BLM controversy in Southern Utah

[accadacca]

Crazy stuff goin' on down there...

---

SALT LAKE CITY

[accadacca]

Looks like the good ole boys showed up.

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111635.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111634.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111633.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111632.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111631.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111630.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111629.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpics/11/1116/111628.jpg?filter=ksl/pgallery

[Bootboy]

This is out of hand. Sounds like it could be another Ruby Ridge or Waco in a hurry


LNT

[Sombeech]

So maybe the real dispute is whether or not his family had the original rights to the land?

[Iceaxe]

There is no controversy. ... The cattle rancher Bundy is nothing but a thief stealing over one million dollars from you and me by not paying his federal grazing fees. He should be in prison and his cattle sold at auction to pay for his past due bills.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[rockgremlin]

There is no controversy. ... The cattle rancher Bundy is nothing but a thief stealing over one million dollars from you and me by not paying his federal grazing fees. He should be in prison and his cattle sold at auction to pay for his past due bills.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3


WRONG.

Bundy owned the land before the BLM laid claim to any parcel of property on his land. The real thief here is the federal government.

It would be like if tomorrow the BLM swooped in and laid claim to your house and asserted that you could still live there - you just had to pay them a hefty annual fee. It's B.S.

If you wanna talk about the investment of taxpayers money, let's talk about how much it cost to fund sending federal marshals out with helicopters and a small army of armed rangers...really?

[oldno7]

I'll reserve judgement.

Read about the Hage family in Northern Nevada or watch this video.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fox+news+enemies+of+the+state+youtube&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=C424B0A472F91919D21BC424B0A472F91919D21B

The government has the ability to tie one up in court rulings, endlessly.
Would that give one a feeling of hopelessness?

Regardless of legality either way, here.
A government agency armed for war to remove cattle, can hardly be viewed as a peaceful solution.
Labeling a given area as a "1st Amendment area", is hardly constitutional in my mind.
The entire country should be a 1st Amendment area, as well as the rest of the Constitution.

[nelsonccc]

It's stupid. By the BLM's own admission they are spending 2 million dollars for this round-up of 900 cows, so at best at a $1000 a head, $900,000. Why wouldn't they just round up 300 head when, by their own press release, they would be happy with the judges previous judgement ruling of $300K? These are cows that are dying and being buried near the road with a govt backhoe.

It's really about the proposed fracking leases in the area and the actual Bundy owned property (not BLM leases) that extends to the interstate. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy but there are some alarming coincidences regarding the gas exploration and his ranch.

I'm a bit passionate about the Gold Butte areas as I've been dirt biking there since I was a kid and have steadily watched area after area get closed off and I think It's interesting as a state's rights vs govt rights situation and this isnt the first time, they tried to round up his cows a few years ago too. Now I agree the Bundy guy is a bit wacko and for sure it's escalated by his refusal to accept the BLM's rulings and get his cattle of the land. This has been going on for years and years and his view the BLM is trying to regulate him out of business.

On the BLM side they have been trying to resolve this judicially for years and from what I understand two separate judges have issued orders. So the real issue here is whether the BLM has the right to take his land and then charge him for its use. Especially since his family has been there since the 1800's. He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.

Anyways, I find the whole thing pretty interesting.

[Scott P]

He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.

I believe he said the county rather than state. It doesn't sound like he likes the state either.

[oldno7]

This is one of the things I have a problem with, the gov. saying where one can exercise his natural rights!

[oldno7]

And what is worse, is that they have had these signs made up....

ponder that

[lynnhowlyn]

No matter which side of this situation you may agree with, it is a VERY SAD commentary on what's happening in this country - and especially about what is so often becoming the relationship between the government and the People - that SO MANY Federal agencies seem to have (and so very often use) SWAT team's, sniper rifles and similar "resources" when dealing with ordinary people, ordinary citizens .... and tax payers. :(

[mattandersao]

What's the legal background of the property? The United States acquired ownership of the land in question from Mexico via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), long before Mr. Bundy claims his family started using the property. The Nevada Territory was officially established in 1861; Nevada became a state in 1864. http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

This site (http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood) offers a summary of the original constitution of the State of Nevada, which was approved by the vote of the people of the Territory of Nevada in 1864 (before Bundy's first claimed use of the land). It says the requirements of the congressional act enabling Nevada statehood "included ... the statement that all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government..."

- plagiarized but if true seems pretty cut and dry. Dude never "owned" the land. Once he stopped paying his lease out of protest or whatever, he shot himself in the foot IMO.

[Sombeech]

Warning, some language


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA#t=476

[rockgremlin]

What's the legal background of the property? The United States acquired ownership of the land in question from Mexico via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), long before Mr. Bundy claims his family started using the property. The Nevada Territory was officially established in 1861; Nevada became a state in 1864. http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

This site (http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood) offers a summary of the original constitution of the State of Nevada, which was approved by the vote of the people of the Territory of Nevada in 1864 (before Bundy's first claimed use of the land). It says the requirements of the congressional act enabling Nevada statehood "included ... the statement that all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government..."

- plagiarized but if true seems pretty cut and dry. Dude never "owned" the land. Once he stopped paying his lease out of protest or whatever, he shot himself in the foot IMO.


Well now, that changes everything.

[nelsonccc]

Now I just read that they've dismantled the 'First Amendment Area."

[hank moon]

Everyone has a problem with "what's happening in this country" but expects OTHERS to "do something about it"

Whatever you find sad, deplorable, etc. about what is going on...look in the mirror. YOU are the problem.

And obviously I am also looking in the mirror.

[oldno7]

It's stupid. By the BLM's own admission they are spending 2 million dollars for this round-up of 900 cows, so at best at a $1000 a head, $900,000. Why wouldn't they just round up 300 head when, by their own press release, they would be happy with the judges previous judgement ruling of $300K? These are cows that are dying and being buried near the road with a govt backhoe.

It's really about the proposed fracking leases in the area and the actual Bundy owned property (not BLM leases) that extends to the interstate. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy but there are some alarming coincidences regarding the gas exploration and his ranch.

I'm a bit passionate about the Gold Butte areas as I've been dirt biking there since I was a kid and have steadily watched area after area get closed off and I think It's interesting as a state's rights vs govt rights situation and this isnt the first time, they tried to round up his cows a few years ago too. Now I agree the Bundy guy is a bit wacko and for sure it's escalated by his refusal to accept the BLM's rulings and get his cattle of the land. This has been going on for years and years and his view the BLM is trying to regulate him out of business.

On the BLM side they have been trying to resolve this judicially for years and from what I understand two separate judges have issued orders. So the real issue here is whether the BLM has the right to take his land and then charge him for its use. Especially since his family has been there since the 1800's. He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.

Anyways, I find the whole thing pretty interesting.

What are the odds in Vegas that eventually this all ties back in to dingy harry and corruption?

[rich67]

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/
Hank is right, we are the problem. To elaborate further, we blindly stand by while we allow the government and its special interests systematically dismantle our freedoms and rights. Some of the things I see going on in Nevada are straight out of some foreign country-not America. We have done this to ourselves by ignorant voting, not fully understanding the issues and putting people in control who are NOT supporting our fundamental rights.

[Byron]

All I know is that when they finally chased all the cows out of the Escalante drainage is sure got a hell of a lot nicer down there.

[ratagonia]

It's stupid. By the BLM's own admission they are spending 2 million dollars for this round-up of 900 cows, so at best at a $1000 a head, $900,000. Why wouldn't they just round up 300 head when, by their own press release, they would be happy with the judges previous judgement ruling of $300K? These are cows that are dying and being buried near the road with a govt backhoe.

It's really about the proposed fracking leases in the area and the actual Bundy owned property (not BLM leases) that extends to the interstate. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy but there are some alarming coincidences regarding the gas exploration and his ranch.

I'm a bit passionate about the Gold Butte areas as I've been dirt biking there since I was a kid and have steadily watched area after area get closed off and I think It's interesting as a state's rights vs govt rights situation and this isnt the first time, they tried to round up his cows a few years ago too. Now I agree the Bundy guy is a bit wacko and for sure it's escalated by his refusal to accept the BLM's rulings and get his cattle of the land. This has been going on for years and years and his view the BLM is trying to regulate him out of business.

On the BLM side they have been trying to resolve this judicially for years and from what I understand two separate judges have issued orders. So the real issue here is whether the BLM has the right to take his land and then charge him for its use. Especially since his family has been there since the 1800's. He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.

Anyways, I find the whole thing pretty interesting.

Absolutely!!!

Law Enforcement should ALWAYS turn a profit!

Maybe they can plant some Meth on him, or something.

Tom

[double moo]

We have family property since 1901 just above Oakley. It is surrounded on all four sides by the national forrest, an island of private if you will. It is beautiful and kept mostly as wilderness with the exception of the old logging access road from the 1800's. The Forest Service has tried to squeeze us out several times over the years - a judge in the 70's ruled hard in our favor and pretty much settled the access and such. We need the road to continue to be considered a "class D County Road" as that is the ruling by which the USF must maintain our access. The county has no dog in the fight and doesn't care whether the road is kept accessable or not.

A few years ago the USF rolled rocks off the mountain side choking off access on the road up above our property - citing it is now a watershed. They sell grazing rights to the ranchers in Oakly for summer range, even including our property in the description of the rights! I didn't think they could have herd cattle in a watershed... guess I was wrong. When my Bro in Law raised the issue of grazing on our land he was told that we would need to fence the entire length of the road through the property (roughly 3/4 mile), as well as the two end borders (1/2 mile each) to keep the cattle out... our problem, our expense. Fortunately we know the rancher involved - BiL grew up with the wife of him - and he's cool about it, tries to get the cattle off ahead of the lease so that it won't dick with our hunts, etc...

My BiL would love to pick a fight with the USF... I figure for our uses there isn't really an inconvience, except for the cattle pushing the elk out some years. I don't feel the need to spend the money on the attorneys and courts and upsetting the fragile peace. Actually the Rangers we run into occasionally on the property are pretty cool and have no knowledge of the history involved. I feel for the folks in NV as they appear to be getting hardlined... though there are 2 sides to the story I'm sure. I just hope watching the media coverage doesn't enflame the BiL to go after them....

Claim to Fame - parts of the movie Buffalo Rider were filmed on the property... check our youtube for hilarity...

[Chivas]

I don't understand why Bundy and other Americans are invoking States' Rights - which ceased to exist almost exactly 149 years ago (9 years before the Bundy family started ranching in the disputed area) at Appomattox. The Bundys will lose, but hopefully more Americans will wake up...although if Vladimir Putin and Duck Dynasty showed up together, the Feds and their enablers would doubtless be on the run!!!

[oldno7]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203953088410878

[oldno7]

Interesting

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

[oldno7]

Will this be short term or long term?

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm

[oldno7]

Seems a heavily armed citizenry put down a heavily armed government, without a shot being fired.

[Sombeech]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203953088410878
Wow you've got to be REALLY stupid to throw a lady down in front of 10 recording cell phones.

[Byron]

Kurt is all over it...

Yeah, I'd bet big that Reid's stinky breath is all over this thing.

[cchoc]

So I wonder if the rancher's ancestors refused government help when they were stealing the land from the natives. Sounds to me like he's just another asshole tightwad but the feds were right to back off before they had to kill a few knuckleheads.

[nelsonccc]

Today the media is linking dirty harry and his son to the leasing of the land to the Chinese for a massive solar panel farm. Guess where the map shows the solar farm? Right dab in the middle of Bundy's property. Very interesting and not surprising at all. Harry's son has a very dirty reputation here in Clark county too. Daddy's boy for sure. And the BLM director is harry's old staff. Alarming.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3f/3f71a0313db7488a8432ff3f52d641f2be5c624bab518a45c5 0e4c7581f0a1cf.jpg

[oldno7]

Feds think they are the only ones with tactical teams.

THIS--is why the second amendment matters, this is why gun owners will not go quietly into the night.

[BruteForce]

Will this be short term or long term?

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm

I think that once the crowds/militia depart, the FLEO's will be back. Too many egos to just let this go..

[oldno7]

I think that once the crowds/militia depart, the FLEO's will be back. Too many egos to just let this go..

I agree.
But if they do come back, their only intention can be to murder citizens
and thats not likely to go over well.
To attempt to control the citizenry, they must step up their game and thats were it will get interesting.

[oldno7]

Also keep in mind the local law enforcement sided with the fed.
Not good for neighborly relations, down the road.

[oldno7]

Video about the blm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwALTdrMZ8

[Scott P]

It has been claimed by many sources (Google "welfare ranching") that without subsidies to ranchers grazing on public lands, such grazing in the desert would be unprofitable. Even as it is, an extremely small percentage of beef and cattle products comes from cattle that are grazed on public lands.

Taxpayer money has paid for, and does pay for, fences, gates, cattle-guards, and predator extermination, as well as disaster aid for things like drought conditions, etc. Even on a highway project in a rural area, which people might not always think about, a large amount of taxpayer money is spent on items for cattle grazed on public land (I'm not saying that I'm against all of this part though).

Most cattle grazing now days is done on private lands in areas with adequate rainfall rather than the barren desert. In the past, cattle raising in the desert was still profitable without subsidies, but this mostly ended with better transportation methods such as railroad and trucking.

So far, this year alone, the state of Nevada has asked for millions of Federal dollars for drought relief for ranchers. The Department of Agriculture declared this year that Nevada is a disaster zone.

Here's a quote, not from the BLM, but a Agricultural Website article last month:

USDA has designated nine Nevada counties as primary natural disaster areas because of drought.

Included are the counties of Churchill, Lander, Mineral, Pershing, Clark, Lyon, Nye, Washoe and Humboldt.

In accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development, the following counties were named as contiguous disaster areas: Douglas, Esmeralda, Lincoln, White Pine, Elko, Eureka, Storey and Carson City.

Farmers and ranchers qualify for natural disaster assistance because of the USDA declaration. Those needing assistance should contact their local USDA Farm Service Agency office listed on the internet at www.fsa.usad./gov/NV (http://www.fsa.usad./gov/NV).

"I am pleased that USDA Secretary Vilsack approved a disaster designation of Nevada counties," says Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, who was awaiting word from the state's drought response committee reviewing the declaration.

"USDA has a variety of programs to help eligible Nevada producers recover from adversity caused by natural disaster," says Jim Barbee, Nevada Department of Agriculture director.

"Every piece of the puzzle counts."

Actions taken by Vilsack in 2012 to provide assistance to producers impacted by drought included:

•Extended emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program land, freeing up a record 2.8 million acres and as much as $200 million in forage and feed for ranchers during a challenging time.

http://farmprogress.com/story-nevada-counties-designated-primary-natural-disaster-areas-9-109732

It seems that an easy way to satisfy both political ideological sides in theory would be to simply end the subsidies and bailouts, especially in desert areas. From an ideological standpoint, wouldn't that work for both conservatives and those who think grazing should be regulated?

Our country needs food, and I can see bailouts if the Nation's food supply is threatened, but in modern times, subsidizing farming and ranching in the barren desert really doesn't make that much sense from an economic standpoint. Keep in mind that this comes from someone who has descended from a long line of farmers and ranchers, including from the hardy soles that settled the desert (my family were some of the earliest residents to settle Kanab and Delta [UT]).

[cchoc]

I agree.
But if they do come back, their only intention can be to murder citizens
and thats not likely to go over well.
To attempt to control the citizenry, they must step up their game and thats were it will get interesting.

If he was behaving like a citizen this wouldn't be happening. FYI

[oldno7]

If he was behaving like a citizen this wouldn't be happening. FYI

FYI--standing up to a corrupt agency, egged on by a corrupt senator, who's intention is to remove you from land the they intend to use for other means and pad their own pocket, is not only a citizen's duty, it's damn Patriotic, IMO.

Allowing any agency to throw a woman to the ground in the manner I posted above is criminal and I hope is prosecuted.
But I'm glad to know you support such action to your wife/girlfriend.

Scott-nice generalities, now go do a bit more research on THIS ranch and let me know who has been developing and maintaining the land.
I will agree with you about far too many farm subsidies being paid out, most in an attempt to control
commodity prices.

Go here http://farm.ewg.org/index.php
it is astounding the abuse of this system and I see a lot of it in my area.

[BruteForce]

If he was behaving like a citizen this wouldn't be happening. FYI


A citizen of where? Iran? Seems to me he was being quite the citizen by standing his ground and that's about as patriotic as it gets. When the shit hits the fan, watch that you're not the first one hit in the face with it..

[cchoc]

Patriot or domestic terrorist is a matter of viewpoint. I've been on a lot of BLM land used for grazing and have no sympathy for the ranchers who abuse it.

[cchoc]

A citizen of where? Iran? Seems to me he was being quite the citizen by standing his ground and that's about as patriotic as it gets. When the shit hits the fan, watch that you're not the first one hit in the face with it..

Thanks for the advice, don't forget to heed it yourself ;)

[oldno7]

Patriot or domestic terrorist is a matter of viewpoint. I've been on a lot of BLM land used for grazing and have no sympathy for the ranchers who abuse it.

Yet you sympathize with an agency that brings hundreds of vehicles, armed militarized "rangers" who have no problem throwing a women to the ground?

Spends millions of tax dollars on a personal agenda of dingy harry?(money that is now gone with nothing to show)

An agency who would put citizens who wish to voice an opinion in a compound, you support this?

Without the second, the first amendment is dead!!!

Have you ever heard of a thing called taxation without representation?

A part of this story also has to do with the overreach of the endangered species act and it's misuse in a government effort to control land.

What was proven here is without an armed citizenry, the gov. is free to go unchecked.

And--while a gov. agency provided hostility, the armed citizenry remained in check, no shots fired and won a battle, while the war will undoubtedly rage on.

[cchoc]

Ho hum, the only thing that was proven here is that the BLM decided to back off rather than have to shoot a bunch of confrontational idiots defending what appears to be just another welfare cheat. If this is your idea of people acting patriotic, so be it. It certainly isn't mine.

I also have no problem with the agents dealing with 'citizens' who are just trying to provoke a confrontation, they should count themselves lucky they were a group of white Mormons and not blacks or Hispanics - things wouldn't have gone as smoothly for them. As far as I'm concerned the feds are taking care of my 'right' for people to pay to use public land.

[oldno7]

posted on another forum(not by me)

The power of armed citizens in numbers.

I think it will bolster those who love freedom and scare the shit out of those who desire security.

[cchoc]

posted on another forum(not by me)

The power of armed citizens in numbers.

I think it will bolster those who love freedom and scare the shit out of those who desire security.

Trust me, I'm an armed citizen. I would go a lot farther out of my way to protect your freedoms than any of the 'protesters' there would, I'm sure. I've never been tased, but I know what teargas smells like and have been spit on by folks who looked and sounded exactly like those defending the FLDS rancher, and have been herded around by the 'authorities' as well back in the day.

The lightweights in this confrontation just want something for nothing and it's sad that people have seized upon this as an example of why we need the 2nd amendment. It is certainly their right to protest peacefully, but at the first hint that they mean violence the feds should put all their asses on the ground and if they (the protesters) choose to use weapons they have chosen their fate as well.

YMMV, of course.

[rockgremlin]

Just went down to ye local gun shoppe to stock up on bullets. They said there has been another uptick in sales due to the latest Bundy vs. BLM confrontation.

Interesting...

[rockgremlin]

It is certainly their right to protest peacefully, but at the first hint that they mean violence the feds should put all their asses on the ground and if they (the protesters) choose to use weapons they have chosen their fate as well.

YMMV, of course.


I think the armed citizenry who showed up did so without intention of firing the first shot. But definitely were prepared to fire the second.

[cchoc]

I think the armed citizenry who showed up did so without intention of firing the first shot.

That I doubt, but it's a nice thing to believe.

[oldno7]

cchoc--
Heres a link to the sites that the obama administration has proposed for some type of solar power.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/active_renewable_projects.html

Would you be aware that these facilities require huge amounts of water?

Could you possibly see where the Bundy ranch has deeds to this much needed water?

[cchoc]

cchoc--
Heres a link to the sites that the obama administration has proposed for some type of solar power.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/active_renewable_projects.html

Would you be aware that these facilities require huge amounts of water?

Could you possibly see where the Bundy ranch has deeds to this much needed water?

Are you asking me to choose between solar power and this rancher? Easy peasy.

I hope the guy doesn't come to harm but honestly other than that I don't give a rat's ass about him and his. If this continues to be a contentious rallying point for the militias the blood is on his hands not the feds.

[oldno7]

I'm not asking you to "choose" anything.

I'm pointing out "facts" of record.

By doing so, I would at least hope you can see that there is much more involved here than cows.

Maybe by doing so, you might also see the ease in which large companies have gotten EIS's passed.

Most of these in "turtle habitat"

I'm merely suggesting, sometimes the title on a book cover, doesn't accurately describe whats inside the book.

[cchoc]

I like that you used "facts" in quotes. :naughty:

I know it's a complicated issue, but don't forget all that have been displaced by eminent domain, not to mention manifest destiny and other claptrap used to justify taking land from someone.

No matter how hard I study the "facts" I can't make him out as the victim, just another government welfare cheat. Him claiming his rights predate the department of interior are laughable - ask the folks his family displaced or killed to get the land in the first place. His cattle are grazing on my land, I guess that gives me the 'right' to go out and harvest a few. Been a few years since I worked in a meat packing plant but I still remember the basics; a few sharp knives and a chain saw should do the trick.

I'm sure he has a nice little chubby from folks taking up his cause, but I'm not a part of it.

[oldno7]

You're hung up on one guy--I'm hung up on gov. overreach.

As a side test, I'm sure you know the answers---

Who writes the land use laws that the blm enforces?

Who is the blm accountable to?

[cchoc]

I don't see this situation as government overreach and you do, so the only thing this discussion *can* be about is this one guy. If you have a hard on for Obama that's your personal problem and of no concern to me.

[Iceaxe]

Just went down to ye local gun shoppe to stock up on bullets.

Nothing could be worse long term for gun owners then turning this clusterf**k into a second amendment issue.

[oldno7]

Nothing could be worse long term for gun owners then turning this clusterf**k into a second amendment issue.


You're right, it was only a First Amendment issue, the rest of the Bill of Rights should be abolished.

Good point.....:ne_nau:

It is what it is and will be interpreted by both sides to mean something completely different, no one can stop that process.

I once heard a guy say something along the lines of--the Bill of Rights isn't an al la carte menu.

Carry on..........

[Iceaxe]

This clusterf**k should never have been any amendment issue.... posting those signs in that area was dumbass at its finest.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[oldno7]

This clusterf**k should never have been any amendment issue.... posting those signs in that area was dumbass at its finest.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Agreed

BUT--from a law enforcement prospective, at this rally, why was this zone rule not enforced?

[Iceaxe]

BUT--from a law enforcement prospective, at this rally, why was this zone rule not enforced?

Best I can tell law enforcement has been totally worthless at enforcing any rules or law that have to do with this issue. :lol8:

The only smart thing law enforcement has done is withdraw, where they will now regroup and attack this through another less visable avenue.

[oldno7]

Best I can tell law enforcement has been totally worthless at enforcing any rules or law that have to do with this issue. :lol8:

The only smart thing law enforcement has done is withdraw, where they will now regroup and attack this through another less visable avenue.

Completely agree......

But it would be less than honest to think the group of citizens being armed didn't play a part in the blm not enforcing "their"

1st amendment cage....

[cchoc]

You're right, it was only a First Amendment issue, the rest of the Bill of Rights should be abolished.

Good point.....:ne_nau:

It is what it is and will be interpreted by both sides to mean something completely different, no one can stop that process.

I once heard a guy say something along the lines of--the Bill of Rights isn't an al la carte menu.

Carry on..........

These zones are bullshit, of course, but have been around for years; although they didn't get used much until Shrub's administration. There is a line between free speech and inciting to riot, though, and that line is set by the folks with tear gas - as I learned some years back in the Nixon and Johnson years.:facepalm1:

[Sombeech]

72692

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[cchoc]

Now there's an idea, gather all the militia together for one last detonation. :lol8:

[Sombeech]

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

[deagol]

I've been working with real estate title issues for many years now and have learned something about controversies like this. Of course, there are 2 sides to every story, but title is easily traceable and if he lost in court twice, that pretty much should put the nail in the coffin of his claim. The judiciary is not shy in ruling against the government, so I would have to put stock in their ruling. Also, a big lesson to learn RE the pissed off ranchers: being angry doesn't necessarily mean you are "in the right". None of this applies to the confrontation between the protesters and BLM, but if they group was high on emotion (righteous indignation and anger) I am guessing it escalated to this point in steps based on the stubbornness of the ranchers to comply with both court orders. The problem could be that the ranchers truly believe they were right, but they may, in fact, be wrong (if we trust the court's rulings). People used to be sure the Earth was flat.

[oldno7]

Why Cliven Bundy Is Not Wrong- From A Fellow Rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

[oldno7]

....

[cchoc]

Why Cliven Bundy Is Not Wrong- From A Fellow Rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

So a Mormon rancher with government issues thinks another Mormon rancher with government issues is a hero? Amazing.

Another point of view from the commie pinko side: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/10/1291105/-Cliven-Bundy-right-wing-extremist-domestic-terrorist-lawbreaker :bandit:

[oldno7]

Not sure were Mormon plays into this?

But the key point here IS---obama lost his $20:haha:(so far)

[cchoc]

Not sure were Mormon plays into this?

But the key point here IS---obama lost his $20:haha:(so far)

The fact that they belong to the same church makes them more likely to sympathize with each other; could be Catholic, Jewish, Baptist - but they are Mormons so that's the word I used.

I didn't see a timetable on the imagined bet, either, so I doubt any money has changed hands at this point. :lol8:

[oldno7]

The fact that they belong to the same church makes them more likely to sympathize with each other; could be Catholic, Jewish, Baptist - but they are Mormons so that's the word I used.

I didn't see a timetable on the imagined bet, either, so I doubt any money has changed hands at this point. :lol8:

Harry Reid is also a Mormon, so by default, he would sympathize with Bundy?

[ratagonia]

Kurt is all over it...

Yeah, I'd bet big that Reid's stinky breath is all over this thing.

What about Obama. Gotta be Obama's fault somehow.

T

[oldno7]

What about Obama. Gotta be Obama's fault somehow.

T

Wrong, Tom

We're still on Bush's term of fault.

[2065toyota]

Generally speaking, you just follow the money trail.

Cattle rancher has water rights, water is like gold.

How do you get the water rights, make it so the rancher can't use his rights which allows them to be revoked.

[Iceaxe]

This is all so stupid. the IRS should be handling this with letters, seizing accounts for non payment, liens, etc. The way they normally handle a person that has failed to pay the government for something they owe the government.


Handling this out in the open Rambo style is stupid and only exacerbates the problem.

:2guns:

[Sombeech]

So a Mormon rancher with government issues thinks another Mormon rancher with government issues is a hero? Amazing.



Not sure were Mormon plays into this?


The fact that they belong to the same church makes them more likely to sympathize with each other; could be Catholic, Jewish, Baptist - but they are Mormons so that's the word I used.



Harry Reid is also a Mormon, so by default, he would sympathize with Bundy?

Interesting, I didn't know being a Mormon had anything to do with it either, but then since Harry Reid is a Mormon too, maybe that debunks the theory. oops

[oldno7]

Interesting, I didn't know being a Mormon had anything to do with it either, but then since Harry Reid is a Mormon too, maybe that debunks the theory. oops


Citizen--all you need to know is harry reid is Mormon and does not approve of AC/DC.

You can figure the rest out from there:haha:

[oldno7]

Citizen--all you need to know is harry reid is Mormon and does not approve of AC/DC.

You can figure the rest out from there:haha:

Oh yea, I forgot to add--If you are evil enough to own a Gibson guitar--well, Guantanamo is your future residence.

(some might need to google the relevance)

[cchoc]

Religion is tribal and members of tribes tend to support each other. Didn't mean to twist any Mormon tits per se, but I think there is a distinction in this case that both are Mormon ranchers - or flying spaghetti monster ranchers, whatever. It wasn't my intent to offend any Mormons, but if I did then I did.

I'd be a lot more impressed with ol' Clive's integrity if he refused to graze his cattle on land he doesn't own.

[oldno7]

This is all so stupid. the IRS should be handling this with letters, seizing accounts for non payment, liens, etc. The way they normally handle a person that has failed to pay the government for something they owe the government.


Handling this out in the open Rambo style is stupid and only exacerbates the problem.

:2guns:

You should like the new department of commerce regulation, limiting engineering firms to 2 contracts per calendar year.

They also stated they will be increasing license fee's by 75%.

[Scott P]

Handling this out in the open Rambo style is stupid and only exacerbates the problem.

I agree. I think this incident has done and will do far more harm to any environmental cause than good.

[Sombeech]

Religion is tribal and members of tribes tend to support each other. Didn't mean to twist any Mormon tits per se, but I think there is a distinction in this case that both are Mormon ranchers - or flying spaghetti monster ranchers, whatever. It wasn't my intent to offend any Mormons, but if I did then I did.

I'd be a lot more impressed with ol' Clive's integrity if he refused to graze his cattle on land he doesn't own.

I had no idea he was Mormon until you brought it up, and I doubt this mattered to any of his supporters. I'd imagine many of those who have come from out of state to support him are also not Mormon. Their common interest is the opinion on what access the Feds should actually have, not religion.

[cchoc]

I had no idea he was Mormon until you brought it up, and I doubt this mattered to any of his supporters. I'd imagine many of those who have come from out of state to support him are also not Mormon. Their common interest is the opinion on what access the Feds should actually have, not religion.

If you would read what I said nowhere did I suggest this was about religion, that's all on you. The quote posted supporting him was from a Mormon rancher's wife who has issues with the feds, and he's a Mormon rancher with government issues too. That is the truth and has nothing to do with religion, I could just as easily have said they both wore cowboy hats, I was just identifying things they have in common.

I would be amazed, actually, if there are any non Mormon ranchers in that part of the US.

As far as the militia gomers that showed up I expect they just wanted a chance to strut around with guns on. These so called sovereigns won't get any respect from me either. Their ideas on government authority are simply selfish and childish. Sometimes we just can't get our way when it comes to conflicts between us personally and society as a whole and they refuse to accept that.

[Scott P]

That is the truth and has nothing to do with religion, I could just as easily have said they both wore cowboy hats, I was just identifying things they have in common.

OK then, I hope everyone can just drop the Mormon issue. It's just clouding up the thread.


As far as the militia gomers that showed up I expect they just wanted a chance to strut around with guns on.

It's not the militia's guns that were feared, it was cameras and news coverage along with votes.

[Iceaxe]

OK then, I hope everyone can just drop the Mormon issue. It's just clouding up the thread.

It's not the militia's guns that were feared, it was cameras and news coverage along with votes.


^^^THIS^^^

[Sombeech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XqdQjTflc

[Glenn]

The whole affair is a huge cluster-eff. My initial opinion was that Mr. Bundy has no legal basis for his objections to the fees - with court orders reinforcing this - and that he's really a deadbeat rancher allowing his cattle to graze over such a huge area as to make it impractical to raise them in a healthy manner. At the same time, the BLM has metaphorically stepped in a huge pile of cow poop with this overhanded demonstration of enforcement. I was never convinced that the protection of the desert tortoise was the issue here and when either side mentions it, they both look like idiots.

The Harry/Rory Reid angle did get my attention until I did a little digging. I've discovered - through just a few minutes of online research of a variety (and I mean VARIETY) of sources - that this solar-power-plant-landgrab story just doesn't ring true. As far back as August 2012 (see Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831)), there were concerns about Senator Reid's involvement in a possible solar plant in Nevada. There's just two facts that dismiss this as a factor in the Bundy case: 1) The ENN Energy Group project was actually to be located near Laughlin, Nevada which is more than 100 miles south of the Gold Butte area (and further than his actual ranch). 2) The ENN project was cancelled in 2013 (see reference here (http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/photovoltaic-pv/nevada-solar-factory-canceled.html) dated July 2013).

So, now the ultra-conservatives who dislike Senator Reid (and I'm not a fan either) are trying to use this non-existent issue to further polarize the community when in fact it's all just smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that you have a businessman who has decided not to play by the rules. He has no legal standing and is now relying on a handful of angry citizens to defend him.

[oldno7]

The whole affair is a huge cluster-eff. My initial opinion was that Mr. Bundy has no legal basis for his objections to the fees - with court orders reinforcing this - and that he's really a deadbeat rancher allowing his cattle to graze over such a huge area as to make it impractical to raise them in a healthy manner. At the same time, the BLM has metaphorically stepped in a huge pile of cow poop with this overhanded demonstration of enforcement. I was never convinced that the protection of the desert tortoise was the issue here and when either side mentions it, they both look like idiots.

The Harry/Rory Reid angle did get my attention until I did a little digging. I've discovered - through just a few minutes of online research of a variety (and I mean VARIETY) of sources - that this solar-power-plant-landgrab story just doesn't ring true. As far back as August 2012 (see Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831)), there were concerns about Senator Reid's involvement in a possible solar plant in Nevada. There's just two facts that dismiss this as a factor in the Bundy case: 1) The ENN Energy Group project was actually to be located near Laughlin, Nevada which is more than 100 miles south of the Gold Butte area (and further than his actual ranch). 2) The ENN project was cancelled in 2013 (see reference here (http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/photovoltaic-pv/nevada-solar-factory-canceled.html) dated July 2013).

So, now the ultra-conservatives who dislike Senator Reid (and I'm not a fan either) are trying to use this non-existent issue to further polarize the community when in fact it's all just smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that you have a businessman who has decided not to play by the rules. He has no legal standing and is now relying on a handful of angry citizens to defend him.

Glenn
Go here
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/active_renewable_projects.html

and look into the Moapa Solar BIA project.
It has not been approved, yet.
It involves the massive use of water.
The Moapa tribe is proposing pulling this water out of the Muddy Cr. drainage.
The Muddy Cr. empties into the Virgin River at or above Lake Mead depending on water level.
Bundy's owned water rights are also a part of this drainage.
The thing about water rights--there are only so many.

Lots more to it-- but if Bundy is out of business and his water rights are turned back in, there would likely be enough for this project.

This is not the project some wrongfully tie to dingy harry, it is a separate project.
Just some food for thought.
Check it out, it IS verifiable.

[oldno7]

http://www.moapasolarenergycentereis.com/uploads/1/2/4/2/12427323/moapa_solar_energy_center_feis_-_volume_1_2-5-14.pdf

Lots of information on the Moapa project here:

from a table on 1-5

Potential hydrology impacts of groundwater usage particularly those
associated with the proposed CSP solar technology and potential impacts
from surface disturbance, including an evaluation of impacts on desert
washes and site drainage/flood control must be evaluated. Project variations
or mitigations that would minimize water use over the project life need to be
considered. Potential effects on water quantity must also be included.

And despite the concern of the blm on Bundy's lease in 1993 of desert tortoise,
It's not a huge concern when these solar farms are proposed in the same desert habitat.

Also from 1-5

Habitat loss or degradation and other impacts to sensitive species must be
evaluated. The desert tortoise is the primary species of interest and the
potential effect of groundwater withdrawal on the Moapa Dace was also
identified. Other species of interest include the Gila monster, burrowing owls,
raptors including eagles and other migratory birds.


Please let me know if this project is not approved due to the endangered desert tortoise.

[cchoc]

Be sure and hurry over to donate: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

They accept charity as well as welfare. :roflol:

[oldno7]

Information on amount of water needed for proposed Moapa solar project.


2.3.2.2.1.3 Water Use/Water System

Development and operation of the Project using CSP technology would require water. Water
uses in a CSP project includes needs for mirror/heliostat cleaning, for the cooling cycle for the
steam turbine (makeup to the cooling tower), makeup to SSG system, service water, potable
water, and fire protection water. The Project water balance (water needs) would be based on
the various process water flow needs for the ambient conditions used as the design basis.
Usage rates would vary during the year and would be higher in the summer. Equipment sizing
would be consistent with peak daily rates to ensure adequate design margin.

The expected water use for the CSP project is approximately 600 to 800 AFY at average
ambient operating conditions. Water would be provided by the Tribe from the same existing
well and piped to the site via the same pipeline described for the Proposed Project.

Two (2) raw water storage tanks, each with a capacity to provide 12-hours of water supply to the
facility, would be located on-site. A portion of one tank would be dedicated to the fire protection
water system.

[deagol]

I've actually been involved in a court case related to title of real property (and it wasn't fun) and I will have to go with the decisions of two separate federal judges over that of his rancher peers... YMMV

[Glenn]

Glenn
Go here
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/active_renewable_projects.html

and look into the Moapa Solar BIA project.
It has not been approved, yet.
It involves the massive use of water.
The Moapa tribe is proposing pulling this water out of the Muddy Cr. drainage.
The Muddy Cr. empties into the Virgin River at or above Lake Mead depending on water level.
Bundy's owned water rights are also a part of this drainage.
The thing about water rights--there are only so many.

Lots more to it-- but if Bundy is out of business and his water rights are turned back in, there would likely be enough for this project.

This is not the project some wrongfully tie to dingy harry, it is a separate project.
Just some food for thought.
Check it out, it IS verifiable.

Okay...I only skimmed through the EIS information on the Moapa project site and looked at the map again.

So, is the assumption here that the federal government is trying to use the BLM lease issue as a means of putting Bundy out of business so he'll have to relinquish/sell his water rights in order for the Moapa project to get off the ground? Sounds kind of Rube Goldberg - ish to me. Also, it looks like the entire project site sits in the Moapa River Indian Reservation; how does that fit in with Bundy's water rights?

[Scott P]

So, is the assumption here that the federal government is trying to use the BLM lease issue as a means of putting Bundy out of business so he'll have to relinquish/sell his water rights in order for the Moapa project to get off the ground?

If so, it would have had to have been planned 20 years ago. The grazing dispute actually dates back 20 years, so it would have to be one h*** of a long term conspiracy.

[Sombeech]

Harry Reid:

"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"

---except if we call them "dreamers".

It's interesting when certain lawmakers choose when and when not to enforce laws.

[ratagonia]

Harry Reid:

"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"

---except if we call them "dreamers".

It's interesting when certain lawmakers choose when and when not to enforce laws.

Except if we call them "the previous administration". But what's a few war crimes among Heads of State??

:moses:

[cchoc]

I suppose Cliven as his supporters may be "dreamers" of a sort. :crazy:

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

I actually read on some site that this was a secret DHS exercise to see how much resistance they will meet when they come to take the guns from us law abiding citizens - except in this case they used cows instead of guns and welfare cheats and assorted crazies instead of law abiding citizens. :lol8:

[Sombeech]

If only they were undocumented workers trying to farm, this would be done, written off and rewarded.

[cchoc]

If only they were undocumented workers trying to farm, this would be done, written off and rewarded.

I'm guessing an armed rabble wouldn't show up to support migrant workers, documented or not.

There seems to be no comparison too silly or conspiracy theory too complex to daunt a dedicated wingnut. :roll:

[oldno7]

Except if we call them "the previous administration". But what's a few war crimes among Heads of State??

:moses:

Umm--to be fair---which of these war crimes you speak of, haven't been continued under the current administration?

paraphrasing--once I'm elected, I will shut down Guantanamo(bho)

No fan of bush here, just trying to clarify, cause I know you like to be clear.

[cchoc]

You seem to have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the hue and cry when talk of moving the Gitmo prisoners to US prisons came up. I assume, to be fair, that you'd be happy if they were housed in Utah?

[ratagonia]

Umm--to be fair---which of these war crimes you speak of, haven't been continued under the current administration?



War of Aggression is really the main War Crime of the previous administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Also prosecuteable as First Degree Murder under the laws of the United States, without need of international law.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prosecution-George-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397587366&sr=8-1&keywords=the+prosecution+of+George

Tom

[Scott P]

Sticking to the topic, it sounds like things are really complicated. I didn't know of the past bombings of the BLM and Forest Service Offices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

Anyway, to be quite honest I can sympathize with the ranchers (or the other side as well). While the vast majority of cattle are raised on private lands, in the desert it takes a huge amount of land to support a cow. If cattle is all you know, it would probably be hard to give up.

One thing I don't understand however is the following:

One protester, a former Arizona sheriff named Richard Mack, told Fox News about the militia's plans if violence broke out in Bunkerville (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-ranch-women-human-shield?utm_content=buffer584b4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer). “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Um, really, why would anyone do something like this (even if you thought that you were right)? It sounds like a tactic that is used in shielding terrorist in Iraq or something.

I assume that this would be done to gain sympathy, and incite anger among an opposition, but it seems if they intentionally did something like this (throw all the women up front) that it would backfire. If this were a real war as they perceive, then it would seem that they would get more sympathy if they gave their lives to protect the women (I don't mean to be sexist though).

[oldno7]

War of Aggression is really the main War Crime of the previous administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Also prosecuteable as First Degree Murder under the laws of the United States, without need of international law.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prosecution-George-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397587366&sr=8-1&keywords=the+prosecution+of+George

Tom

Oh--my bad--I thought you used to be opposed to torture and considered it a war crime.

Of course with the shutdown of gitmo----oh, wait.........

[nelsonccc]

Interesting article on the relationships between the Reid's and the BLM and the Bundy's. Even the BLM's page (now taken down) shows reference of the bundy cattle and the solar farm;

"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."

In any case, it's clear to me that their is far too much involvement between Reid, his family, and the BLM. Too many coincidences to ignore. Even the Washington Times thinks so;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/13/nevada-bundy-ranch-standoff-could-leave-dirt-on-ha/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I agree that it was likely pressure from higher up the ladder that killed this and not so much the protestors. Coming into an election season is the wrong time for Reid to be associated with back room dealings.

[ratagonia]

In any case, it's clear to me that their is far too much involvement between Reid, his family, and the BLM. Too many coincidences to ignore. Even the Washington Times thinks so;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/13/nevada-bundy-ranch-standoff-could-leave-dirt-on-ha/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS



"Even the Washington Times thinks so" :roflol:

The Washington Times is a thinly-disguised propaganda machine with a get-the-Democratic party mission.

Now, you get the Washington POST on the bandwagon, then you got something.

Otherwise, you are just working with paranoid delusions.

Tom

[nelsonccc]

Fixed it for you.


The Washington Post is a thinly-disguised propaganda machine with a get-the-Republican party mission.

Now, you get the Washington TIMES on the bandwagon, then you got something.

Otherwise, you are just working with paranoid delusions.

Tom

I'd consider the Washington Post a very liberal propaganda machine with a specific liberal anti-conservative agenda. In fact this is, as I understand it, why the Washington Times came into existence.

[cchoc]

WTF is a liberal anti-conservative agenda anyway? The words as you use them have no meaning other than to cart around a lot of emotional baggage.

I support the Constitution and even the dimmest bulbs out there should know that the ACLU does more to defend their constitutional rights than the NRA or any militia group. Yet they would all claim that the ACLU is a bunch of liberals because that's what they have been told to believe by people who call themselves conservative. Libertarians are in fact liberals in the truest sense of the word, yet they are viewed as conservative. The goal of liberalism is to protect and enhance the rights of the individual, and yet you seem to be against liberals. Is it a Fox News thing or something?

I know some folks who worked for Newt when he was engineering his plan to further polarize this country, and they weren't allowed to use the word liberal in a positive context and the word conservative in a negative one - a propaganda more that would have made Goebbels proud. I think that is amongst the worst things that has been done to our country in my lifetime, yet is a source of pride to the manipulators. When I see people bandying these terms around I am saddened that the Newt/Rove crowd was correct in their assessment that the general public is dumb enough to believe anything that is repeated often enough.

[hank moon]

When I see people bandying these terms around I am saddened that the Newt/Rove crowd was correct in their assessment that the general public is dumb enough to believe anything that is repeated often enough.

Dumb enough? No. It's just a fact of the human brain/condition. We thrive on illusions and they are easily created and sustained through repetition. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" (and "dumb") are great lubricant for the process.

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

Fixed it for you.



I'd consider the Washington Post a very liberal propaganda machine with a specific liberal anti-conservative agenda. In fact this is, as I understand it, why the Washington Times came into existence.

The Washington Times is a publication of the Unification Church (aka Moonies). My sister in law is a card carrying fully brainwashed member. Scary stuff they way they treat their kids (shipped to Korea at age 6, later married to a guy she had never met).

Not the kind of folks I would look to for news.

[cchoc]

Dumb enough? No. It's just a fact of the human brain/condition. We thrive on illusions and they are easily created and sustained through repetition. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are great lubricant for the process.

Potato po-ta-to. :haha:

[nelsonccc]

The Washington Times is a publication of the Unification Church (aka Moonies). My sister in law is a card carrying fully brainwashed member. Scary stuff they way they treat their kids (shipped to Korea at age 6, later married to a guy she had never met).

Not the kind of folks I would look to for news.

I actually would agree with you on the Times. I'm not really a follower of the Times, but they popped up on my search for Reid and his connections and the article seemed legit enough for me since they were mostly quoting other news sources and when I read something or see something mentioned in the New York Times or the Post I often check the Wash Times and other right leaning news outlets to see the counter perspective.

[nelsonccc]

WTF is a liberal anti-conservative agenda anyway? The words as you use them have no meaning other than to cart around a lot of emotional baggage.

A liberal anti-conservative agenda, to me anyways, is a left leaning, left biased agenda. One I typically associate with a liberal stance on most issues. I think that your refusal to look at the right wing or conservative perspective means you're carrying around a lot of social liberalism baggage, aka, you've been brainwashed by big government and your left leaning news outlets.

I will however agree with the comment above that these labels are really just that, labels. And we know the news loves labels. I wouldn't really consider myself a conservative or republican due to my non-conservative stances on abortion and a few other areas. But I am against big government and heavy handed govt actions. Typically a liberal approach, like the one you've been vying for throughout this thread, is for larger govt intervention and control which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

[nelsonccc]

Sticking to the topic, it sounds like things are really complicated. I didn't know of the past bombings of the BLM and Forest Service Offices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

I read this earlier this morning. One of the better articles on the past of the Bundy episode. I also read, I'll see if I can find where, that there were a lot of ranchers standing in support of Bundy due to the terms and conditions that they sign when they sign a BLM lease. Bundy basically refused to sign the lease since he would be signing away his livelihood by doing so.

[cchoc]

A liberal anti-conservative agenda, to me anyways, is a left leaning, left biased agenda. One I typically associate with a liberal stance on most issues. I think that your refusal to look at the right wing or conservative perspective means you're carrying around a lot of social liberalism baggage, aka, you've been brainwashed by big government and your left leaning news outlets.

I will however agree with the comment above that these labels are really just that, labels. And we know the news loves labels. I wouldn't really consider myself a conservative or republican due to my non-conservative stances on abortion and a few other areas. But I am against big government and heavy handed govt actions. Typically a liberal approach, like the one you've been vying for throughout this thread, is for larger govt intervention and control which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

A liberal approach is about preserving individual rights no matter what you or Fox News say. Bundy's rights weren't being violated, he's just a welfare cheat.

I live in Gingrich's old district and am awash in what you call 'conservative' perspective. Virtually all my friends here call themselves conservative and more than a few of them know what that really means, but it does make them vulnerable to Rush and Beck on occasion. I have no problem with conservatism, but the folks who mindlessly blather on about left wing this and that I consider to be the ones who refuse to think about any of the issues. Conservative here also means anti civil rights, anti women's rights, and minority voting, etc. It's all the social baggage that comes along with the so called conservatives that I can't stand. If the GOP would lose the 'social' conservatives they would be a much stronger and inclusive party. The fact that their major candidates have to pander to those folks makes them weak.

And as far as who has been brainwashed, point your gaze to the mirror. Your phrases "big government" and "heavy handed" are further proof that you are reacting to phrases you have heard without thinking about them. WTF is 'big government'? It's a loaded phrase politicians use to get your knees to jerk.Heavy handed? Get serious.

What I don't do is march in lockstep with any invented political ideology, but as far as this thread goes I side with the BLM. If you think that is vying for more government control then there isn't much I can do about it. As long as we remain polarized and rational conversation is stymied by artificially loaded words and phrases our politics will continue to be marketed like cars and dish soap and we will make poorly informed choices for leadership.

[2065toyota]

This thread has turned pretty pointless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Byron]

What about Obama. Gotta be Obama's fault somehow.

TNah...nobody's brought his name up yet.

I have no idea if Reid or his son or any other conniving member of the Nevada legislature is in on this or not. I just like busting Reid chops because I think he's such of friggin' moron.

He reminds me of Senator Geary from The Godfather Part ll. Just a pure slimeball.

[ratagonia]

Interesting article on the relationships between the Reid's and the BLM and the Bundy's. Even the BLM's page (now taken down) shows reference of the bundy cattle and the solar farm;

"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."

In any case, it's clear to me that their is far too much involvement between Reid, his family, and the BLM. Too many coincidences to ignore. Even the Washington Times thinks so;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/13/nevada-bundy-ranch-standoff-could-leave-dirt-on-ha/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I agree that it was likely pressure from higher up the ladder that killed this and not so much the protestors. Coming into an election season is the wrong time for Reid to be associated with back room dealings.


Busted!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

Shown to be paranoid bunkem, but...

But, you know, believing the unbelievable on little to no evidence is a well-respected attribute in some communities. see: "Tea Party"

Tom

[ratagonia]

Nah...nobody's brought his name up yet.

I have no idea if Reid or his son or any other conniving member of the Nevada legislature is in on this or not. I just like busting Reid chops because I think he's such of friggin' moron.

He reminds me of Senator Geary from The Godfather Part ll. Just a pure slimeball.

Unfortunately, there are a few things, Byron, that we can agree on.

Tom

[Scott P]

On thing I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for the BLM in that area.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9504436

Bundy, whose family has operated a ranch since the 1870s southwest of Mesquite a few miles from the Utah line, does not recognize federal authority on the land that he insists belongs to Nevada.

On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy. The operation had been expected to take a month to collect as many as 900 cattle.


The animals were freed after armed militia members joined hundreds of states' rights protesters at corrals outside Mesquite. Bundy said they were united in defense of their constitutional rights.


"They have faith in the Constitution," he told KDWN-AM in Las Vegas on Monday. "The founding fathers didn't create a government like this."


The BLM's National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board was meeting in Sacramento on Monday on the broader issue fueling the conflict over how to divide the scarce forage on mostly dry lands across the West between livestock, wild horses and wildlife.


Wild-horse protection advocates say the government is rounding up too many mustangs while allowing sheep and cattle to feed at taxpayer expense on the same rangeland scientists say is being overgrazed. Ranchers say the government refuses to gather enough horses in the herds that double in size every five years.


Advocates on both sides accused the board of not addressing their concerns.


"Americans want wild horses on our public lands," said wild horse advocate Bonnie Kohleriter. "You cattlemen and wildlife people are special interest groups. You need to stop attacking the wild horses, attempting to diminish their numbers, and make resources available to them."


Debra Hawk, a biologist representing the Wildlife Society, said the BLM's failure to cut the number of wild horses is harming other species that rely on the land. She criticized the agency for indicating it may not continue the horse roundups, saying the BLM should "utilize all methods available" to cut the population.


"Not conducting roundups will result in further degradation of native ranges, harming native wildlife and plants," and is better for the health of native horses, she said.


Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said she spent much of the past week with the Bundy family and helped feed some of the calves that were returned over the weekend.


"It's going to take a lot to revive the calves that were nearly dead when they were returned to the Bundy Ranch because they had been separated from their mothers during the roundup, and a few most likely won't make it," said Fiore, a Republican from Las Vegas. "It's time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada."


Horse protection advocates and other critics of livestock grazing on federal land said the government's suspension of the roundup sends the wrong signal to law-abiding ranchers who secure the necessary grazing permits to use the land.


The BLM "is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own," said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's backing down in the face of threats and posturing of armed sovereignists."

[Byron]

Unfortunately, there are a few things, Byron, that we can agree on.

TomWhy in God's name does that have to be unfortunate? I don't care that you're a super liberal dude...I think it's great when you bust out some really good stuff. Unfortunate for you perhaps, but not for me.

[Byron]

Wild-horse protection advocates say the government is rounding up too many mustangs while allowing sheep and cattle to feed at taxpayer expense on the same rangeland scientists say is being overgrazed. Ranchers say the government refuses to gather enough horses in the herds that double in size every five years.


"

So that is what it's all about. Freeloaders...horses or cows.

[oldno7]

Unfortunately, there are a few things, Byron, that we can agree on.

Tom

Fortunately, though, Byron didn't vote for the current Pres. who condones torture and runs gitmo with pride!:mrgreen:

I think you mentioned the last Pres. who did that should have been tried for war crimes in the Hague.

Am I wrong here? Is your guy enjoying his new whips and chains?

[oldno7]

So that is what it's all about. Freeloaders...horses or cows.

In the end, government corruption will be the fact.

If Bundy could shut his mouth he might be vindicated.

So much more to come out of this....

All sides are conjecture, mostly at this point.

[double moo]

Any thought on whether this event will embolden other groups to arm up to protest their government grievences?

[oldno7]

Any thought on whether this event will embolden other groups to arm up to protest their government grievences?

The government should fear the people, thats a healthy situation for a republic.

Keep an eye on the Texas/Oklahoma border, blm is trying to confiscate land there.

[oldno7]

This is the page that the blm took down from their website

http://archive.today/nvlzr#selection-213.0-213.313

[Scott P]

This is the page that the blm took down from their website

http://archive.today/nvlzr#selection-213.0-213.313

Why did they take it down? It seems to make the case for them.

It sounds like more than just the turtle was involved:


Examples of Recent Incidents of Private Property Damage Caused by Bundy's Trespass Cattle



One feral cow was hit by an automobile within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cattle are frequently seen on public roads, including State Route 170 and pose a danger to vehicles and to members of the public traveling on public roads.
Overton Wildlife Refuge (State of Nevada) employee attacked by a Bundy bull.
Crop destroyed by Bundy cattle on private land.
Mesquite Heritage Community Garden damaged by trespass cattle.
Mesquite golf course damaged by trespass cattle.
Residents of the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite have complained about the impact of cattle on city facilities.



This morning, I was going to post that I mostly side with the rancher on this one. I believe that conservation is very important, but I feel bad about it hurting a long established business. For new coming businesses or uses, things would be different. I want to support conservation (especially of roadless/wild areas), but I don't want to hurt anyone that has been farming or ranching for a long time. Because I so much love the wild lands and care about people as well, I actually think a lot about this and am conflicted with it at times.

The damage to private property and other issues kind of diminishes much of the sympathy I had though. It seems as he thinks that because his family was there first (?), even other private property owners don't have a claim to the land? Or perhaps there is more to this? It also appears, at least in court records that the cattle have expanded far beyond the original Bunkerville Allotment, which is where historically the cattle had been grazed.

Also, the argument has been used that Bundy's ancestors had been grazing cattle in the valley since 1877, but the grazing of the Bunkerville Allotment wasn't in the 1800's, it began in 1954 and lasted only a few years before being reinstated in 1973 before ending in 1993.

It seems that there is a lot more to it than just a turtle.

[oldno7]

Why did they take it down? .

Great Question...

I'm thinking this paragraph.



Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

[lynnhowlyn]

Interesting article on the relationships between the Reid's and the BLM and the Bundy's. Even the BLM's page (now taken down) shows reference of the bundy cattle and the solar farm;

"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."

In any case, it's clear to me that their is far too much involvement between Reid, his family, and the BLM. Too many coincidences to ignore. Even the Washington Times thinks so;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/13/nevada-bundy-ranch-standoff-could-leave-dirt-on-ha/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I agree that it was likely pressure from higher up the ladder that killed this and not so much the protestors. Coming into an election season is the wrong time for Reid to be associated with back room dealings.


Relative to stuff previously posted on the BLM website and now taken down, take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ&feature=share

and ask yourself WHY was the information taken OFF the BLM website.

YMMV

Lynn

[oldno7]

Maybe in situations like this, zero will unleash this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

Of course it would be for the children and if it can save just one life.............

[cchoc]

If you people would quit sleeping with the lights on we wouldn't need those Chinese solar panels. HTH :)

[Scott P]

http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/metro/blue/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Scott P http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/metro/blue/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?p=555807#post555807)
Why did they take it down? .



Great Question...

I'm thinking this paragraph.




Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.



If so, why wouldn't they just remove the paragraph with the reference to solar instead of some of the things the cattle have been doing to private property et al? The BLM has removed all references to the Bundy Ranch, including violations. It seems as if they kept everything else on their website pertaining to the solar:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/March/BLM_Seeks_Public_Interest_for_Solar_Energy_Develop ment_in_the_Dry_Lake_Solar_Energy_Zone.html

They even kept the possible negative impacts to the environment due to the solar on their website:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/dry_lake_sez.Par.26090.File.dat/Unavoidable.Impact.Criteria.Table.pdf

There are still dozens of links on the BLM site pertaining to the solar. There is nothing left pertaining to the Bundy Ranch violations in any way. How do the militias feel about the cattle damaging private land and crops?

[oldno7]

What about Obama. Gotta be Obama's fault somehow.

T

Well technically......

Do you even cabinet, bro?

Which of the 3 branches of gov. is in charge of the blm?

o.k.--times up, I know you don't know so I'm a gunna hep ya...

blm--run by newly appointed Neil Kornze(former advisor to dingy harry)
dept of the interior--oversees the blm
Secretary of Interior--oversees DOI(Sally Jewell, former President/CEO of REI)obama appointee
Secretary of the interior is a cabinet position(this will blow you away tom...)serving under the President(bho)

this 3 branch stuff if crazy, huh....

But to your credit, you're probably right, zero has likely been out golfing and has no clue there is turmoil in one of his 57 states(with one to go):roflol:

Maybe he was down in gitmo working on waterboard techniques last week and missed this...

[oldno7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws..

[oldno7]

But gitmo can't even still exist--zero promised to close it as a priority.

And when he makes a promise, by golly he follows through....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE

[Scott P]

...

[oldno7]

I posted a link, quite aways back in regards to this. http://farm.ewg.org/
You can go State by State/County by County and see who in your area is taking farm subsidies.
I said it then and I'll say it again, this system is incredibly abused.
Theres a guy in my area, I know him personally, he has a very small farm.
Records show him collecting close to $200,000. I don't think his property would even be valued that high.
Lots of Bundy's, wonder if it is one in the same?
Certainly would be hypocrisy if it is.
Theres so many angles to this incident, certainly more to come that may bolster either side.

I could have remained neutral, until they brought in 200+ armed rangers, established 1st Amendment zones and violently
throw a 57 year old woman to the ground. That ended all neutrality for me. All this(supposedly) over cows?

[oldno7]

Forgot to add--type in the zipcode for the area you're looking at, it will bring up names and years.

[oldno7]

WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?

http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?search_input_text=81625&search_input_image_large.x=0&search_input_image_large.y=0

[Scott P]

I could have remained neutral, until they brought in 200+ armed rangers, established 1st Amendment zones and violently throw a 57 year old woman to the ground.

I agree with you that is was a poor way to handle things. The 1st Amendment Zone was stupid. As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over. On that part, I don't know what they should have done.


WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?

It's a small town, so quite a few. Some are friends.

Edit: Oh s***, one of top ones is my supervisor. Maybe I'd better not say much on the topic. :oops:

[oldno7]

. As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over. On that part, I don't know what they should have done.




Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5AzjQF6Kw

[Scott P]

Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.

Yes. It is a clip of the full video I saw (or another video). In the full video, before she was thrown to the ground, it looked like to me she was jumping in front of the vehicles. I will see if I can find it.

I did find the interview where she said she was getting in front of the vehicles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oz5LnLLTAFU

It is at 2:25.

Still, as I said before, I think this BLM incident has done far more to harm conservation efforts than it has done to help them.

[oldno7]

blm website, currently down for maintenance.

http://www.blm.gov/

[ratagonia]

blm website, currently down for maintenance.

http://www.blm.gov/

Looks like Anonymous jumped in... probably a denial-of-service attack.

Misguided, from this seat. But was fun to see who in my town is sucking on the government teat. All good, upstanding, conservative Republicans, I'm sure. They make good socialists.

Tom

[Byron]

All good, upstanding, conservative Republicans, I'm sure. They make good socialists.

Yeah well...most people talk it, few actually walk it. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind poaching some free government cheese, but I don't qualify for a damn thing.

[Glenn]

Maybe it would be politically inappropriate to micro-manage, but I would like Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) to publicly step in and offer to set up some mediation to resolve this. I think she's a fairly smart person and I have a lot of respect for her - both as a businessperson (former CEO of REI) and environmentalist/conservationist.

[nelsonccc]

Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching. I really like the selective management stuff;

http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/#GszHzsPEi4cgiIOc.01


(http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/#GszHzsPEi4cgiIOc.01)

[Scott P]

Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching.

Some of the people commenting on the video have some "interesting" websites:

http://www.usfreedomfighters.com/christianityorbondage.html

7287272873

[Sombeech]

As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over.


So she was "toppled" for safety purposes!

[ratagonia]

Maybe it would be politically inappropriate to micro-manage, but I would like Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) to publicly step in and offer to set up some mediation to resolve this. I think she's a fairly smart person and I have a lot of respect for her - both as a businessperson (former CEO of REI) and environmentalist/conservationist.


Yeah, like, maybe Clive Bundy could recognize the existence of the Federal Govmint on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and every-other Sunday. Oh wait, he already recognizes them when he puts their checks in the bank.

So, Glenn, you think people should just ignore the law, ignore the court, not pay their bills, for 20 years... and then we should negotiate with them? How about the charges of inciting armed rebellion? Perhaps that could be negotiated down to public indecency???

I'm pretty sure the Feds are waiting for things to cool off, then they'll pick ol' Clide up and he will be a tenant of the Federal Government (for free!) for the rest of his days.

Tom

[deagol]

The following is a summation a legal friend of mine wrote...

Been digging into the whole Bundy Range War situation in Nevada and wrote down my thoughts. This is a bit long, but if you want a good understanding of the background behind the dispute this is useful info.

The whole situation has its roots in the Dust Bowl, believe it or not. After overgrazing and aggressive farming practices contributed to the destruction of topsoils across the West, in 1934 the US instituted the Taylor Grazing Act (along with other changes) to prevent any one person or group from overusing it.

"A new permit system granted grazing privileges by preference to ranchers who had actually used a grazing district's land during a priority period before 1934. Owners of land or water rights who could support livestock on base ranches during seasons when herds were not on the grazing districts were favored; those without property were not. Technically, the grazing permit is a revocable license under the law, not creating any right, title, interest, or estate in or to land, but it is considered by many to be a unique form of ownership, constituting a property right of the utmost importance."

That there is key. The law basically said the ranchers, to use federal land for grazing, have to pay an annual grazing fee to cover the cost of managing the system.

In the 1960s and 70s, other federal regulations began to apply (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.). During that period, federal law expanded the limitations on public land use to include not just managing the land itself for the use of the ranchers, but also managing the land to protect the general public interest (loggers, farmers, water users, tourists, and wildlife).

Then, in the 1990s, the desert tortoise was added as an endangered species. This impacted a lot of federal land in Nevada and was very controversial there. So Nevada and the Fed struck a deal. Nevada would buy back grazing permits from any ranchers that wanted to sell, they would then swap that land with the BLM for land that didn't involve the tortoise and could be used by the state. Many ranchers sold back their grazing rights to the tune of about $5 million.

Here's where it gets sticky...

Mr. Bundy's family had been grazing on that land before 1934. No, it wasn't "his land" per se, but his family, like countless other ranchers, had worked up to that point on the idea that any non-private land was free for everyone to use.

The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act changed that, of course, but most everyone (including the ranchers) agreed it was necessary to have someone manage public land to prevent another event like the Dust Bowl. There's no record that Bundy's family felt any different. His family, like countless other ranchers, paid the grazing fees and kept working.

The 1960s and 1970s law changes didn't seem to have much impact on the situation either.

It was the 1990s classification of the desert tortoise that was the last straw for Bundy's family. When they found out that they would no longer be allowed to graze on federal land because of a tortoise, they were incensed. And to show how angry they were, they stopped paying the range fees.

Why was that a problem? Because when Nevada and the Fed reached the buyback agreement, Bundy's family had nothing to buy back. They had defaulted on the grazing agreement by not paying the fees for about 2 years. So they were not eligible to be compensated for what they didn't have any more. Instead, the state of Nevada bought the permit he had formerly held from the BLM for about $275,000.

Now the Bundys were even more angry. So in protest, they started grazing on the land again, but not paying the fees. Two more years. Five more years. Ten more years. Twenty more years. Through this process, they were taken to court over and over, and judges repeatedly sided with the BLM. In the courts' view, it was a contract dispute, and the Bundys defaulted on the contract voluntarily in the 1990s and gave up all rights to use federal land for grazing. But the Bundys just ignored the court orders.

And so we hit the present, where the BLM begins confiscating the cattle, we have a standoff, and the BLM backs down to prevent an incident.

As you can see, it's not nearly as simple a situation as the big bad federal government trying to stop a family, unfairly, from grazing on land "his family has been using for 100's of years". A lot of local ranchers are not happy about what Bundy is doing. They pay their range fees every year, and here he is getting use of public land for free for 20 years, and calling in a bunch of armed militia members from all over the country to help him make it stick. It's easy to take the side of the little guy against the government, but sometimes, the little guy isn't right.

[Iceaxe]

Awesome post.... thanks.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Glenn]

Yeah, like, maybe Clive Bundy could recognize the existence of the Federal Govmint on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and every-other Sunday. Oh wait, he already recognizes them when he puts their checks in the bank.

So, Glenn, you think people should just ignore the law, ignore the court, not pay their bills, for 20 years... and then we should negotiate with them? How about the charges of inciting armed rebellion? Perhaps that could be negotiated down to public indecency???

I'm pretty sure the Feds are waiting for things to cool off, then they'll pick ol' Clide up and he will be a tenant of the Federal Government (for free!) for the rest of his days.

Tom

Oh, gosh, not at all. If you read my very first post on this you'll see that I don't side with Bundy's claims at all. At the same time, the actions that the BLM took were not planned well and helped make this situation worse. And I guarantee that Bundy will not be hauled off to jail - at least not as you describe. That would just make him a martyr and would incite a whole new round of antagonism.

i just think someone like Jewell might be able to calm the waters somewhat and help get this concluded.

[Glenn]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

[ratagonia]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

Many people are only interested in facts that support their already-established point of view.





in 3 - 2 - 1 - GO!

Tom

[Scott P]

deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.

Agreed, and also, regardless of which side one takes, if any, it should also be mentioned that the Bundy Ranch is 160 acres and the area where the cattle are being grazed is more than 1200 square miles, and includes national park and private lands which were never owned by the ranch. It was the landowners who's property and crops were damaged that filed many of the complaints. In fact, the cattle have even damaged property in the city of Mesquite. Would you be mad if someone's cattle came on your property and were damaging it?

[ratagonia]

Would you be mad if someone's cattle came on your property and were damaging it?

Nope, I'd be even. 2nd Amendment solution, as it is called.

Tom

[oldno7]

Nope, I'd be even. 2nd Amendment solution, as it is called.

Tom

man--your side is so violent.:mrgreen:

[cchoc]

This may be helpful in understanding what freedom is: :haha:

72921

[oldno7]

o.k. I'll play

[cchoc]

o.k. I'll play

You forgot: :bootyshake:

72923

[Sombeech]

o.k. I'll play


http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=72922&stc=1&d=1397916452



One thing is for sure, the hesitation from the Left to call any act of violence an act of terror unless their skin is white, even if there is no violence at all.

[cchoc]

One thing is for sure, the hesitation from the Left to call any act of violence an act of terror unless their skin is white, even if there is no violence at all.

Terror includes the threat of violence, thus the word 'terror' instead of just 'violence'. Leave it to the wingnuts to bring race into this yet again.

[Sombeech]

Terror includes the threat of violence, thus the word 'terror' instead of just 'violence'. Leave it to the wingnuts to bring race into this yet again.

http://i.imgur.com/cNOxdUL.gif

[cchoc]

http://i.imgur.com/cNOxdUL.gif

??

[2065toyota]

72927


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cchoc]

72927


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh the irony. :roflol:

[2065toyota]

So why did you assume I was referring to you?

Or do you just hear it a lot so it was taken that way

I know it goes both ways, but at least I do understand that my opinion isn't always the right one or the only one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ratagonia]

I know it goes both ways, but at least I do understand that my opinion isn't always the right one or the only one


An unusual quality, that.

T

[cchoc]

So why did you assume I was referring to you?

Or do you just hear it a lot so it was taken that way

I know it goes both ways, but at least I do understand that my opinion isn't always the right one or the only one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based on earlier comments in the thread I made a wild guess, was I wrong? And no, I don't recall anyone who knows me ever referring to me as closed minded. Maybe I just wan't listening. :lol8:

I enjoy differing opinions, that's how we learn, but when they turn to skin color I lose interest for some reason.

[oldno7]

. Leave it to the wingnuts to bring race into this yet again.

What--did jesse jackson say something about bundy?

[cchoc]

What--did jesse jackson say something about bundy?

That's just sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Iceaxe]

There is no controversy. ... The cattle rancher Bundy is nothing but a thief stealing over one million dollars from you and me by not paying his federal grazing fees. He should be in prison and his cattle sold at auction to pay for his past due bills.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

I've followed this from the start and my original opinion still holds.... the only addition I'd make is whomever is calling the BLM shots needs to be put out to pasture. This could not of been handled worse if you tried.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Byron]

/\ /\ /\...THIS.

Now that a bit of time has educated me on this, that guy Bundy is screwed up. I also agree that whoever is running the BLM is a nimrod.

[ratagonia]

I've followed this from the start and my original opinion still holds.... the only addition I'd make is whomever is calling the BLM shots needs to be put out to pasture. This could not of been handled worse if you tried.


Uh, well, if you don't have any "worse" scenarios, I am surprised at your lack of imagination.

Lack of any action for 20 years is a sign of the good-ol-boy network between ranchers and the BLM, and lack of effective law enforcement. Once they got the first court order, they should have removed the cows, and thrown him in jail if he interfered. Yeah, letting it fester for 20 years is not a good idea.

Now? Coulda been a blood bath out there. One itchy finger and guns would have started going off. Glad that cool minds prevailed. He'll end up in jail, eventually. Hopefully with no gunplay.

2nd Amendment solution: someone should go out and shoot the cows. Yeah, it would take a while, but the problem would be solved. If you did it stealthily, you'd probably get half before anyone noticed. How about drones after that?

Tom

[2065toyota]

I don't really side with bundy, because obviously the system and "laws" have been abused. But at some point, there has to be a stance against big and out of control government somehow.

My original statements stands also. "Follow the money trail"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ratagonia]

I don't really side with bundy, because obviously the system and "laws" have been abused. But at some point, there has to be a stance against big and out of control government somehow.

My original statements stands also. "Follow the money trail"



What money trail are you talking about? There is no "money trail".

The Harry Reid / ENN loony tunes theory has been easily and thoroughly debunked...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

Tom

[Iceaxe]

2nd Amendment solution:

Anyone attempting to make this a second amendment issue from either the pro or anti gun camps is a complete idiot. Bundy has no more to do with the second amendment than do L.A. street gangs and the Mexican drug cartels. U.S. law is very clear about firearms being used in a criminal act, which includes things like trespassing.

[2065toyota]

With bundy gone, he cannot use the vast amount of water shares that the family owns. Who obtains the water shares once they are revoked for not being used?

Do you know why there is a golf course in Mt Carmel of all places?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erial]

T-bird, 9 holes, par 31: scaled for the environment?

[oldno7]

lots of information here:

http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/results.cfm

[Iceaxe]

Do you know why there is a golf course in Mt Carmel of all places?

As a matter of fact I do. At one time the owners of the T-bird were ranchers like most early homesteads in the area. But they were smart enough to see the writing on the wall with regards to grazing on public land and sold their grazing allotments back to the BLM. They were also smart enough to retain their watertight which is where the golf course and T-bird came from.

I have to say that was some very forward thinking at the time to realize tourism was the future of southern Utah and not grazing public lands.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[ratagonia]

With bundy gone, he cannot use the vast amount of water shares that the family owns. Who obtains the water shares once they are revoked for not being used?

Do you know why there is a golf course in Mt Carmel of all places?


Golf Course at Mr Carmel, for those who don't know, was built to secure water rights for the eventual development of a large motel. Seems to have worked.

"vast amount of water shares" - you mean, the water sources his family developed on the land they leased from the Federal Gov't, or not. There is some precedence for recognizing his water rights on that, in which case the gov't would have to buy him out, if the court recognizes those rights (which is very much in doubt). Since he is $ 1.2million in the hole at the moment, it may be considered a credit against his non-payment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "vast". The place is desolate and dry, and yes, there is some water there, but not much.

There is, presumably, a privately-owned base property adjacent to the grazing permit (or not) area, that remains private property of the Bundy property. Traditionally, the base properties were placed at the best water to establish ownership and control.

Tom

[ratagonia]

As a matter of fact I do. At one time the owners of the T-bird were ranchers like most early homesteads in the area. But they were smart enough to see the writing on the wall with regards to grazing on public land and sold their grazing allotments back to the BLM. They were also smart enough to retain their watertight which is where the golf course and T-bird came from.

I have to say that was some very forward thinking at the time to realize tourism was the future of southern Utah and not grazing public lands.



Hi Ice -

not entirely consistent with Tanya's history of the area:




Only two families ever settled in Mount Carmel Junction, and one was Jack and Fern Morrison. Jack contemplated the idea that a road must be built connecting Zion Canyon to the east side of the park. Jack explored the area and came to the conclusion that the road must come down in the area now known as Mount Carmel Junction. There were old wagon trails that Jack used to navigate his way down to the valley. The hills were steep forcing Jack to attach a Cedar tree to the back of his Model-T-Ford. Jack was patient and in 1931 he was able to homestead the land now known as Mount Carmel Junction. The land was unkind. It was covered with gullies, quicksand and many layers of sand. The area was also prone to violent flash floods. Jack and Fern lost two children in the flash floods of the East Fork of the Virgin River that runs through the junction. The East Fork of the Virgin River is now known as Parunuweap. Jack died in 1961, from cancer after serving in the war and spending much of his life working in the coal mines. Fern, a strong willed and hard working woman continued to build. She lived to the age of 90, dying in 1998.



Hard to call Jack a "rancher" as if he was running a ranch there. Sounds like he figured out where the road would hit Hwy 89, and homesteaded it at the opportune moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Carmel_Junction,_Utah

Tom

[Iceaxe]

Hi Ice -

not entirely consistent with Tanya's history of the area

I just remembered Tanya telling me it was a choice between cows or tourists at one point and her grandparents picked tourists figuring that was the future. It appears as if they bet on the right horse.




Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[2065toyota]

The government doesn't generally buy water shares. Usually find or make a way to take them. My dad bought property and water shares in the new harmony valley. A few years, he received a letter basically stating that if he didn't show proof that he needed and was using all of his water shares that they would be revoked. Not purchased back, just taken back even though he had bought them. So he had to spend $30,000 putting in another pivot line just so that he wouldn't lose some of his purchased shares. Same concept as the golf course. Use your water rights or we will TAKE them from you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Use your water rights or we will TAKE them from you

I'm not sure what the issue is, that has been Utah law since the first day the pioneers entered the Salt Lake valley. The Utah prior appropriation system has two basic principles: priority and beneficial use." Priority refers to the general system of first in time, first in right. This means senior water right holders are entitled to their full water right before junior water right holders are entitled to any water." In a time of shortage, the last users to put the water to beneficial use, junior water right holders, will suffer the most. The principle of beneficial use means a water right is acquired by diverting water and putting it to beneficial use; most uses, such as irrigation or stock watering are considered beneficial:" A right to use water may be abandoned or forfeited by nonuse for a statutory period of time.

[Sombeech]

I would rather the BLM kidnap golfers than cattle

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

I would rather the BLM kidnap golfers than cattle

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Except for the simple fact there are no golf courses on BLM land I'm behind you 100%.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[cchoc]

I would rather the BLM kidnap golfers than cattle

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

I'd have to be starving before I'd eat a golfer.

[oldno7]

Except for the simple fact there are no golf courses on BLM land I'm behind you 100%.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

ummm----http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/ely_field_office/nepa/ea/2007/final_eas.Par.72204.File.dat/DRFONSI%20Disc%20Golf%20Ely%2012-12-2007.pdf

and it's in Nevada as well.:mrgreen:

[oldno7]

many golf courses:

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/st__george/more/lands_and_realty/public_purpose_leases.print.html

[Scott P]

^^^^

Learn something new every day. Thanks Oldno, I didn't know that.

[ratagonia]

many golf courses:

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/st__george/more/lands_and_realty/public_purpose_leases.print.html


Socialism!!!

But then, everyone benefits from golf courses, right?

Tom

[Scott Card]

Ahhhhh, golf courses.... nature manicured!

[cchoc]

This should be fun: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/come-celebrate-bundy-fest-2014 :lol8:

[ratagonia]

This should be fun: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/come-celebrate-bundy-fest-2014 :lol8:


Is he going to let us use the bathroom? At that point, I'm gonna really need a shower, and I don't recognize that Clive Bundy exists. So I guess the answer is yes!

T

[Scott P]

Interesting, though I don't know if it changes anything:

LAS VEGAS -- It has been widely reported that Cliven Bundy’s family claims to have ranched in the Bunkerville area since the 1870s even though a federal judge held a different view of Bundy’s history.Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

Contrast that with the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny) was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

Although no Bundys lived in Bunkerville in 1930 or 1940, according to Census records for those years, Cliven Bundy’s mother Bodel and her parents, John and Christena Jensen, lived in neighboring Mesquite in the early 20th Century.

Census records from 1930 indicate that John was a Mesquite farmer originally from Utah whose parents were from Denmark. Those records state the farm was near Main Street and a bridge over the Virgin River.

Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

Federal grazing districts were established with passage by Congress of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Las Vegas area grazing district was established Nov. 3, 1936. The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, the year Cliven Bundy was born.

County records show the earliest construction on Bundy’s ranch was in 1951. The land is zoned rural open land. Since 1994 the ranch has been jointly owned by the David A. and Bodel Bundy Trust and the Bundy Revocable Trust.

Census records show that Cliven Bundy’s paternal great-grandfather, Illinois native Abraham Bundy, lived in Littlefield Village in Mohave County, Ariz., as early as 1900. Abraham Bundy was credited in 1916 with establishment in Mohave County of Bundyville, otherwise known as Mt. Trumbull, according to a history of the Arizona Strip on the Northern Arizona University website.

Abraham Bundy’s children included Cliven Bundy’s paternal grandfather, Roy Bundy, who was born in Nebraska. Two of Roy Bundy’s children were born in Nevada around World War I but Roy Bundy and his family returned to Mt. Trumbull and lived there for many years.

One of Roy Bundy’s sons was David A. Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s father. David Bundy, who was born in Arizona, lived in Mt. Trumbull until at least 1940, according to Census records.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

This is the same family that settled Mount Trumbull/Bundyville in Arizona. It's kind of an interesting ghost town if you are ever out that way (on the way to Toroweap).

[ratagonia]

No reason to let facts get in the way of a convenient story. :crazy:

T

[Iceaxe]

Bundy's family history is irrelevant. The day he stopped paying his grazing fees he lost all claims and rights.

And if you don't believe that try not paying the property taxes on the house you inherit from your grandparents. Same type deal.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[oldno7]

No reason to let facts get in the way of a convenient story. :crazy:

T

News stations report facts?:ne_nau:

hmmm--following certain groups too closely in Pine Cr. I see....

[Glenn]

Thanks for posting that article, Scott. The actual linked article is better because it also has links to census and deed documents. I'm impressed. I've never given much credence to Bundy's ancestral claims and this just reinforces it.

However, I'm still baffled at the thought process - if any - on the part of the BLM in executing this seizure. They now state that six cattle died during the failed roundup (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25310508/breaking-news-blm-says-six-cattle-died-in-bundy-roundup) although only two were Bundy-branded cattle. I've seen pro-Bundy video showing dead cattle also, but don't know if they are in addition or part of the same count. I feel badly that cattle died needlessly, regardless of ownership.

It seems that a roundup redux will be in order, but I certainly hope it's better organized. Any ideas? Maybe send smaller teams to go after the unbranded cattle first? And stay the heck away from the actual Bundy property.

[ratagonia]

Thanks for posting that article, Scott. The actual linked article is better because it also has links to census and deed documents. I'm impressed. I've never given much credence to Bundy's ancestral claims and this just reinforces it.

However, I'm still baffled at the thought process - if any - on the part of the BLM in executing this seizure. They now state that six cattle died during the failed roundup (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25310508/breaking-news-blm-says-six-cattle-died-in-bundy-roundup) although only two were Bundy-branded cattle. I've seen pro-Bundy video showing dead cattle also, but don't know if they are in addition or part of the same count. I feel badly that cattle died needlessly, regardless of ownership.

It seems that a roundup redux will be in order, but I certainly hope it's better organized. Any ideas? Maybe send smaller teams to go after the unbranded cattle first? And stay the heck away from the actual Bundy property.

Awwww. Six cows died - cry me a river! :facepalm:


People seem to do a good job of ignoring the obvious for the scofflaw named Bundy. So let me lay it out for you:

The BLM is not mainly a law-enforcement agency. They are mainly a land-management agency. So this was a land-management activity - rounding up a bunch of trespass cattle, actually, quite a few trespass cattle. Since the former owner of those cattle had dodged paying his bills and removing his cows for 20 years, ignoring several court orders, and since he was spewing self-serving, delusional BS, they brought along what seemed like a reasonable number of LE types to discourage the Bundy Brigade from causing trouble. Following the Powell Doctrine, they brought along what they thought was going to be "overwhelming force", which tends to discourage trouble.

But, no one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of the American people. Beforehand, it would have seemed looney tunes to declare that 100 armed insurrectionists would show up that bought into Bundy's delusional, self-serving BS. But there you are.

Next steps? Hard to say. Quietly arresting Bundy might be a good first step. And his clan, and anyone who was part of the insurrection. But because they are right-wing insurrectionists, they pretty much get a pass. Ye Olde Double Standard. Bundy has gotten a pass for 20 years - why change things now?

The rule of law is why - call me old-fashioned.

By the by, it is not clear to me that any events took place within proximity of the land that Bundy actually owns. Land that is likely to be liened or seized in the near future.

By the by, the cattle are trespass cattle, and no longer belong to Bundy. He had the chance to remove his cattle and retain them, and he did not take it.

Tom :moses:

[oldno7]

By the by, the cattle are trespass cattle, and no longer belong to Bundy. He had the chance to remove his cattle and retain them, and he did not take it.

Tom :moses:

Hmmm, I may not be quite the self anointed attorney as you, BUT

Wouldn't converting ownership of property(cattle),requiring a court ordered lein?

You see, part of the problem the blm faced when they took possession of Bundy's cows,

was they had no legal means of transporting or selling cattle they did not lawfully possess.(research "brand inspection)

While it may certainly be true that bundy has lost 2 federal appeals, I was not aware of any of those

cases that ordered the blm to claim possession, legally and lawfully.

Being the un-confirmed attorney I am, I would study the rules involving "conversion"

But of course, why let the rules of law get in the way of a good story.

[oldno7]

If bundy would shut his mouth and hire Scott Card, he could win this thing....:nod:

[Scott P]

It was only a matter of time before God and Jesus would be brought into this and that people would proclaim that the will of God is with one side or the other:

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/americas-newest-hero-meet-the-real-cliven-bundy/#mAfiMwwq0tGRDd6y.15

Cliven Bundy doesn’t normally do interviews on Sundays. But this Easter Sunday, the 67-year-old Nevada cattle rancher stepped out of his church, leaned up against the side wall and talked to America about what really matters to him deep down, revealing a side to him not normally seen in media interviews.
The first order of business, of course, was the Nevada standoff that has mesmerized the nation, and his response to Sen. Harry Reid’s incendiary accusation that the Bundy side are a bunch of “domestic terrorists.”

“The thing about what Harry Reid’s saying,” the rancher told radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” (http://www.everythingthatmattersradio.com/) show, is that “he seems to be a warmonger, saying let’s have civil war!”

In fact, Bundy said, “We people are not gonna put up with that no more. We’re not gonna have them guns pointin’ at us anymore. Not when we’re talking about an army of ‘We the People’ against ‘We the People.’ We can’t allow that to happen in America. That’s civil war!”

Bundy confirmed that he and the ranchers and others standing with him, tired of being abused by a government with unlimited power, are ultimately willing to die for their stance. But, he added, “I do respect the United States government. I pledge allegiance to that flag and honor it very much. But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that.”

Then, maybe because it was Easter Sunday, the interview went in a very different direction.

Asked by Linderman what makes him so unafraid in his current situation, Bundy replied:

“I don’t stand alone. I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”

http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2014/04/Cliven_Bundy3.jpg

Toward the end of the interview, Linderman asked, “One more question: Is there anything you’d like to say to the American people? Because I truly believe you’re a patriot.”



“You know,” replied Bundy, “I woke up, I got out of my house, went down to my trail and watched the sun come up over the hills and the mountains here. And, of course, I thought of Jesus. And then the thought that I thought was that we the people of America, not only of America but of the whole world, what Jesus would want us to do, was forgive. Forgive our enemies, and He’ll take care of all the rest. So my message to the world today is: Forgive your neighbors, forgive your wives, forgive your husbands and children, and feel the love of Jesus. That’s what He suffered for.

“I thank the people for their prayers and, again, I put my faith in my heavenly father and … we’re OK.”

Bundy’s wife, Carol, expressed the same faith to this writer when booking the radio interview: “This is the Lord’s battle,” she said. “He is calling the shots, and we are just standing here.”

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/americas-newest-hero-meet-the-real-cliven-bundy/#73fWtexEdkHheZO1.99

Would Jesus really side with Cliven Bundy? Why do people think they know He would? Maybe I shouldn't even ask that.

[ratagonia]

If bundy would shut his mouth and hire Scott Card, he could win this thing....:nod:

except that he has already lost, and the question is what to do with him.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Good piece on Bundy on RadioWest today:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/cliven-bundys-range-war

Tom

[oldno7]

except that he has already lost, and the question is what to do with him.

Tom


Dang--I misss a lot of things that you don't.

I completely missed his Supreme Court Appearance, I must not be paying attention.

So in toms world, if you lose 2 hearings, you're out of options and of course, guilty.:ne_nau:

Scott Card is a cowboy, he could win this, haven't you ever seen his picture in his avatar---that guy--he don't accept defeat!!

[Iceaxe]

I completely missed his Supreme Court Appearance, I must not be paying attention.

To date Bundy has lost every case in court. The minute Bundy stopped paying his fee's he lost all rights, this case will NEVER see the Supreme Court as there is nothing for them to rule on.

:popcorn:

[ratagonia]

I completely missed his Supreme Court Appearance, I must not be paying attention.


Call me a shade-tree lawyer, but in order to appeal, you need something that is appealable.

Perhaps Solicitor Card could check in here, but as I understand it, his two claims are:

1. I don't wanna, you can't make me! and

2. I don't recognize the existence of the Federal Gov'mint.

I've briefly looked through the Supreme Court Archives, and have not found any reason to think the Supremes would consider either of these points appealable. There is relevant case-law --- good news for Bundy is that if he ends up killing someone, they might not be able to fry him since he is clearly delusional.

Et tu, Kurte?

:moses:

[Scott Card]

I really didn't want to wade into this cow pie conversation but now that you requested my presence in the mire :crazy:....I'm not sure Mr. Bundy would like me too much since my first rule with a client is for the client to exercise his/her 5th Amendment right to shut up and let me do the talking. I'm pretty good at pulling people out of a hole but the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging it deeper. "Let go of the shovel and let me help," I tell them. Most do just that. Again, Mr. Bundy and I may butt heads because from the little I have read, he seems to want to keep digging, by word and by action. Also, the media attention tends to mess with people a lot by way of clouding their better judgment because of the attention.

I can also tell you that in 20 years of practicing law, not once has the argument "I don't recognize the Federal Government" EVER gone well for the defendant. My favorite anti-government client was the dude from Oregon who was pulled over for various driving offenses and was searched. Turns out his 1960's van was loaded with all kinds of paraphernalia and marijuana. He claimed that he did not recognize the government, that he was a sovereign citizen, and to top it all off that the marijuana was his sacrament. Therefore, his case should be dismissed. I believe the church he claimed he belonged to was "The Church of the Most High Hemp Goddess." I found he knew nothing about the doctrine of his church but that he was well versed in the "sacrament". Anyway, he was looking at some serious jail time for his charges and wasn't getting anywhere having ticked-off the judge and prosecutor with his silly arguments. So when he finally shut up (at my strong request) I was able to help him get the charge behind him with no jail time, and get on his way back to friendlier environments other than Utah County. John Wayne aside, I plea bargained a "get out of Dodge" plea deal to save him jail time and the tax payers the cost of it. He was happy to hop in his van, don the hemp robes and drive off into the sunset in pursuit of double rainbows. :lol8: But I digress.

This Bundy case is one big mess. The way everyone has reacted so far will make it very difficult to resolve in any peaceful way unless someone steps in and throws a little ice water on the situation. I am glad that cooler heads prevailed on the federal government's side of things.

[ststephen]

I believe the church he claimed he belonged to was "The Church of the Most High Hemp Goddess."
I think I heard that they have a cathedral in Pine Creek. :hippy:

[Scott Card]

I think I heard that they have a cathedral in Pine Creek. :hippy:

:lol8:

[Scott P]

Apparently race is now an issue: :ne_nau:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-racist_n_5204821.html

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a tense standoff (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia-insight-idUSBREA3G26620140417) with federal rangers in a dispute over grazing rights, didn't hide his racism in an interview with the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hpw&rref=us) published Wednesday.

The Bureau of Land Management claims Bundy has let his cattle graze on federal land without paying since 1993, saying he now owes more than $1 million in grazing fees. When federal agents came to confront Bundy about the fees, they were met by an armed militia, a move that has fired up conservatives (http://www.salon.com/2014/04/23/sean_hannity_will_have_blood_on_his_hands_fox_news _promotes_cliven_bundys_war/).

Bundy is attempting to use his newfound fame to spread more than just his views on grazing rights, telling the Times he planned to hold a daily news conference. During Saturday's conference, Bunday shared his views on "the Negro":


“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”



Bundy's comments, published Wednesday, led Republican lawmakers who had previously shown their support for his cause to back down (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/24/conservatives-begin-backing-away-after-cliven-bundys-remarks-disparaging-the-negro/). A spokesman for Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who had previously hailed Bundy and his supporters as "patriots (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/bundyfest-burning-man-organizer-plans-30-days-anar/)," rebuked the rancher's racist remarks, saying the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said he supported Bundy in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/04/22/sen-rand-paul-harry-reid-versus-rancher-cliven-bundy-we-need-tone-down-rhetoric-governmen) earlier this week, denounced Bundy's racist remarks Thursday, Business Insider reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/cliven-bundy-racist-comments-slaves-ranch-2014-4).

"His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him," Paul said, according to a spokesman.

[cchoc]

Well, there goes all his black supporters. :lol8:

[ratagonia]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/bundy_ranch_vigilantism_going_mainstream_the_idea_ that_the_constitution.html

from one of my friends at SLANT...

Before Bundy Ranch
By Jared A. Goldstein (http://www.slate.com/authors.jared_a_goldstein.html)

What happens when constitutional vigilantes go mainstream.
Constitutional vigilantism of the type on display at Bundy Ranch last week has been a recurrent feature on the margins of American political life. What is new—and dangerous—is that it has suddenly moved from the margins to the mainstream. And it comes with guns.



Last week a mob of more than 1,000 armed protesters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia-insight-idUSBREA3G26620140417) forced the Bureau of Land Management to back down from enforcing federal grazing fees. The protesters came out in support of local rancher Cliven Bundy, who’s been letting his cattle graze on federal land in Nevada for more than 20 years without a permit. “We’re standing up for the Constitution,” declared (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/11/nevada-rancher-fights-big-gov-protests-escalate-over-land-dispute) Bundy, to the delight of the television cameras. Bundy and his supporters have a simple constitutional worldview: They do not recognize the federal government’s constitutional authority to manage public lands within a state, and they believe the move against Bundy results from a corrupt political system determined to deprive the people of their rights. But instead of trying to convince a court to adopt their constitutional views or work through the political system, Bundy and his supporters have shown that they can enforce their interpretation of the Constitution by waving guns at federal officials.



On the surface, the dispute at Bundy Ranch focuses on a fairly esoteric constitutional question: whether the Property Clause of Article IV, which grants Congress “power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,” authorizes the federal government to own and manage the public lands within a state. The problem for Bundy and his supporters is that the Supreme Court answered that question in 1897, ruling inCanfield v. United States that the admission of a state does not deprive the federal government of power over public lands. Bundy’s supporters also challenge the federal government’s authority to restrict grazing to protect wildlife, but the court also rejected that argument in 1976, ruling in Kleppe v. New Mexico, that the BLM indeed may regulate grazing on the public lands to protect wild horses and burros. Armed with these and many other legal precedents, the BLM obtained a court order to stop Bundy from letting his cattle graze and ordering him to pay his unpaid bill or face seizure of his cattle.



Who decides what the Constitution means? The Supreme Court is often said to have exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution, but that position has never been universally accepted. President Lincoln, responding to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html) in 1857, declared that “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”


Over the last decade, some liberal law professors, led by Stanford’s Larry Kramer and Harvard’s Mark Tushnet, have challenged the notion of judicial supremacy. In its place they advance a theory known as “popular constitutionalism,” in which “We the People,” not the courts, should be understood as the final arbiters of constitutional meaning. Critics of this theory ask how it could be put into practice, and what mechanisms the American people may use to interpret and enforce their Constitution. And along come the protesters at Bundy Ranch to offer the obvious answer. Through force. The protesters are popular constitutionalists with guns, seeking to advance their constitutional interpretations by threatening to shoot any BLM agents attempting to enforce the law as interpreted by the courts.



The Bundy Ranch protest certainly fits within a long constitutional history in which radical groups have sought to effectuate their dissident views of the Constitution through violence. The Ku Klux Klan is the prototypical constitutional vigilante group. Operating outside formal legal structures, the Klan always asserted it was acting to restore the true meaning of the Constitution, which, in the words of a 1925 Klan publication, “put into written form the immortal principles of liberty, popular government, and equal justice, which were the fruitage of Anglo-Saxon character.” The Klan understood itself to be the vigilant protector of white Protestant values embodied in the Constitution, when local law enforcement was unwilling to step up.


The closer historic precedent for the Bundy Ranch protesters is the Posse Comitatus movement, however, launched around 1970 by Christian Identity pastor William Gale, which turned the Klan philosophy of enforcing the Constitution through armed citizen groups against a new enemy: the federal government. Gale warned federal officials: “You’re either going to get back to the Constitution of the United States or officials are gonna hang by the neck until they’re dead.” Like many on the radical right, then and now, the Posse movement asserted that much of what the federal government does is tyrannical and unconstitutional—most especially income tax laws, gun control, the Federal Reserve system, and federal management of public lands. Like many on the radical right of today, the Posse movement advocated a local philosophy of government, in which the county is the authentic unit of government. In Posse philosophy, the county sheriff was seen as the nation’s highest law enforcement officer, and he owed a duty to protect the people from federal tyranny. If the sheriff refuses to do his duty, the movement proclaimed, the people themselves should form armed posses to arrest and hang any official who violates the Constitution.



The distinctive feature of the Posse movement was the call for armed groups of citizens to take the Constitution into their own hands and enforce it through force. Murder and violence were the inevitable result. Posse groups kidnapped federal officials, put them on trial through the Posse’s own “common law” courts, and imposed brutal punishments. In 1983 former Posse member Gordon Kahl shot and killed two U.S. marshals and injured two others attempting to serve him papers for tax evasion.

By the early 1990s, the Posse Comitatus movement had largely faded away in response to strong state and federal law enforcement, but the militia movement soon replaced it and offered a similar philosophy. Like the Posse movement, militia leaders argued that the nation must return to the true (in their view) meaning of the Constitution. Like the Posse movement, militia leaders pointed to a series of perceived federal abuses—gun restrictions, income taxes, the Federal Reserve, and public lands regulation—and called for the formation of armed citizen groups to restore the true meaning of the Constitution through armed resistance. The militia movement justified the threatened use of force by asserting the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment, which claims that the amendment enshrines the right to bear arms to empower the people to protect themselves against government tyranny, should it ever arise. Militia leaders declared that tyranny was here and the time for armed resistance had come.



The immense dangers posed by the militia philosophy became obvious with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Although Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were only loosely connected to the militia movement, the bombing demonstrated the catastrophic results of declaring the federal government to be the people’s enemy and calling on the people to rise up to enforce their own constitutional interpretations.



The militia movement, like the Posse movement before it, has largely faded from view, but the philosophy of armed resistance now finds a welcoming home in the Tea Party movement. Militia members form a significant constituency within the Tea Party. For instance, Oath Keepers claims to have enlisted 30,000 military and law enforcement personnel who have taken an oath to disobey a list of orders deemed unconstitutional. Oath Keepers members were out in force at Bundy Ranch. So were members of Richard Mack’s Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization that advocates the old Posse philosophy that the county sheriff has a duty to repel federal officials whenever they encroach on county territory. Mack has said that he “prayed for the day that a sheriff in this country will arrest an IRS agent” for enforcing tax law. Cliven Bundy himself echoed the Posse in demanding that the local sheriff disarm the BLM and called on the protesters to rise up when the sheriff failed to do so.


The protesters at Bundy Ranch voice the same rhetoric of constitutional vigilantism honed by the Klan, the Posse, and the militias. What has changed is that this philosophy is no longer limited to the radical fringe but has become a respectable position offered up by mainstream political figures like Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/heller-calls-bundy-ranch-supporters-patriots-reid-sticks-with-domestic-terrorists/), who called the protesters “patriots,” and by a stream of Fox News commentators likeSean Hannity (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2014/04/22/cliven-bundy-takes-nevada-ranch-rhetoric) and Andrew Napolitano (http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/04/21/judge-napolitano-bundy-ranch-brought-attention-to-govt-overreach/), who called Bundy a hero for standing up to federal abuse.



Emboldened by their apparent victory at Bundy Ranch, the new constitutional vigilantes are asking where they can take the fight next. Cliven Bundy declared it a victory for “We the People.” But that can only be true if we want the Constitution to mean whatever an armed mob says it means.






Jared A. Goldstein teaches constitutional law and environmental law at Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, R.I.

[Glenn]

Beep...beep...beep...

The sound of those Tea Party Republicans who were calling this guy a hero...

[Glenn]

I really didn't want to wade into this cow pie conversation but now that you requested my presence in the mire :crazy:....I'm not sure Mr. Bundy would like me too much since my first rule with a client is for the client to exercise his/her 5th Amendment right to shut up and let me do the talking. I'm pretty good at pulling people out of a hole but the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging it deeper. "Let go of the shovel and let me help," I tell them. Most do just that. Again, Mr. Bundy and I may butt heads because from the little I have read, he seems to want to keep digging, by word and by action. Also, the media attention tends to mess with people a lot by way of clouding their better judgment because of the attention.
.
.
.


Wow... Bundy's latest statements amount to more of a backhoe than a shovel, eh Scott?

[Scott Card]

Wow... Bundy's latest statements amount to more of a backhoe than a shovel, eh Scott?
:nod: My experience tells me that the most dangerous enemy an individual has is almost always him/herself.

[Iceaxe]

http://i.imgur.com/3POJRO8.jpg

[Iceaxe]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEBFGGyCYAAvT5q.jpg:large

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREw-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg

[Iceaxe]

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1901303_510248852419649_1373420545885364249_n.jpg

[ratagonia]

The latest from my buddies at SLANT:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/25/cliven_bundy_is_not_a_welfare_queen_the_comparison _needs.html


Cliven Bundy Is Not a "Welfare Queen"




(http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/25/cliven_bundy_is_not_a_welfare_queen_the_comparison _needs.html#comments)

by Amanda Marcotte

Taking a swipe at Cliven Bundy by calling him a "welfare queen" made the leap from social media snarking to cable news on Thursday, when CNN anchor Bill Weir (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/24/cnn-host-asks-cliven-bundy-if-hes-a-welfare-queen-with-a-cowboy-hat/) brought it up in an interview with Bundy. "You are writing off a whole class of people, African-Americans, as sort of dangerously dependent because they get government assistance," Weir stated. "At the same time, you’re grazing your cows on public land for free. So, how are you not sort of a welfare queen in a cowboy hat?"

Weir's analogy is deeply unfair to people on welfare in so many ways, starting with the myth that people on welfare are defrauding the government in the same way that Bundy is doing. While there are people who lie on food-stamp applications and there was that one lady who ran a major welfare fraud scheme four decades (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_ a_notorious_american_villain.html) ago, the overwhelming majority of people who apply for government assistance are honest people who are just trying to survive. The rate of food-stamp fraud—which includes people lying on applications and selling food stamps for cash—is low, about a penny on every dollar spent on the program (http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/08/six-myths-about-food-stamps/). Plus, people who do commit food-stamp fraud generally go to jail for it (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/sources-more-than-a-dozen-nyc-stores-raided-in-food-stamp-fraud-investigation/). They don't hole up in their homes with an illegal army of gun nuts while the right-wing media champions them for their anti-government activities.

Also, let's be clear that the difference in scale here is massive. Bundy owes the federal government more than $1 million in grazing fees (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/04/22/cliven-bundy-owes-american-taxpayers-for-his-cattle-grazing), fines, and other penalties. If he was cheating the government by lying on a food-stamp application, it would take him about 8,100 months to bilk the government for as much, at the Nevada allowance of $123.57 a month (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm).

But really, the sexist and racially tinged stereotype of the "welfare queen" has expanded in the decades since Ronald Reagan first uttered (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_ a_notorious_american_villain.html) the phrase in the '70s. Back then, he was using the phrase to imply that welfare fraud is more common than it is. Now, it tends to be used more to imply that there's a class of people, mostly women, who subsist on welfare throughout their lives to avoid working. But this simply isn't true. Food stamps are largely a program for working people who are temporarily unemployed. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3894), "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP."

Even for people who need more help and have to turn to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the myth that they are lazy and dependent simply isn't the reality. Or if they are, it's because they are children and, as a civilized nation, we have banned child labor. Nearly half of families that receive TANF (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final) have no adult recipients, according to data collected by the Office of Family Assistance. Of the adults, three out of five are required to have paid employment in order to receive their benefits. Most of the rest are exempt for a very good reason, either because of disability or because they are single parents with babies under 12 months old.

Weir no doubt meant well, but by invoking the image of the "welfare queen," he inadvertently reinforced the myth that people who turn to welfare are criminal, lazy, and dependent. You know, the exact myth that Bundy was leaning on to justify his insinuation that black people were better off under slavery (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/24/cliven_bundy_and_some_conservative_pundits_are_not _so_different.html). Government benefits are set up by the citizenry as a safety net we can all depend on if we fall down on our luck. Cliven Bundy, on the other hand, comes up with half-baked rationalizations for his desire to profit off stealing from the taxpayers. As fun as it may be to play gotcha with Bundy, surely there's a way to do it without signing off on his offensive and frankly untrue remarks about people who receive legal government benefits.

[Scott P]

I just found out that the Bundy's are family members of mine, related to my mom's side of the family. :peepwall:

[Scott Card]

I just found out that the Bundy's are family members of mine, related to my mom's side of the family. :peepwall: Hurry, quick, put everything in your wife's name.:haha:

[Scott P]

Hurry, quick, put everything in your wife's name.:haha:

Or I should buy a herd of cattle and take it down to the Bundy Ranch and let them know that I also have ancestral grazing rights. :haha: It's some of the same family members that the Bundy's are claiming that they inherited rights from. I wonder how that would go over?

[ratagonia]

I just found out that the Bundy's are family members of mine, related to my mom's side of the family. :peepwall:


Scott - you're a Bundy! A sovereign individual. No more Federal taxes!!!

T

[Scott P]

Scott - you're a Bundy!

Well, not really since the relation is with my mother's side and thus the name Bundy wasn't involved. The Bundy's are claiming grazing right's from their mother's side.

According to the Bundy's, their grandmother "inherited" grazing rights from her side of the family from the the Abbot, Levitt, and Adams families. (The Bundy family left the area several times before coming back and buying the ranch land in 1948 and starting to graze the land in 1954). Since my mother came from the Adams of the same region, it's almost surely the same family line. The Adams did indeed settle the Virgin River Valley, but also Kanab and then later, Delta (the one in Utah). Incidentally, and for history buffs, the Levitt family in the region is who Juanita Brooks descended from is the famous historian who chronicled the Mountain Meadows Massacre (the Levitts have supposed ties to the massacre) in her book as well as other Mormon history related to polygamy.

Anyway, if the Bundy's "inherited" the rights to the land from the Adams, would it seem that I would have the same claim to the land? :haha:

[cchoc]

Somebody posted a link to this on FB today, looks like the gov strategy may pay off when the various militia 'patriots' kill each other off. :roll:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/05/militiamen-and-oath-keepers-drew-weapons

[Byron]

Given this cattle controversy involving Utah, this quote from Martin Luther King Jr. deserves to be repeated. “ I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”Somebody beat ya to it.

[double moo]

Given this cattle controversy involving Utah, this quote from Martin Luther King Jr. deserves to be repeated. “ I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”


Definitely Platinum Level quote right there....

[Scott P]

The Bundy sons led a militia that just took over a National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

[BruteForce]

The Bundy sons led a militia that just took over a National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

That "headquarters" is nothing more than an unoccupied cabin. I love how the media is making it sound like some huge occupied campus..

[Scott P]

...

[Scott P]

A photo of the headquarters buildings. Yes, not that big.

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/ap_militia_oregon_160103_12x5_1600.jpg

Apparently the county is concerned enough that all schools are closed for the week.

[Glenn]

A photo of the headquarters buildings. Yes, not that big.

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/ap_militia_oregon_160103_12x5_1600.jpg

Apparently the county is concerned enough that all schools are closed for the week.

Did I miss a sarcasm tag somewhere? Because that looks like a lot more than an "unoccupied cabin."

[Scott P]

Apparently, it's actually 17 buildings.

[Scott P]

Ammon Bundy took $530,000 Federal Loan:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-530g-federal-loan-article-1.2486508


Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

It seems Ammon Bundy, the militia leader camping out against the federal government, has no problem taking federal dollars from it — and taxpayers.

Public records show that the gun-toting movement leader holed up in an Oregon wildlife refuge took out a $530,000 loan from the Small Business Administration in 2010 for his Arizona venture, Valet Fleet Services......

...The loan was for small businesses that could not get financial help through private means, according to the project description.....

While Bundy sees green with the government’s loan programs, lately he’s been seeing red over federal laws.

Bundy, along with his brother Ryan and a ragtag crew of armed “protesters,” stormed the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday night in a rally against the federal government.

Calling himself a patriot, Bundy took a staunch stance against the United States government, claiming it went too far by enforcing jurisdiction on federally owned land.

Despite his political philosophy, Bundy claims he is not a hypocrite for taking the federal handout.

“I am not anti-government,” the militia leader told CNN. He said the loan “was an effort in assisting the people in using their rights.”

[Scott P]

Tribe to protesters occupying Oregon wildlife refuge: ‘We were here first … get the hell out’

Before the Bundy brothers and fellow occupiers took over the remote headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and claimed it for private citizens, before there was even a federal wildlife refuge to occupy, there were the Northern Paiute, a tribe that hunted, fished, lived and worshiped in this harshly beautiful landscape for more than 13 centuries.

The area that is now the refuge was once their wintering grounds, but the Paiute were restricted to a reservation in 1868 after signing a treaty that would guarantee them federal recognition and protection from encroaching white settlers. Over time, that land allotment became even smaller, until the central Oregon Paiute were confined to a few thousand acres along what is now Highway 20 — the Burns Paiute Indian Reservation.

As the anti-government protesters dug in for their fifth day at the wildlife refuge, insisting that they would leave only once the land had been “returned to its rightful owners,” the Burns Paiute council convened at its tribal offices 30 minutes away. They all had one, angry question on their minds:

Who exactly did the occupiers think those “rightful owners” might be?


Don’t tell me any of these ranchers came across the Bering Strait,” the tribal chairwoman, Charlotte Rodrique, said at a news conference (http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2016/01/06/paiute-tribe-oregon-takeover/78363458/)Wednesday. “We were here first,” she added. “We’d like the public to acknowledge that.”

Jarvis Kennedy, a member of the tribal council, put his demand bluntly: “They just need to get the hell out of here.”

Although the wildlife refuge is not part of the Burns Paiute reservation, tribe members consider it sacred ancestral land. The Paiute are guaranteed access to the refuge for activities important to their heritage — hunting, fishing, gathering reeds for basket weaving and precious seeds. The tribe is also working with the Bureau of Land Management to preserve its archaeological sites.


“We have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” Rodrique said, according to the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/burns_piaute_tribe_militants_s.html#incart_river_h ome) newspaper. “We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.”

The occupiers, she added, are “desecrating” a site that was inhabited to the Paiute long before white settlers had even set foot in the United States. If anyone is to be angry about who the land belongs to, surely it is the tribe members who were forced off of it a century ago.....

A century later, the descendants of the wildlife refuge’s only other “owners” — the Northern Paiute — say that they’re worried about the effect that the militia members’ occupation might have on their ancestral land. The tribal council met with archaeologists for the refuge Tuesday, according to the Oregonian, to talk about protecting the area’s historic sites. The refuge also houses important papers documenting the tribe’s history and relationship to the land....


When Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, who ran the meeting, got up to speak, the crowd erupted into cheers.
“You don’t get to come here and tell us how we get to live our lives,” he said, according to the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/paiute-indians-dispute-oregon-wildlife-refuge-protesters-standing.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection% 2Fus). “I’m here to ask those folks to go home and let us go back to our lives in Harney County.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/07/tribe-to-protesters-occupying-oregon-wildlife-refuge-we-were-here-first-get-the-hell-out/

[Chivas]

It's always "sacred ancestral land" when the Indians smell a possible payout...:lol8:

[Chivas]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bundy's own affairs, kudos to them for drawing national attention to the egregious re-imprisonment of Dwight and Steve Hammond on charges of "terrorism" - exactly the kind of state abuse of power common in places like Iran and China - part of the ongoing war on traditional rural America by the Feds. The Hammonds already served their time, they are not terrorists by any stretch, and an extra five years is "cruel and unusual", i.e. unconstitutional.

[Sombeech]

So if I understand this correctly, it's all because the ranchers lit a fire to control the over growth? Something that my family and I did all the time on our farmland growing up.

My terrorist cell has been in sleeper mode ever since the late 80's. It's time to rise again and burn more weeds in the ditches.

[jman]

So if I understand this correctly, it's all because the ranchers lit a fire to control the over growth? Something that my family and I did all the time on our farmland growing up.
.

It was to cover up their "illegal poaching" and the fire burned a little larger than they would have liked.

But they did serve two years for that crime, but another judge(?) says that it should of been 5 years. It was because of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BruteForce]

Sad, really. The BLM and USFS can burn entire forests, poison rivers and not be held accountable, but a family tries to burn back some brush and gets ~7 years prison! Have any of you seen this video regarding the BLM devastating the area in Oregon?

http://www.examiner.com/article/blm-burns-land-unsupervised-feds-burn-ranchers-home-and-cattle-alive

[Brian in SLC]

Interesting read:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/11/3737719/rancher-history-oregon/

[ratagonia]

As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Here is a pro-Hammond article I found that lays out the court case about the arson, for which the Hammonds were convicted, and the appeal of the illegally light sentence the judge gave them. The whole article is worth a read, and is pretty pro-Hammond (which I am not), but here is the crime/trial/sentencing/appeal etc. part:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html

The fires
The first fire came in 2001: a simple prescribed burn, intended to take out invasive juniper, by Steve and Dwight Hammond's account.
But federal prosecutors said the men's real motive for starting the blaze, which consumed 139 acres and forestalled grazing for two seasons, was to cover up evidence of an illegal slaughter of deer. The government presented evidence that Steven Hammond called an emergency dispatcher to ask if it was OK to burn -- roughly two hours after they already lit the fire. His attorney said in court that Hammond called the land bureau beforehand.
The government acknowledged that the next fire, in 2006, was intended as a defensive move. Steve Hammond set backfires to keep a lightning-caused fire from burning onto the Hammonds' ranch and hitting their winter feed.
But the government said Steve Hammond lit up on the flanks of a butte, despite a countywide burn ban and the knowledge that young part-time firefighters were camped up higher. Their crew boss spotted the fires, which were set at night, and moved the crew.
How prosecutors pursued the ensuing criminal case over the two fires is what bothers Hammond supporters.
When the men were indicted in 2010 on federal arson charges, they faced sentencing under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Some Hammond backers and a host of recent social media posts translated that to mean the Hammonds were treated as terrorists.
"When you starting bringing in the terrorism act for God-fearing livestock producers in eastern Oregon, something is wrong," said Barry Bushue, a Multnomah County berry farmer and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau (http://www.oregonfb.org/home/).
Federal prosecutors say they did no such thing.
"At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."
But the five-year sentence mandated by terrorism law also concerned people. Among the critics: the federal judge who presided over the Hammonds' trial in Pendleton.
U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said at the men's original sentencing in 2012 that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
"It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said before sentencing Dwight to three months and Steve to one year.
The men served their time and went home to raise cattle. But their case, it turned out, was far from settled.
Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal.
"If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."
Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last fall that "the government did what we are supposed to do when someone doesn't follow the law, be it a judge or be it two ranchers in eastern Oregon."
The solicitor general at the U.S. Justice Department authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order.
The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds trooped to federal court last October to face a second sentencing.
Family and supporters filled the Eugene courtroom and U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken gave the two convicted ranchers a chance to speak.
"I have nothing to say," Steve Hammond said.
"I have got nothing to say," Dwight Hammond said.
"Really?" the judge asked. "That's so unusual."
She sentenced them to prison to finish five-year terms but left them free until after the holidays.