of that land in 1877, only to have it seized by the government in the 1930s. This violated Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, known as the Enclave Clause, which limits the Federal Government to owning land ONLY for Federal Buildings and military installations, NOT seizing millions of acres of private and public lands to be sold to corporations or pledged as collateral on out-of-control government borrowing.
Then there is the Homestead law, which says ownership of the land belongs to those who have lived on the land and developed it, which the Bundys have done in an unbroken chain since 1887.
The BLM does not have legal jurisdiction as the land in question is actually under state control.

Surf n Turf

04-22-2014, 08:47

I mentioned Kent State as an example of Federal agents willingness to follow orders. Regardless, of what your opinion is of that period in history. You, I, and everyone who has signed the dotted line and taken the oath to protect and defend, did so, to afford those students that right.

In my mind, there is no argument that satisfies that National tragedy, poorly trained will not be a shield for the BLM, nor should it be for the ONG.
Penn,

I was on-campus (to observe) at Kent State the evening before the shooting.

This act was not a case of "Federal Agents" (ONG) following orders. This was a case of young, tired, pissed-off teenagers, in uniform, shooting people who pushed all their buttons. IMO this happened, not because of orders, but by lack of leadership and discipline.

Some of the acts by the students were criminal (cutting fire hoses with people inside the burning ROTC building), and they should have been prosecuted.

Remember that martial law was not declared on campus. and there is NO fine line between what the students did and how the ONG responded. In even the most dispassionate evaluation of events it was murder / attempted murder under color of law, but not a "willingness to follow orders."

SnT

Penn

04-22-2014, 11:27

Surf n’ Turf
I possess no sympathy for arguments based on age, inexperience, or untrained and leaderless as cause for that INCIDENT, or any incident that involves armed government agents.

Especially, when considering those of us who served, the ONG did Basic, where part of the drill was familiarization and respect for a weapon. And, as many here can attest, age, inexperience, and untrained leaders did not deter them from doing their duty in VN, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or around the globe.

That said, I am highly skeptical of any investigation, which as part of it fact finding, offers the same in thinly veiled attempt to shift, or exonerate those involved. Benghazi is the most recent event that comes to mind, replacing leadership culpability for failure to act, with an inability to act, remarkably similar to the ONG reasoning, inability to intercede, direct, or control the situation….blab, blab, blab…..

The Bundy situation is different, Bundy addresses constitutional rights, questions basic principles of fair treatment under the 4th, and 14th amendment.

Additionally, for the Bundy supporters, there is the engrained American Western Myth at work, incorporating the intangibles between right and wrong into a valid argument, like those in the past who confronted government agents, create their own relationship with myth and legend on the back of a horse. Luckily, this theater did not turn into a Greek tragedy that day.

Snaquebite

04-22-2014, 12:15

Streck-Fu

04-22-2014, 12:18

The Reaper

04-22-2014, 12:28

The BLM has a designated sniper team?

Doesn't everyone?

TR

Streck-Fu

04-22-2014, 12:31

Doesn't everyone?

TR

I guess if the Dept. of Education has one, BLM should too..... :cool:

Snaquebite

04-22-2014, 12:51

Here's one article. There were others with pictures. A couple referred to him as a sniper, another as team leader and then there's this one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3147138/posts
Sgt Daniel Love, U.S. Army Airborne – “Green Beret,” was among the BLM agents in the Bundy Ranch Confrontation. In 2010, he was with the 7th Special Forces Group. Sgt Love, part of Special Operations Detachment A (ODA), served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
I do call your attention to the source. But that info came from somewhere.

Tree Potato

04-22-2014, 13:16

Got this in an e-mail. Thoughts?

The Bundy Family purchased all of that land in 1877...

Would be nice to see a bill of sale, but if there was one Bundy should have introduced it as evidence (didn't notice one in any of the public documents on the court cases).

The BLM does not have legal jurisdiction as the land in question is actually under state control.

It seems the county, state, and feds all believe it is under BLM jurisdiction.

However, it dovetails nicely with the recent Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands. While the BLM may control the land now (regardless whether that is or isn't legal), it may be time for western states to grow up and manage the land within their borders just as eastern states do.

If anyone can find a meeting summary of the summit it would be interesting to read, but as it was a closed door meeting we probably won't get to see the notes. Here's a brief article (searched but didn't see one posted like this; apologies if I missed it):

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

"We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.

....

PSM

04-22-2014, 14:34

Even the Indians are on the warpath with the BLM:

Nevada rancher and former Shoshone chief's range war with BLM predates Bundy standoff

Long before Cliven Bundy faced down federal agents in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights, fellow Nevada rancher Raymond Yowell, an 84-year-old former Shoshone chief, watched as the BLM seize his herd — and since 2008, as it's taken a piece of his Social Security checks.

Yowell's 132 head of cattle had grazed for decades on the South Fork Western Shoshone Indian Reservation in northeastern Nevada until 2002, when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) -- the same agency at odds with Bundy -- seized them. The federal agency sold the cattle at auction and used the proceeds to pay off the portion of back grazing fees it claimed Yowell owed. Once the cattle was sold, the agency sent Yowell a bill for the outstanding balance, some $180,000. They've been garnishing his monthly Social Security checks since 2008 to satisfy the debt Yowell says he does not owe.

"There’s a definite pattern in the West, beginning in the 1990s, maybe in the late '80s, of what I feel are illegal cattle seizures," Yowell said. "[Bundy's case] is the latest example of that pattern.”

While Bundy is defying the federal agency over fees for grazing cattle on government-owned land, Yowell's cattle had roamed reservation land. But a 1979 Supreme Court decision held that even land designated for Indian reservations is held in trust for them, and thus subject to BLM regulation. Yowell says treaties that led to creation of the reservation granted him and other herdsmen the right to graze cattle on the land, which they did successfully for decades.*The Western Shoshone say they have never relinquished their right to the territory.

<snip>

While the Bundy case is not exactly the same as Yowell's, the parallels are obvious in the The Silver State and beyond. Bundy’s dispute, like Yowell’s, dates back decades to when the government designated the scenic Gold Butte region, where Bundy's cattle graze, as protected habitat for endangered desert tortoise and slashed his allotment of cows. He then quit paying grazing fees to BLM, which canceled his grazing permit and ordered him to remove his 380 cattle.

Yowell said he sees some “commonality” between his fight and Bundy’s, but stressed his claim to the land is further strengthened by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, which formally recognized Western Shoshone rights to some 60 million acres in Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. In 1979, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty gave the government trusteeship over tribal lands and could eventually claim them as “public” or federal land.

“His feeling is that he’s acquired certain rights and now his rights are being violated by the Bureau of Land Management,” Yowell said. “But I have Indian rights, treaty rights that he doesn’t have.”

Full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/22/nevada-rancher-former-indian-chief-range-war-with-blm-predates-cliven-bundy/

Pat

GratefulCitizen

04-22-2014, 14:42

Navajo Livestock Reduction Program in the 1930s.
Government knows best.

PSM

04-22-2014, 16:08

Government knows best.

When we were building our house, here, a BLM guy, where my wife volunteers, told us that if we found any "artifacts" when digging the footings for the house foundation and fence, not to tell anybody. We did find a probable grave site about 100 yards from our SE property boundary. It's on BLM or AZ land, I believe.

Pat

Oldrotorhead

04-22-2014, 16:22

And the next step in the BLM land grab in Texas. I believe this is a land grab because there are productive, tax paying citizens that have clear title to this land and the BLM wants to take it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-Abbott-to-BLM-Come-and-Take-It

'Come and Take It'

Email Article Print article Send a Tip
by Bob Price 22 Apr 2014, 12:22 PM PDT 548 post a comment
Related News
Texas Lt. Governor: BLM ‘Makes My Blood Boil’
by Logan Churchwell 35 minutes ago 3
BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land
by Bob Price 1 day ago 3613
After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”

As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:

Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

“The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”

“What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”

As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”

Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”

Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”

At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”

The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”

Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”

Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”

Lan

04-22-2014, 16:27

I see a surprise visit in your future Pat. A visit from BLM Team 6.

Dai Uy

04-22-2014, 17:24

BUNDY RANCH EXPLAINED

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, explains the un-Constitutional over reach and usurpation of state sovereignty by the Federal Government. This is Stewart presenting the explanation of that fact. We will NOT OBEY unlawful orders
and we will protect the citizens from un-Constitutional gangsterism against the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0udaojwmIc

In 1848, the United States purchased a large expanse of land in the south-western region of the United States from Mexico, known as the Mexican Cession. Nevada and the Bunkerville range are part of that land. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned the land in Nevada, which became a state in 1864. Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by either Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service. Ranchers may lease or get permits to use portions of this public rangeland and pay a fee based on the number and type of livestock and the period for which they are on the land.

X-URL: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/

When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution (* and the ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT) state:

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”

***

akv

04-22-2014, 20:55

political cartoons

Pete

04-23-2014, 04:45

In 1848, the United States purchased a large expanse of land in the south-western region of the United States from Mexico, known as the Mexican Cession. ......*

So nobody, Mexican Ranchers, had any land grants in that area that was purchased?

IIRC there were many Mexican, now US citizens, who had the titles to their land "disappear".

futureSOF

04-23-2014, 08:51

If anyone happened to see the article regarding the SF guy on the BLM sniper team, It has been confirmed that the guy is not SF Q'd. He did go through (Pass?/Fail?) SFAS in 2005. He is assigned to 19th Group as a 35P (Intel).

http://misguidedchildren.com/domestic-affairs/2014/04/special-forces-members-among-blm-agents-at-the-bundy-ranch/19404

Seems someone didn't get the memo

Oldrotorhead

04-23-2014, 10:25

http://misguidedchildren.com/domestic-affairs/2014/04/special-forces-members-among-blm-agents-at-the-bundy-ranch/19404

Seems someone didn't get the memo

If he is in the 19th maybe he works for the BLM or a related Gov. agency as his full time job. That would make this a non-issue.

pcfixer

04-23-2014, 10:32

So nobody, Mexican Ranchers, had any land grants in that area that was purchased?

IIRC there were many Mexican, now US citizens, who had the titles to their land "disappear".

Please listen to the youtube video from about 2:30 on. Stewart Rhodes is a constitutional attorney. I'd expect he knows what he is talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0udaojwmIc

Article 1, Section 8 " 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;"

What Stewart is saying here is the state of Nevada did not consent to the land purchase.

Also others involved in sorting out the details.
http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-cliven-bundy-have-something-called-prescriptive-rights-why-the-blm-may-be-afraid-of-going-to-court/

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land, a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

JJ2K1

04-23-2014, 11:08

The Daniel Love in question is a U.S. Army Photo and Print Journalist that happened to be the assigned to 7th Group as Public Affairs as seen from this links here:
http://vimeo.com/22949307

and here is is personal Facebook profile
https://www.facebook.com/danjlove

And here is a photo he was credited as taking during some 7th group training
http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/special-forces/7th-special-forces.php

Definitely not the same Special Agent Daniel Love that was photographed during the Bundy Ranch standoff.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Daniel-Love/1384313938

Of which the BLM was quick to scrape any previously posted information about this individual from their website to somewhat keep his identity hidden
http://www.blm.gov/search/index.php?query=dan+love&adv=1&narrow=pr%3Adefault&pr=VALUE_HERE&dropXSL=yes

charlietwo

04-23-2014, 12:39

here was my stab at this whole investigative journalism: http://sofrep.com/34874/objection-blm-agent-special-forces/

Badger52

04-24-2014, 05:27

It would seem that Gov. Perry and his AG (who's running against him in upcoming election) can agree on this aspect of the regime.

On Tuesday, state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running to replace Perry, raised the issue in a letter to the BLM director. He also told Breitbart.com he’s ready to “go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Abbott reiterated his comments Wednesday night on "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."

"At a minimum, (the federal government is) overreaching, trying to grab land that belongs to Texans, or worse, they are violating due process rights by just claiming that this land suddenly belongs to the federal government, swiping it away from our Texans," said Abbott, who threatened court action. "This is just the latest symptom of what seems to be a federal government run amok that is messing in states’ rights and now messing in private property rights."

Perry told Fox News he stands with Abbott on this issue.

“It’s not a dare, it’s a promise that we’re going to stand up for private property rights in the state of Texas,” Perry said, calling the federal government “out of control.”

Caught a snippet yesterday with a potentially affected rancher on Susteren's show who answered in the affirmative the direct questions as to whether he literally owns and pays taxes on the land in question (600 of his 1800 acres).

Full online article here. (www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/perry-rips-out-control-federal-government-over-texas-land-dispute/)

Pericles

04-24-2014, 13:16

In 1848, the United States purchased a large expanse of land in the south-western region of the United States from Mexico, known as the Mexican Cession. Nevada and the Bunkerville range are part of that land. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned the land in Nevada, which became a state in 1864. Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by either Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service. Ranchers may lease or get permits to use portions of this public rangeland and pay a fee based on the number and type of livestock and the period for which they are on the land.

X-URL: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/

When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution (* and the ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT) state:

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”

***

That conflicts with this SCOTUS decision: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html

"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, .....

The United States now hold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess or have received by compact with the new States for that particular purpose.

That part of the compact respecting the public lands is nothing more than the exercise of a constitutional power vested in Congress, and would have been binding on the people of the new States whether they consented to be bound or not."

Or at least in 1845, and should have applied when Nevada was admitted in 1864, although Nevada did not meet the criteria for establishing a new state under the laws at the time, but that is another story.

Oldrotorhead

04-24-2014, 16:26

It seems now that Cliven Bundy is a racist: LINK (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gop-scrambles-condemn-ranchers-remarks-race-n88556)

He must be Al Sharpton's brother of another color! :eek: Bundy was taken out of context I think. If he were asked I think he would restate what he said. But why ask him when so many self described journalist have already told everyone exactly what he meant and who he is.

Ambush Master

04-24-2014, 17:19

It would seem that Gov. Perry and his AG (who's running against him in upcoming election) can agree on this aspect of the regime.

Caught a snippet yesterday with a potentially affected rancher on Susteren's show who answered in the affirmative the direct questions as to whether he literally owns and pays taxes on the land in question (600 of his 1800 acres).

Full online article here. (www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/perry-rips-out-control-federal-government-over-texas-land-dispute/)

Perry is not running for Governor again!!

Streck-Fu

04-24-2014, 17:26

He must be Al Sharpton's brother of another color! :eek: Bundy was taken out of context I think. If he were asked I think he would restate what he said. But why ask him when so many self described journalist have already told everyone exactly what he meant and who he is.

It appears the statement is the result of a direct question and only his answer is getting mentioned.

Sdiver

04-24-2014, 18:34

It seems now that Cliven Bundy is a racist: LINK (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gop-scrambles-condemn-ranchers-remarks-race-n88556)

Once again, this proves that the MSM is nothing more than "lap-dogs" to Barry's administration.

Instead of focusing on the REAL issue, they go ahead and play the "race-card" (much in the same way Holder and Barry did just recently) to divert attention from the REAL issue(s).

Here is the FULL video of what Cliven Bundy said, and what the NYT used and is being PUSHED around by the MSM.

http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-hoax-exposed-full-clip-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-anti-government-remarks-vs-media-matters-deceptively-edited-hoax-version-see-that-cliven-bundy-is-actually-an-advocat/

Sigaba

04-24-2014, 20:40

Once again, this proves that the MSM is nothing more than "lap-dogs" to [the president's] administration.

Instead of focusing on the REAL issue, they go ahead and play the "race-card" (much in the same way Holder and [the president of the United States] did just recently) to divert attention from the REAL issue(s).

Here is the FULL video of what Cliven Bundy said, and what the NYT used and is being PUSHED around by the MSM.

http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-hoax-exposed-full-clip-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-anti-government-remarks-vs-media-matters-deceptively-edited-hoax-version-see-that-cliven-bundy-is-actually-an-advocat/Sdiver--

I question your fundamental grasp of the political significance what Bundy says in the video. At best, the man practices what Bush the Younger phrased as the soft bigotry of low expectations. At best, Mr. Bundy exhibits a very high degree of paternalism in which the "negro" is an object of his political musings rather than a subject in his own right.

While these points may not matter in circles where it is fashionable to call adult blacks by derisive diminutives of their Christian names--a practice that finds its antecedents in the antebellum South--these points are going to resonate among some voters. These voters will decide for themselves if they find Mr. Bundy's comments racist and if they will hold conservative candidates accountable for his statements.

MOO, the GOP is going to need every vote it can get this fall and two years from now. Should those who support the Republican Party hitch their political fortune (and intellectual credibility) to a person such as Mr. Bundy? Should the Republican Party allow itself to be drawn into political debates where an individual's character and credibility receives as much attention as the core issues of contention?

GratefulCitizen

04-24-2014, 21:11

The Bundy fiasco is a topic.
It is not the issue.

The MSM wants Bundy to be the issue.
Meanwhile, in Texas...
:munchin

GratefulCitizen

04-24-2014, 22:03

One of Bundy's volunteer guards.
Picture from the LA Times article: www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nevada-range-war-20140425,0,6194816.story#axzz2zrot1k00

Modern media is powerful.

PSM

04-24-2014, 22:07

And Alinsky says:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. This is the one that BLM can lose on! The dead cattle are a chink in their armor, but underplayed by the MSM.

ETA: I in no way think that these are regular BLM Rangers. I've met many. I truly believe that "thugs" have been recruited for the job by this thuggish administration. None of the BLM guys where my wife volunteers have shown up since this started and I'm sure that they are not in Nevada. My bet is that they are embarrassed.

Pat

Sdiver

04-24-2014, 22:24

The Bundy fiasco is a topic.
It is not the issue.

The MSM wants Bundy to be the issue.
Meanwhile, in Texas...
:munchin

I see the BLM land grab in all the western states as the issue.
As you said .... "Meanwhile in Texas."
Add to that as well, land grabs happening in CO, NM, UT, AZ.

Bundy was just the "patriot" who stood up to them. Regardless if he's right or wrong as far as grazing fees and taxes. He stood up to them and won a victory. The "war" is still on going as far as that issue is concerned.

The BLM's handling of the "Bundy fiasco" is a topic in the MSM. Hence the very weak and limited coverage of it.

YES, the MSM does indeed want Bundy to be the issue. This to make their "handlers" look good/better. Hence the jumping on of the bandwagon by the various MSM outlets.

Found an interesting quote tonight on the web ....

Willie Michael Fletcher said to Glenn Beck: As a Black man I have no problem with Bundy comment. He was making what I thought was a interesting observation regarding slavery when 99% of black children were born to a two parent family, honor and dignity were at the heart of the struggle for the black man and he went to work 5 or 6 days a week. Today 72% of black children are born to a single parent. Unemployment in the black community is over 20% with youth and young adult over 50%. Crime and violence dominate our inter cities. When 95% of the black community vote for the racist democratic party that founded the kkk and has enslave the black community on the government plantation. We could surely have some conversation on this subject.

Now THIS is an issue that needs to be covered by the MSM, but won't ... it'll only be covered as a topic.

:munchin

Peregrino

04-24-2014, 23:13

Sdiver--

I question your fundamental grasp of the political significance what Bundy says in the video. At best, the man practices what Bush the Younger phrased as the soft bigotry of low expectations. At best, Mr. Bundy exhibits a very high degree of paternalism in which the "negro" is an object of his political musings rather than a subject in his own right.

While these points may not matter in circles where it is fashionable to call adult blacks by derisive diminutives of their Christian names--a practice that finds its antecedents in the antebellum South--these points are going to resonate among some voters. These voters will decide for themselves if they find Mr. Bundy's comments racist and if they will hold conservative candidates accountable for his statements.

MOO, the GOP is going to need every vote it can get this fall and two years from now. Should those who support the Republican Party hitch their political fortune (and intellectual credibility) to a person such as Mr. Bundy? Should the Republican Party allow itself to be drawn into political debates where an individual's character and credibility receives as much attention as the core issues of contention?

I question your fundamental grasp of the political and practical realities of race in politics. What Mr. Bundy says in that video (and your interpretation of it) doesn't change anything WRT the basic realities. In fact - the only people who see it the way you've described it are the professional race baiters, their sycophants, and the perpetually aggrieved "victims" with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

Please explain to me the ROI Republicans can expect from pandering to black voters, the majority of whom could care less about Republican (wish I could say conservative) values. Romney was right - 47% of the electorate WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN - and blacks are a significant portion of that percentage. Blacks represent approximately 14% of the US population. 93% of the ones who voted in 2012 did so for Obama (even higher in 2008). The overwhelming majority are Democrats (22% of Democrats vs. 02% of Republicans). Those percentages have been relatively stable for an extended period. (http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/06/6-4-12-V-101.png as one example). The Condoleezza Rices, Herman Caines, Ben Carsons, et al are an aberration, apparently despised by the black community and viciously denigrated by the "progressive establishment" as "race traitors". They will vote Republican anyway. Sadly there aren't enough of them to make any difference and they have no where else to go. Bottom line - Republicans can safely ignore blacks.

The demographic that Republicans should be recruiting are the Hispanics. They outnumber the blacks, they are evenly divided among conservatives, liberals and independents hence the potential to be swayed by reasoned appeals, and their culture has conservative roots that core Republican values already appeal to. And they're not still whining about slavery, an institution ended by force of arms and a lot of blood almost 150 years ago. If Republicans are going to engage in a "bidding war" with Democrats for voter blocks, they need to concentrate their efforts where they have the best chance of bearing fruit. Why give a shit about the political significance of what Mr. Bundy says? And why continue attempting to modify essentially irrelevant behavior to appease a demographic that refuses to progress beyond 1965 and won't make a difference when the votes are cast?

Badger52

04-25-2014, 05:04

Perry is not running for Governor again!!Correct; my mistake in wording. The AG is running for Perry's seat.

Pete

04-25-2014, 06:31

The full clip is over three minutes long. The media is only showing one paragraph.

Just sayin'.

Paslode

04-25-2014, 07:04

I don't know if Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro" is considered racist or not or just more how they speak out there, as Harry Reid also said that Obama had "no Negro dialect" and both are from Nevada. Reid was allowed to slide on that one though. Mr. Bundy was very foolish though to wade into openly pondering whether blacks had it better during slavery than now. I mean that's like bringing up whether, technically-speaking, businesses have the right to discriminate based on skin color if they wish to. It is just asking for it. He was also foolish to not realize that the media would spin his comments out of context.

Reid says he has revealed himself to be a "hateful racist," but I don't see anything hateful in his remarks so much as just at worst some major ignorance and insensitivity.

Bundy's comment regarding Negros being dependent on the government dole pale in comparison to LBJ's comments about getting getting them addicted to government subsidies.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

Pete

04-25-2014, 07:21

It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad

http://www.amazon.com/Its-OK-Leave-Plantation-Underground/dp/0965521818/ref=pd_sim_b_9?ie=UTF8&refRID=0APPD9CH3XAT9J7CXE94

Note the "also bought" list of books at the bottom of the page.

tonyz

04-25-2014, 07:30

It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad

LOL, best not tell "Bush the Younger."

JJ2K1

04-25-2014, 08:41

I question your fundamental grasp of the political and practical realities of race in politics. What Mr. Bundy says in that video (and your interpretation of it) doesn't change anything WRT the basic realities. In fact - the only people who see it the way you've described it are the professional race baiters, their sycophants, and the perpetually aggrieved "victims" with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

Please explain to me the ROI Republicans can expect from pandering to black voters, the majority of whom could care less about Republican (wish I could say conservative) values. Romney was right - 47% of the electorate WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN - and blacks are a significant portion of that percentage. Blacks represent approximately 14% of the US population. 93% of the ones who voted in 2012 did so for Obama (even higher in 2008). The overwhelming majority are Democrats (22% of Democrats vs. 02% of Republicans). Those percentages have been relatively stable for an extended period. (http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/06/6-4-12-V-101.png as one example). The Condoleezza Rices, Herman Caines, Ben Carsons, et al are an aberration, apparently despised by the black community and viciously denigrated by the "progressive establishment" as "race traitors". They will vote Republican anyway. Sadly there aren't enough of them to make any difference and they have no where else to go. Bottom line - Republicans can safely ignore blacks.

The demographic that Republicans should be recruiting are the Hispanics. They outnumber the blacks, they are evenly divided among conservatives, liberals and independents hence the potential to be swayed by reasoned appeals, and their culture has conservative roots that core Republican values already appeal to. And they're not still whining about slavery, an institution ended by force of arms and a lot of blood almost 150 years ago. If Republicans are going to engage in a "bidding war" with Democrats for voter blocks, they need to concentrate their efforts where they have the best chance of bearing fruit. Why give a shit about the political significance of what Mr. Bundy says? And why continue attempting to modify essentially irrelevant behavior to appease a demographic that refuses to progress beyond 1965 and won't make a difference when the votes are cast?

You really hit the nail on the head!

GratefulCitizen

04-25-2014, 17:51

In post #239, there is an attached screen shot (enlarged, cropped) of what the LA Times had last night.
The picture is now gone from the linked article.

For some odd reason, the video in this link isn't working.
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/25/black_bundy_bodyguard_hes_not_a_racist_id_take_a_b ullet_for_that_man.html

Funny how information that doesn't fit the MSM narrative disappears down the memory hole.
:munchin

PSM

04-25-2014, 17:55

For some odd reason, the video in this link isn't working.
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/25/black_bundy_bodyguard_hes_not_a_racist_id_take_a_b ullet_for_that_man.html

Funny how information that doesn't fit the MSM narrative disappears down the memory hole.
:munchin

Works for me.

Pat

GratefulCitizen

04-25-2014, 18:05

Works for me.

Pat

I can find the video elsewhere, but this one still won't come through.

PSM

04-25-2014, 18:07

I can find the video elsewhere, but this one still won't come through.

Did you try a different browser?

Pat

GratefulCitizen

04-25-2014, 18:50

Did you try a different browser?

Pat

Must be an Apple thing.
Regardless, LA Times changed and CNN is downplaying/trying to get ahead this.

Won't work.
Alternative media is already shredding the "racist" meme.

WRT the inability of the MSM to control the narrative, I have to wonder...
Does it hurt?
:D

Sigaba

04-27-2014, 11:26

I question your fundamental grasp of the political and practical realities of race in politics.Based upon my posts in this thread and elsewhere on this BB, members of PS.COM can judge for themselves my grasp of contemporary political issues and the impact of race upon them. In fact - the only people who see it the way you've described it are the professional race baiters, their sycophants, and the perpetually aggrieved "victims" with a permanent chip on their shoulder. Sir, with respect, you are wrong.

"Across the street," BTDTs who are not "race baiters" have expressed concerns similar to mine. At last month's CPAC, there was a panel that addressed the same issues I raised in my post <<LINK (http://www.c-span.org/video/?318134-7/cpac-republican-outreach-minorities)>>.

The demographic that Republicans should be recruiting are the Hispanics. They outnumber the blacks, they are evenly divided among conservatives, liberals and independents hence the potential to be swayed by reasoned appeals, and their culture has conservative roots that core Republican values already appeal to.In my experience, blacks and Latinos "compare notes" IRT the way Republicans talk about both. In my experience, non white voters will agree with many of the GOPs core values but when the discussion turns to how Republicans and other conservatives talk about and treat those same groups, the conversation stops cold. And they're not still whining about slavery, an institution ended by force of arms and a lot of blood almost 150 years ago.I think this highly controversial statement speaks for itself.

In response, I will pose a rhetorical question. Why do some hector blacks for "whining" about slavery but say nothing about whites who lament the "lost cause"?

Pete

04-27-2014, 11:35

....In response, I will pose a rhetorical question. Why do some hector blacks for "whining" about slavery but say nothing about whites who lament the "lost cause"?

Because in everything there must be balance. They balance the ones who tell southern whites to "get over it" while they cheer on blacks who whine about slavery.

But the bottom line question for all those people running from Bundy - "So only the politically correct deserve protection?"

akv

04-27-2014, 12:49

If the issue is excessive government use of force, and perceptions of the victim aren't the point; Should the legacy of the late Rodney King be yet another victim of excessive government force, or a violent serial criminal asshat who deserved the beat down?

I don't know what the Republicans need to do in 2016, perhaps victory does come by targeting the Hispanic vote. If so, why would any minority voter on the fence vote for a GOP candidate who is tolerant of a perceived bigot?

Richard

04-27-2014, 13:41

I've been reading a lot of differing views on the Bundy matter and find myself to be pretty much in agreement with this oped:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all make up our own laws? Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been doing that for 20 years, running his cattle on federal lands and refusing to pay the grazing fees that thousands of other ranchers do because he refuses to recognize the federal government's ownership.

In fact, he says, he doesn't "recognize the United States government as even existing." He argues that his family was on the land before the government was so he shouldn't have to pay, despite numerous court rulings saying he must.

Now his long simmering battle has come to a boil. When the Bureau of Land Management tried to carry out a court order by confiscating hundreds of his cattle, the rancher's call for help was answered by scores of armed men and a passel of legislators, including would-be president Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and fellow GOP Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who admiringly called Bundy's gun-toting supporters "patriots."

As the deadly shootout with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, in 1993 showed, armed zealots are more than willing to die to make a point. One member of the Bundy army, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, said they even planned to use women as human shields, so they would be the first to die on television if the feds opened fire.

Faced with that kind of lunacy, the BLM wisely, if temporarily, backed off despite the obvious risk of sending a dangerous message that if you don't like a law, you needn't obey it.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers who foolishly rushed to Bundy's side were learning the risks of such opportunism. Inspired by huge news media attention, the 67-year-old rancher expanded to reporters on other topics, including that blacks in government subsidized housing might be "better off as slaves, picking cotton." A spokesman for Heller quickly told The New York Times that the senator "completely disagrees" with that, and Paul issued a statement saying Bundy's remarks were "offensive."

Beneath this clownish theater, there are some serious points. One is that Westerners have long and understandably chafed at federal ownership of so much land in the West, including more than 80% of Nevada.

But Bundy's claim of title is simply wrong. Nevada and other states specifically ceded any claim to the land when they joined the union. They even wrote that fact into their constitutions. Further undermining Bundy's case, the U.S. Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress authority over national territory. The Supreme Court has upheld that power as "without limitation."

It's not hard to understand the frustration of a cattle rancher who is told — as Bundy was — that he can no longer run his cattle on federal grazing land because of harm to the protected desert tortoise. That decision deserves re-evaluation. But not at the point of a gun.

The government obviously cannot let Bundy declare that he is above the law without inviting everyone else to do the same.

Tortoises and armed mobs aside, he eventually must be compelled to pay his bills.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/24/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-cattle-blm-armed-standoff-editorials-debates/8125347/

Richard

GratefulCitizen

04-27-2014, 13:57

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all make up our own laws?
http://youtu.be/ejvyDn1TPr8

Some animals are more equal.

Paslode

04-27-2014, 15:18

As the deadly shootout with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, in 1993 showed, armed zealots are more than willing to die to make a point. One member of the Bundy army, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, said they even planned to use women as human shields, so they would be the first to die on television if the feds opened fire.

Faced with that kind of lunacy, the BLM wisely, if temporarily, backed off despite the obvious risk of sending a dangerous message that if you don't like a law, you needn't obey it.

Armed Zealots could describe the Agency personal that laid siege on the compound and incinerated a bunch of children in the process...and it has been said on this very board that the David Koresh could have been apprehended on his frequent trips outside the compound and the agencies did not.

What is being described as lunacy, is actually a tactic that has worked well against superior forces in places A-Stan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers who foolishly rushed to Bundy's side were learning the risks of such opportunism. Inspired by huge news media attention, the 67-year-old rancher expanded to reporters on other topics, including that blacks in government subsidized housing might be "better off as slaves, picking cotton." A spokesman for Heller quickly told The New York Times that the senator "completely disagrees" with that, and Paul issued a statement saying Bundy's remarks were "offensive."

But what if Bundy were named Travon Martin?

The government obviously cannot let Bundy declare that he is above the law without inviting everyone else to do the same.

Our Politicians are above the law, why not Bundy? Maybe the the IRS workers that owe Millions in back taxes should be compelled to pay up as well....instead of receiving bonuses.

Oldrotorhead

04-27-2014, 17:50

I think this is a pretty reasonable view of Bundy and puts his racism in perspective.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/racism-politics-history/?singlepage=true

Cliven Bundy spouted off racist generalizations the other day as reported by a New York Times journalist, stereotyping blacks in negative fashion, with unhinged referencing to slavery — and after that in an ad hoc talk generalizing about Mexican immigrants in positive condescension.

Does that outburst prove Bundy’s resistance to a bullying Bureau of Land Management is racially driven? Or that his cattleman’s existence on the Western range is now tainted?

What are the general rules about assessing issues when the involved parties voice odious creeds?

The difference between a private life and a public career matters. If cowboy Cliven Bundy were organizing a formal resistance to the federal government by emphasizing racist doctrines, then he would be dangerous in the way Rev. Jeremiah Wright was scary in spouting racist diatribes to thousands in his congregation and on his CDs — including to the future president of the United States.

Bundy’s racist pop-theorizing is odious, but not integral to his argument over grazing rights with the federal government. A bit different was the racial hate-mongering of Rev. Wright that seemed to underpin his efforts to build and expand a church and its affiliated community-organizing movements — and drew prominent Chicagoans into his church.

If Bundy’s racism is his own, it is still regrettable and loses him personal sympathy on moral grounds. But his bigotry does not necessarily affect the issues at hand of a cattle rancher being singled out by a federal bureaucracy, in an example of selective, overreaching, and dangerous enforcement.

Last week, a cab driver in Los Angeles did a marvelous job in navigating me through traffic on the congested 405 freeway. That he shared with me (the tip was prepaid), in a well-articulated thesis, his crackpot ideas about evil conspiratorial whites creating the AIDS virus to infect blacks of the inner city was racist to the core, but his bias did not change the fact that he was one of the most skilled and savvy drivers I have encountered. I could see no connection between his Farrakhan-like racism and either his driving skill or treatment of his passenger.

There is some difference between word and deed. Does Bundy spout off repugnant nonsense, and then act on it in fact by denying African-Americans a chance to work for him? So far there is no evidence of that. Bad talk is bad; bad concrete behavior that derives from bad talk is dangerous to a society. Sometimes the two are inseparable; sometimes public actions and distasteful private sentiment can remain distinct. (See Joe Biden below).

I abhor Bundy’s views on race to the extent his ramblings were even coherent, but I also do not think he is in a position to do much about his crackpot ideas even if he wished, especially once his notoriety fades. He certainly is not analogous to L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling, whose anti-black racist rants are nefarious, given that he is in a position, as an owner in the NBA, to do a lot of harm to black players, coaches, and fans, and in the past has been condemned for such bias.

Bundy also clearly does not have the permanent audience of a Chris Rock (on the 4th of July, 2012: “Happy white peoples’ independence day”), Jamie Foxx (on his role in Django Unchained: “I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”), or Jay-Z (sporting a medallion of the racist Five Percent Nation).

Few of Bundy’s present critics say much about the racist drivel of a Jamie Foxx or Chris Rock, and won’t when it surely resurfaces in the future. Their racist banter will reach far more people than Bundy’s, in that they were all in the last five years highly politicized public figures with substantial followings.

Also quite different from private cowboy Bundy’s low-brow rants are the racist stupidities of Vice President Joe Biden (on Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”), or Senate Majority Harry Reid (on Obama: “a ‘light-skinned’ African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”), or, for that matter, Justice Ginsburg (“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”), or, yes, President Barack Obama (of his grandmother: “typical white person”; and advice to Latinos: “punish our enemies”) . These racialist assertions fall into the Earl Butz category of racist buffoonery of public officials, whose racialist indiscretions reflect a far greater potential to affect our collective lives by virtue of the vast power of the offices they hold.

Then there is also the larger, more convoluted matter of history and ideas, or to what degree do we discount ideas, careers, and issues because those involved embrace odious views. We can certainly agree that the minor deconstructionist Paul de Man was a creepy fraud, given that he was a pro-Nazi activist journalist during World War II, a bigamist, a liar, and a cheat. But as much as I dismiss his nihilist criticism, I mostly despise it because it is self-indulgent, incoherent, obtuse, and ultimately meaningless — not because the author was a thoroughly repugnant person.

Oldrotorhead

04-27-2014, 17:52

Page 2

I don’t read Ezra Pound’s Cantos, not just because he was a fascist propagandist and traitor, but also because his poems are often sloppy and pretentious in their half-educated referencing of classical themes and quotes. Long ago, I once tried reading the Nazi sympathizer and opportunist Martin Heidegger, but to the degree that one can decipher his prose, his point seems to be largely a dressed-up relativism without the edge or historical insight of either Nietzsche or Hegel. Enoch Powell edited a handy lexicon to Herodotus; I still use it, despite Powell’s racialist views. His revised Greek text of the older Stuart-Jones OCT of Thucydides’ Greek remains valuable.

There were no better early astute assessments of the dangers of Stalinist expansionism than the essay “Sources of Soviet Conduct” authored by “X”, in reality the wizened diplomat George Kennan. Nonetheless, Kennan revealed himself in his diaries to be an inveterate racist and unapologetic anti-Semite. Take away his Atlantic coast inflections and polished prose, give him a gut and cowboy hat, and Keenan’s bigotries would appear even more extreme than Bundy’s. Does that mean his famous “X” essay is now flawed? Should we try to connect Kennan’s racist dismissals of Latinos with some sort of universal prejudice against Russians that might explain why his “X” essay now must be seen as dangerous? Maybe — but not likely.

Given that Kennan’s diaries are again in the news, do highbrows on NPR and PBS remind us what a racist and anti-Semite Keenan really was — and thus warn us of the larger dangers of sloppily identifying with ideas of Kennan’s blue-blood aristocracy known for its class and racial prejudices?

Were the achievements of Earl Warren, the McClatchy papers, and FDR all to be discounted, given that the trio also cooked up the forced internment of Japanese — the majority of those rounded up being U.S. citizens? These are complex questions that transcend both those at Fox News who now offer a disingenuous sort of “I warned you about Bundy” and the liberal chorus of something like “there these Tea Party racists go again.”

I can appreciate both Cliven Bundy’s ability to carve out a cattle ranching career in the unforgiving Nevada desert, in the fashion of a lost generation of past Americans, and his argument that whatever disagreement he has with the federal government does not warrant an army of SWAT police descending on his cattle — without being responsible for his racist views of blacks and cotton picking.

I don’t think that those who sympathize with Bundy’s argument against an overweening federal government (with the necessary caveat, as I posted last week, that he has an unconvincing legal case and when it is finally adjudicated should pay any fines incurred) agree with, or care about, his world views to the extent they are even known.

What Bundy rants about solar power, gay marriage, or transgendered restrooms is of no interest to me, in regard to the issues of land use, the federal government’s ownership of 82% of Nevada, and selective enforcement of the law. The proper course is to deplore what Bundy said, but to have enough sense to appreciate that what he said does not affect the larger contradictions he raised.

Again, what is disappointing are Bundy’s former supporters who now feel betrayed and shocked by Bundy’s racist rantings, and thus also quickly seek to distance themselves from the issues he raised — without recognition that the matter was never the sayings of Cliven Bundy, but a disappearing cowboy’s dispute over grazing rights against a federal government intent on destroying his livelihood over the pretense of a tortoise in a way not commensurate with its other applications of law enforcement.

And his critics? Most make the usual necessary ideological adjustments. Al Sharpton — former FBI informant, provocateur of lethal rioting, homophobe, anti-Semite, character assassin, deadbeat tax delinquent — is not shunned, although his bigotry is central to his career, but rather embraced by Hillary Clinton and given his own MSNBC show. The NAACP is slated in May to recognize Sharpton with a “Person of the Year” award — and had planned to give Donald Sterling a “Lifetime Achievement Award.” When public servants in positions of vast power like the attorney general reference blacks as “my people” or a Supreme Court justice spouts off neo-eugenicist riffs, they must be contextualized and explained as off-the-cuff musings not comparable to the felonious biases of an obscure private cowboy on the Nevada range.

Spare us the bottled piety.

Peregrino

04-27-2014, 21:48

Based upon my posts in this thread and elsewhere on this BB, members of PS.COM can judge for themselves my grasp of contemporary political issues and the impact of race upon them.

You’re absolutely correct – members of PS.com can make that judgment for themselves. A compare and contrast between our respective views should be easy and entertaining; we’ve both posted enough opinion that it shouldn’t even take that long. Personally, I refuse to compromise my principles and advance a Democrat Lite agenda so we can continue down the Republicrat path. I’m not interested in being “under the circus tent” and I’m not interested in wasting resources to recruit groups whose core values are diametrically opposed to mine for no discernable gain. The numbers WRT political affiliation and voting patterns don’t lie. The individuals in those groups who do share my values are already going to vote the least of the available evils. They see the same things I do and I’m happy to stand beside them – and it’s not just because we all know there aren’t any better options for either of us.

In my experience, blacks and Latinos "compare notes" IRT the way Republicans talk about both. In my experience, non white voters will agree with many of the GOPs core values but when the discussion turns to how Republicans and other conservatives talk about and treat those same groups, the conversation stops cold. I think this highly controversial statement speaks for itself.

We have different experiences to draw on when forming our respective opinions. In my experience – there’s no consensus WRT core values in your hypothetical “non-white” voter block. And around here, they don’t discuss much politics between the two groups; too much heated competition on an un-level playing field.

When it comes to progressives, excepting the fact that they all hate conservatives, I can’t find enough commonality of purpose among any of the various sub-groups that make up the Democratic Party to keep their circus tent of disparate interests from collapsing. I have to admire the Democratic leadership’s ability to focus their supporters’ hatred of conservatives and America in general to the point that those supporters are oblivious of the glaring inconsistencies in the progressive platform. (E.g., everyone deserves an above average standard of living and we’re going to give it to you by destroying the system that makes it possible for individuals to realize their potential.)

Sir, with respect, you are wrong.
"Across the street," BTDTs who are not "race baiters" have expressed concerns similar to mine. At last month's CPAC, there was a panel that addressed the same issues I raised in my post <<LINK (http://www.c-span.org/video/?318134-7/cpac-republican-outreach-minorities)>>.

I’m sorry, I forgot one other group when I made my “overly-broad generalization” – professional politicians who live or die by tenths of a percentage point in the media manipulated public opinion polls. And I think Oldrotorhead’s PJ Media find is the best of the recent opinion pieces available WRT Mr. Bundy’s “tempest in a teakettle”. A pity politicians generally lack the moral courage to stand their ground on the principle when it’s occasionally necessary to separate themselves from some inconsequential but distasteful aspect of the individual whose cause they originally supported.

In response, I will pose a rhetorical question. Why do some hector blacks for "whining" about slavery but say nothing about whites who lament the "lost cause"?

Maybe because the ones lamenting the “lost cause” aren’t seeking reparations or discriminatory laws, rules, regulations, quotas, etc while blaming their current fortunes on something settled 150 years ago. And to the best of my knowledge, the “Jim Crow” laws are largely history too. BTW - When was the last time a law was passed giving preferential treatment to whites “lamenting a lost cause”?

Before you deride “lost causes”, you ought to use your history degree to look objectively at why so many non-slave owners took up arms in defense of the Confederacy. Yes, plantation owners held a significant portion of the political power and yes, they did see to it that slavery was codified in the various documents; however, they were a minor part of the population. The “yeoman” class provided the body of the Southern Armies, they did most of the fighting, bleeding, and dying, and they initially did it as volunteers – usually to significant personal hardship. Maybe - just maybe - there was more to the War of Northern Aggression than freeing slaves despite current PC biases. A little light reading to get started with: http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm.

Personally, I’m still LMAO that the pundits have labeled the US Supreme Court racist for upholding the Michigan voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution in 2006 that forbids the state's public colleges to make race, gender, ethnicity or national origin a factor in college admissions. About damn time somebody restored a level playing field where individual merit is the deciding factor. Maybe that ought to be the law everywhere – no more discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin anywhere taxpayer money is used. (Sorry, forgot to include sexual orientation since that’s popular this week.) Novel concept, huh?

orion5

04-28-2014, 15:40

It seems there are 20 sides to every story these days......here's another perspective on Cliven Bundy, from one of his black friends.

LINK (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/daniel-zimmerman/incendiary-image-of-the-day-dont-believe-everything-you-read-in-the-papers-edition/)

Incendiary Image of the Day: Don’t Believe Everything You Read in the Papers Edition
April 28, 2014

By Courtney Daniels

The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator. One thing he definitely isn’t — a racist . . .

I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso’s view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine?

Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, “I wonder if….” Hell, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family.

Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government “assistance” and the long term result of accepting handouts. It’s not progress at all.

I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue. Don’t let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground.

I sincerely hope you real patriots out there can see through the smoke.

Semper Fidelis

PSM

04-30-2014, 12:37

THE LONG HISTORY OF BLM'S AGGRESSIVE CATTLE SEIZURES

by KERRY PICKET 30 Apr 2014, 7:47 AM PDT

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/29/The-Long-History-Of-BLM-s-Aggressive-Cattle-Seizures

Excerpt:

While the press has showered attention on Cliven Bundy, a polarizing man who prompted a tense standoff between Bundy's well-armed militia supporters and federal police, the struggle between ranchers and the BLM is much broader.

In 1994, Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt rushed through a total overhaul of cattle and sheep grazing regulations on over 260 million acres of land that was managed by the BLM and Agriculture Department's U.S. Forest Service, The Washington Post reported.

The 1994 “Rangeland Reform” regulations included doubling the current fees charged to ranchers for public forage and further environmental rules to prevent “overgrazing.” Opponents noted that in the runup to the new regulations, the National Academy of Scientists – a preeminent scientific authority on which federal agencies rely for expert analysis – had issued a report concluding so little was known about the condition of U.S. range lands that the new standards were essentially a shot in the dark. But Babbit forged ahead anyway.

At the time, former-Sen. Pete Domenici ripped the plan, a version of which he had defeated in Congress when it was a legislative proposal the year before. "The last thing we should do is hurry decisions that have far-reaching effects on western states," he said.

Underlying the move to raise fees was BLM's view that the fees on public lands were too low – much lower than fees to graze on private land, for example.

But as Heather Smith Thomas, an Idaho rancher, noted in a 1994 article in Rangelands, a peer-reviewed academic journal, the private grazing fees were artificially high because the government owns so much land in the West.

“What many people do not understand is that the ‘low’ fee is just one small portion of the rancher's many costs in using public land. The total costs amount to much more than renting private pasture, yet the rancher is locked into this situation, totally dependent on the public range. He can't just walk away if the fee gets too high, and rent pasture elsewhere; there is not sufficient private pasture available,” Thomas wrote.

The new fees imposed upon ranchers in the 90’s were skewed, according to Thomas, because the fee was based on private land lease rates, but private lease rates were high due to the scarce availability of private land and the lack of regulations on private land compared to federally owned land.

Thomas noted the“BLM states that "land treatment solely oriented toward meeting livestock forage requirements will be discontinued". Additionally the reforms have less emphasis on grazing, “yet the BLM wants to charge the rancher more for something that is being made much more difficult to use.”
Before the Babbit rule, fees were based on a formula that reflected annual changes in the costs of production.

“All the legislative history involving FS and BLM fees show that grazing fees were intended to be based on the rancher's ability to pay, not on some arbitrary value of forage or budget needs of the administrative bureau,” Thomas said of the 1978 legislation.

Ranchers found themselves in court for years fighting the BLM immediately following 1994 regulations.

Idaho Republican Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage and her husband Wayne Hage, lost their grazing permit on their Nevada ranch property for federal lands in 1991, when the federal government refused to renew it. This incident started a 20-year battle with the BLM. The government also denied access to the Hage family’s water rights, which pre-dated the implementation of the 1934 Taylor Act’s grazing permit requirement, by not allowing access to streams and wells. Eventually, the agency built fences around any water source, so the cattle could not drink. The BLM seized Hage’s cattle and filed a civil trespass action against Hage.

A little over twenty years later, however, seven years after Hage and his wife died, Hage’s children, Wayne Jr. and Ramona Morrison Hage won a victory for the family in court.

Last May, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones ruled that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Judge Jones found the government’s demand for trespass fines and damages from innocent ranchers to be “abhorrent to the Court and I express on the record my offense of my own conscience in that conduct. That’s not just simply following the law and pursuing your management right, it evidences an actual intent to destroy their water rights, to get them off the public lands.”

Jones went further and accused federal government personnel of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an attempt “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

Morrison Hage, a member of the Nevada Agriculture Board, told Breitbart News that “In the west our governors almost conduct themselves as if they’re a colonial governor and as if they’re only governor over the private land, adding “They take their hands off the steering wheel even though all state power emerge from the state. They take their hands off the steering whenever there’s anything to do with federal land management.”

As to states bowing to the feds over land usage, when we bought our property here in SE AZ, ADOT demanded that we build an asphalt turnout, to their specifications (estimated at $6,000), off the highway before they would give permission for the county to give us an address, without which we could not begin building. When I pointed out that the road was on BLM land and we only had an easement for the right-of-way, the ADOT guy I had been wrestling with for 3 or 4 months finally admitted that they wanted us to do it because he didn't want to contact BLM about it. I had contacted our state representatives and they could not find any law that would require us to build the turnout.

Turns out, ADOT claimed that it was their "policy" to require it. They have since learned that policy is not law. We have no asphalt turnout. ;)

Pat

mojaveman

05-05-2014, 11:07

The BLM left weeks ago, but the militia is sticking around so no one gets any funny ideas. That means Bunkerville residents now have to deal with a bunch of armed people around it's roads, schools and churches. Some are understandably scared. Also, the militia have set up checkpoints on the roads, where residents have to prove they live there before being allowed to drive on. That's just inconvenient. Bunkerville wants them out.

I bet Bundy's neighbors aren't very happy with him right now.

As I stated earlier, I'm divided on this issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/bundy-ranch-militia-wearing-welcome-000700594.html

Team Sergeant

05-05-2014, 11:10

The BLM left weeks ago, but the militia is sticking around so no one gets any funny ideas. That means Bunkerville residents now have to deal with a bunch of armed people around it's roads, schools and churches. Some are understandably scared. Also, the militia have set up checkpoints on the roads, where residents have to prove they live there before being allowed to drive on. That's just inconvenient.

Bunkerville wants them out.

I bet Bundy's neighbors aren't very happy with him right now. As I stated earlier, I'm divided on this issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/bundy-ranch-militia-wearing-welcome-000700594.html

Funny, I spent most of my adult life surrounded by men carrying guns and I felt very safe....... Sheeple will be sheeple.

ddoering

05-05-2014, 11:41

They have to discredit them before they can take them down.

atticus finch

05-09-2014, 14:10

Exactly

Are there any photos or videos of these supposed road blocks? I would like to see an interview with some people that are complaining. How about a photo or video of these supposed thugs doing something illegal in town. Some evidence other than a politician making claims on the internet and at his convention. With all the cell phones, video cameras and other secret squirrel gear out there surely they could find some footage of these roadblocks and high handed use of firearms.

So far no evidence towards this claim of any real basis, and I doubt there will be any of such.
Seems like the same old story, run the 'big lie' until it sticks by whatever means. That whole racism thing seems to have failed, evidently this is the next attempt.

awisewon

05-10-2014, 19:31

Harry Reid an his sons law firm are neck deep in the Bundy Ranch mess along with a Company from China they want to Build Solar an wind power of course there is different stories being told. Also this Ryan Payne seems to be not who he says and appears to be a fraud not a Army Ranger he claimed to be and so far by the looks of it has Cliven Bundy fooled which that is what liars do fool people and its this Patne dude and his side Kick Buda or whatever they call him that seem to be provoking more than defusing anything so its anyones guess how this is going to turn out,

pcfixer

05-13-2014, 06:40

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/05/11/the-moral-and-legal-defense-of-pointing-weapons-at-bureau-of-land-management-agents/

The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie.

Are BLM agents complicit in pointing weapons?

Richard

05-13-2014, 07:23

And so it goes...

Richard

Team Sergeant

05-13-2014, 07:29

pcfixer

06-08-2014, 13:13

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?4657-Stewart-Rhodes-founder-of-Oathkeepers-was-right-about-federal-gov-t-attacking-Bundy-Ranch&

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, was right about federal gov't attacking Bundy Ranch.

<snip>
They go on to discuss how every department is becoming militarized, for example, the ag department has its own SWAT team, as well as highlighting certain phrases in the memo regarding the “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” directive no. 3025.18
Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary
to protect the federal property or functions.

Gertz then makes this comment:

"I was told by a U.S. official that there was consideration in using military force under this directive in the recent standoff in Nevada with rancher Cliven Bundy, who was in dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing, but apparently cooler heads prevailed and they decided not to call out the military in that case."

Doocy: You mean they were considering taking him out with a drone?

Gertz: No, I think they were going to use military forces to somehow deal with the protests that had risen up over that.

Doocy: Well I’m glad someone talked them out of that, that would have been crazy.

PSM

01-08-2018, 14:49

Charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, three others are dismissed

A federal judge dismissed all charges against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and another man on Monday after accusing prosecutors of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy’s lawyers.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro cited "flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" in her decision to dismiss all charges against the Nevada rancher and three others.

"The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Navarro said.

“Either the government lied or [it’s actions were] so grossly negligent as to be tantamount to lying."- Judge Andrew Napolitano

Bundy's supporters cheered as he walked out of court a free man, hugging his wife. He said he'd been jailed for 700 days as a "political prisoner" for refusing to acknowledge federal authority over the land around his cattle ranch.

On Dec. 20, Navarro declared a mistrial in the high-profile Bundy case. It was only the latest, stunning development in the saga of the Nevada rancher, who led a tense, armed standoff with federal officials trying to take over his land. The clash served as a public repudiation of the federal government.

The Brady rule, named after the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case known as Brady vs. Maryland, holds that failure to disclose such evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process.

“In this case the failures to comply with Brady were exquisite, extraordinary,” said Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The judge exercised tremendous patience.”

The 71-year-old Bundy’s battle with the federal government eventually led to what became known as the Bundy standoff of 2014. But it began long before that.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. government limited grazing rights on federal lands in order to protect the desert tortoise habitat. In 1993, Bundy, in protest, refused to renew his permit for cattle grazing, and continued grazing his livestock on these public lands. He didn’t recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over the sovereign state of Nevada.

The federal courts sided with the BLM, and Bundy didn’t seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Nevertheless, the rancher and the government continued this dispute for 20 years, and Bundy ended up owing over $1 million in fees and fines.

Things came to a head in 2014, when officials planned to capture and impound cattle trespassing on government land. Protesters, many armed, tried to block the authorities, which led to a standoff. For a time, they even shut down a portion of I-15, the main interstate highway running through Southern Nevada.

Tensions escalated until officials, fearing for the general safety, announced they would return Bundy’s cattle and suspend the roundup.

Afterward, Bundy continued to graze his cattle and not pay fees. He and his fellow protesters were heroes to some, but criminals to the federal government. Bundy, along with others seen as leaders of the standoff, including sons Ammon and Ryan and militia member Ryan Payne, were charged with numerous felonies, including conspiracy, assault on a federal officer and using a firearm in a violent crime. They faced many years in prison.

The Bundy case finally went to trial last October. But just two months later, it ended with Navarro angry, the feds humiliated and Bundy – at least to his supporters – vindicated.

Navarro had suspended the trial earlier and warned of a mistrial when prosecutors released information after a discovery deadline. Overall, the government was late in handing over more than 3,300 pages of documents. Further, some defense requests for information that ultimately came to light had been ridiculed by prosecutors as “fantastical” and a “fishing expedition.”

“Either the government lied or [its actions were] so grossly negligent as to be tantamount to lying,” Napolitano said. “This happened over and over again.”

Navarro said Monday it was clear the FBI was involved in the prosecution and it was not a coincidence that most of the evidence that was held back – which would have worked in Bundy’s favor – came from the FBI, AZCentral reported.

The newspaper said after the courtroom doors opened following Navarro’s ruling, a huge cheer went up from a crowd of spectators that had gathered outside.

Fox News’ Greg Norman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/08/charges-against-rancher-cliven-bundy-three-others-are-dismissed.html

Hasn't been a good year for the FBI.