I just read about it on Facebook. Google search results are divisive (it's that left or right thing again.) What I read is that the feds are seizing the compound because the Bundys are endangering some species of turtles because their cows eat too much grass? Or that the feds want to seize the land in order to build some sort of solar farm on it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Bundy paid for grazing rights to the state. He says that the land belongs to the state of NV and not the federal government. The fact is that he's wrong, and two judges have ruled against him. The real shit is the fact that the agents enforcing the laws/rulings have been total dicks too. It's a case two wrongs not making a right... or some such shit.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Plus, there's also the conspiracy theory that the fed is trying to take his land to build a solar power plant.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Bundy paid for grazing rights to the state. He says that the land belongs to the state of NV and not the federal government. The fact is that he's wrong, and two judges have ruled against him. The real shit is the fact that the agents enforcing the laws/rulings have been total dicks too. It's a case two wrongs not making a right... or some such shit.
After a couple of decades of his mooching isn't it time to be "total dicks"?
So you're okay with them tossing an old women to the ground as long as she's a right winger.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
You'll never get over losing that gang war to the Southside Bea Arthurs, will you?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
You should have known better than to try and claim turf with the only Cracker Barrel in town.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So you're okay with them tossing an old women to the ground as long as she's a right winger.
Morality on this doesn't or shouldn't get into "right" or "left" Doc. They're in the wrong and have been for over 2 decades. At some point it was time to stop being nice.
Or alternately, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been abusing its power for 2 decades, and has been using bullying tactics and trumped-up fines and charges for 2 decades, and should back the fuck off.
$1 million in fines for cattle eating grass doesn't sound excessive?
200 agents pointing M-16 rifles ready to fire at a cattle rancher and his family over grazing rights doesn't sound excessive? AND to fire at his neighbors (who committed no crime) who are standing with him ? AND at news reporters?
They don't own the land WB. Not sure about the other accusations you make but it seems to me it was the government that left instead of hurting a bunch of armed people that looked ready to fire on the BLM workers.
Wow. The point went right over your head didn't it?
Considering how often you've gone out of your way to argue that land, capital, and legacies are somehow communally amassed commodities that should logically be taxed and controlled by the state--rather than privately developed properties that should be controlled by the individual proprietors--any claim you make about rightful ownership sounds less than convincing.
Not all of the Founding Fathers agreed with the Boston Tea Party, and even went so far as to condemn Revere and Co. for defying the British authority, but that doesn't make defiance against the taxation and fees of out-of-touch leadership any less of an American tradition. Ranchers are getting FUCKED in more ways than one by regulations that are inherently anti-private property. The worst of the offenses committed against them and their families is the death tax: it hits them far harder than anyone else. The particulars of this incident do not strike me as being a far cry from those cases.
In which case, it's simplistic and plain silly to try and compare this to the Occutards who had nary a fucking clue as to why they even bothered flocking to the streets like a bunch of idiots and destroying small businesses in the process.
From a few days prior, on April 10th, the opening 2 minutes do a good job of answering the "why" of Bureau of Land Management descending on the Bundy ranch suddenly after 20 years. Basically (according to a real estate broker quoted in the opening 2 minutes) because it's valuable land that the federal government, and wealthy supporters of certain political leaders in Nevada, want to leverage the Bundy family off of, and this is a final push to intimidate them into selling. And that these tactics have worked leveraging out many other family-owned ranches in the area, before this family's tenacity drew a spotlight to the consistent BLM tactics that are used against private citizens.
It also explains the level of support by hundreds of the Bundy family's neighbors.
This Tea Party site shows the same scene unedited, where the BLA officials sic dogs crowd to intimidate them, and throw a 50-year-old woman on the ground. Some of their own words and actions are embarrassing rhetoric, chanting and antagonism, but nothing that justifies what the police did.
This last link gives insight into the written policies of "Environmental Protection", and how it is in truth a mask for locking down control of rural areas, and pushing people into urban areas where people are more easily controlled by an authoritarian state, with less ability to hide, and less able to farm and grow their own food:
They don't own the land WB. Not sure about the other accusations you make but it seems to me it was the government that left instead of hurting a bunch of armed people that looked ready to fire on the BLM workers.
Yes, I guess that's predictably how you'd see it.
You completely bypass the trumped-up nature of the charges against Bundy, the way ALL of the Bundy family's 52 neighboring ranchers have been leveraged off their property and forced to give up ranching. And how excessive it is for 200 agents to come on Bundy's ranch with snipers, allegedly because 150 cows ate some state property (possibly federal property) grass, and because of an endangered desert turtle that's numbers are growing so fast that the same federal agency is euthanizing the same turtles used to rationalize aiming snipers at the Bundy family.
But for the grace of God, this is Waco and Randy Weaver all over again. Authoritarian federal agents who harass and intimidate with restraint from rule of law. Only global media exposure is making BLM and their snipers back off.
I think it's probably past time to start treating Bundy like any other criminal that has broken the law for over 2 decades. It's no small point that he doesn't own nor is he entitled to the land he grazes his cattle on. No amount of talking points gets around that.
By Kevin McCullough, OneNewsNow.com April 15, 2014
Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada. Let me amplify a little bit of truth: they tucked tail and have returned home. And let me add a bit of clarity: they had no choice!
As the nation began to become familiar with the plight of the family of Cliven Bundy, many of us harkened back to another standoff – way back in 1993 – in which the federal government attempted to bully its outcome: Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidian massacre.
It is telling that in the Nevada case the feds pulled out so quickly, given all they had indicated they were willing to do to resolve the matter to their satisfaction. They had set up a perimeter around the Bundy's family land, ranch, and home. They had brought in extra artillery, dogs, and snipers. They were beginning the process of stealing more than 300 head of cattle that did not belong to them.
They did so – or so we were told – for the reason of protecting the desert tortoise. But then it was revealed that the Bureau of Land Management had shot far more desert tortoises than the Bundy cattle had even possibly destroyed. We were told they did it because the Bundys had broken federal laws by not paying what amounted to retroactive grazing fees to the federal government. But the governor of the state of Nevada told us that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been improving the property more than 100 years previous.
Finally we were allowed to know the connection between a communist Chinese wind/solar power plant and its connection to that senator named Harry Reid. Evidently a plan had been hatched to use the Bundy property for a solar farm and instead of paying the Bundys, someone, somewhere in the administration believed it was easier to just take what they wanted.
That approach is at least consistent with the readily documented abuse of emminent domain where the government for any number of reasons – few of them valid – has taken to taking what doesn't belong to them. Americans then watch as it gets handed over to some multi-national corporation for the "cause" of the "greater good."
There were a few specific reasons why the feds chickened out in the Nevada desert though.
TECHNOLOGY – As the Bundy family members were abused, cameras captured it. Not television network cameras, but dozens of cell phone video devices that gave witness to a Bundy aunt being shoved to the ground, and a Bundy son being tazed. All of this while threatening protestors with dogs, brandished weapons and vehicles was captured, uploaded and made viral to the watching world.
STATES' RIGHTS – As the drama unfolded it became clear that the governor of Nevada, and the sheriff of Clark County knew that Cliven Bundy's family had not only not broken any state law regarding the land, but that they had gone to the nth degree to ensure compliance with Nevada laws on the property. The governor and the sheriff, to their credit, did not favor the feds as a more powerful party in the conflict. Though there must have been pressure from Senator Reid's office, the administration via the Bureau of Land Management, and local officials who were bought and sold like the Clark County commissioner who told those coming to support the Bundys to have "funeral plans in place."
GRASSROOTS RESPONSE – As other incidents have transpired in the past, the amount of time it took honest information to reach the grassroots and thus the response to the action came too slow. In the massacre in Waco, most of the nation had been sold a single narrative from the limited media outlets covering the events. Similarly the events surrounding the abduction of Elian Gonzales from his family in Florida and deportation to Cuba took place in such a response vacuum that by the time Americans knew the real story, the damage was done. With the Bundy ranch, Internet outlets by the dozen had competing information with the limited "official news" being released by the networks, and in most cases the alternative sources had it correct and usually a full day or so ahead of the news cycle. By the time afternoon drive hit, when the network news rooms in New York were preparing their first stories, talk radio audiences had already been dialing their elected officials in Washington demanding action.
The majority of Americans saw through the efforts to spin the story in Nevada. Couple that with the leadership failures that the American people view the administration responsible for, from Benghazi to the Affordable Care Act, all it took was the unedited video of federal agents tazing Bundy's son, followed by his pulling the wires from his chest and continuing to stand his ground for there to be comparisons made to the American revolution.
It's also important to note that merely pulling back from the Bundy property hasn't settled the matter for the American people either.
The feds have stolen 352 head of cattle, and will not confirm or deny if they euthanized some or all of them. Recompense must be made. And to be candid, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see if a few ambitious law firms don't try to convince the Bundy family of the validity of litigation.
Fortunately for the American people, the feds were not able to ultimately bully a simple rancher, not for a tortoise, a solar power plant, or a dirty senator and his administration.
We owe the Bundy family a great deal of thanks for standing tall.
For if the federal government is allowed to do it with one, then there will be nothing stopping them from doing it again.
Former sheriff: Women ‘need to be the first ones shot’ by feds in Bundy Ranch standoff By David Edwards Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:51 EDT
A former Arizona sheriff who has taken the side of cattle ranchers in Nevada said this week that he would have allowed his own wife and daughters to be shot as human shields because it would look bad for the federal government on television.
In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out between “rogue federal agents” and rancher Cliven Bundy, who reportedly owes the taxpayers more than $1 million for allowing his cattle to graze on government land.
“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he recalled. “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.” ...
That is --predictably from you and the Left, M E M-- a partisan liar's attempt to change the subject from the fact that these Arizona ranchers were right, and the state was wrong.
And the key point is: the BLM's federal agents had snipers pointing guns at these ranchers. If the BLM didn't endanger these people in the first place, FOR NO REASON, OVER RIDICULOUS TRUMPED UP MANUFACTURED EXCUSES like turtles (that the BLM are euthanizing themselves because of an overpopulation of turtles) and eating grass, these people would not be at risk. It is the federal BLM's SNIPERS putting women in danger, >>>>NOT<<<<< the ranchers.
Someone in BLM or higher up should be fired for this over-reach and unnecessary terrorizing of these ranchers.
See my posts above. These tactics have chased away 52 of the ranch-owner neighbors of the Bundy family. They are the only ones who couldn't be intimidated. Perhaps you'd feel differently if they aimed their guns at YOU.
The media was nowhere to be seen throughout this. Without viral video of these proceedings, these federal agents would have eagerly shot these people and created some story after to cover their crime. As Waco and Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzales in a pre-internet period make clear.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
The facts are not convenient for you. Bundy doesn't own the federal land he grazes his cattle on. This has been through the courts and Bundy has lost on every occasion.
Mr. Bundy disputes the trumped-up charges, and has for decades in court, and thinks he has a right to graze on the questionably either state or federal land, which is not used by anyone. His family has been raising cattle and grazing on this land since the late 1800's. The local sheriff even sides with him against the Bureau of Land Management's claims.
And AGAIN: the BLM has used these tactics to drive 52 other neighboring families off their ranches to federally take their land, the Bundy family is the last one left, who won't be intimidated. Taken for deceitful ulterior reasons made clear in my previous cited articles and Youtube clips.
Thinking you are entitled to something that isn't yours doesn't make it yours. It's true he's fought this in the courts for decades but he's understandably lost every time.
The only people this administration will label terrorists are patriotic Americans who stand for Constitutional rule of law, for border security, and for preservation of U.S. sovereignty.
Burning Man organizer plans anything-goes ‘Bundyfest’ to mock scofflaw rancher By Travis Gettys Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:29 EDT
Some of the organizers of the annual Burning Man festival are planning an event aimed at mocking the claims of a Nevada rancher who refuses to pay government-mandated fees for using federal lands.
“For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada,” said the event’s organizers on a Facebook page. “But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!”
Progressive activist Sean Shealy said Bundyfest, which will be held across the road from Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada, for one month starting on Sept. 5.
That’s just after the conclusion of the Burning Man festival, and Shealy hopes attendees will travel south to see 240 bands perform 24 hours a day near the rancher’s home.
“Some people have asked me, where will we camp, where will we park?” Shealy said. “Anywhere, really. It’s f*cking anarchy.”
The Facebook page for the event promises no permits will be required, full nudity will be permitted, and the atmosphere will be gay-friendly.
However, Shealy warned, no bathroom facilities would be provided.
“You’re free to let it all hang out right there, just like Bundy’s cattle, right there in the Virgin River, if you want to,” Shealy said.
Organizers also plan a “penis erection contest,” where participants will be awarded prizes for the largest phallic structure built in the desert.
Shealy said organizers expect about 50,000 people to show up in the desert near Bundy’s home.
Yes, M E M, because 200 snipers are proportionate to reign in a guy whose 350 cows ate some grass that no one will miss.
Comrade Obama's own little Tianaman square.
AGAIN: the only ones Obama and the Democrats are willing to label as "terrorists" are the PEACEFUL and patriotic demonstrators who object to Obama's destruction of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Would that he were as zealous in capturing ACTUAL Islamic terrorists, that he won't even identify as terrorists, let alone try to capture. Would that Obama and the Democrats would label Occupy Wall Street people as terrorists, who engage in riots, vandalism, plan bombings, and try to blow up bridges. Would that Obama and the Democrats had any will to capture and deport the 12 to 20 million estimated illegals in our country. In the last month it was revealed that Obama won't even deport the CRIMINAL aliens! And sued the state of Arizona to prevent them from defending their own borders.
Basically, would that Obama and the Democrats had a drop of patriotism in their treasonous bodies. The same liberal cocksmokers who have mocked the movie Red Dawn as Right-wing fantasy for 30 years are making it for the first time conceivable that it could happen: castrating our military, emboldening our enemies overseas, weakening and laying open our borders, and attempting to disarm our citizens. While these same liberals demonize those who actually try to prevent liberal/"progressive" destruction of our country from within.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Yes, M E M, because 200 snipers are proportionate to reign in a guy whose 350 cows ate some grass that no one will miss.
....
Where did you get the 200 snipers number? Are you counting the snipers Bundy had?
Quote:
Flat on his belly in a sniper position, wearing a baseball cap and a flak jacket, a protester aimed his semi-automatic rifle from the edge of an overpass and waited as a crowd below stood its ground against U.S. federal agents in the Nevada desert. [Reuters, 4/17/14]
So I wonder if Fox/Koch brothers will be calling all the dirty hippies patriots for using federal land without permits? Than again I haven't seen any talk about using women and children as human shields so that might disqualify them.
AGAIN: 200 federal agents, snipers, and attack dogs, tasering unarmed men and grandmothers... for what?
The government can make up any fine it wants and charge people thousands of dollars a day. But saying the guy owed money to the government is absurd, if the fines are completely unjust and fabricated. And even assuming the fines are legitimate, does ANYTHING justify the kind of firepower aimed at the Bundy family and the friends who stood with them?
Let me answer that for you, M E M. No. No, it doesn't. Not even close.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
