Posted on 04/10/2014 8:09:43 PM PDT by rightwingerpatriot
It's rather hard to believe in this day and age, but there's a range war in Nevada that's heating up. The last rancher in Clark County, Nevada, is defying the federal government's orders to remove his cattle from grazing on federal land. The land in question was restricted by the feds in 1998 from being used for grazing in favor of the desert tortoise, which is an endangered species. The rancher, Cliven Bundy, has been in a standoff with federal authorities since then. He stopped paying grazing fees stating that his family has used the land for 140 years, and that the rights of the state of Nevada supersedes that of the federal government. The feds, through the Bureau of Land Management, see it differently and have closed off the area and have begun rounding up the cattle.
The BLM have sent in several hundred officers and have put a cordon around the Bundy ranch. The situation is deteriorating as some militia members from other states are heading to Nevada to stand with Cliven Bundy, and federal officials and protestors have clashed. The feds say Bundy owes $1 million in grazing fees while he maintains he only owes $300,000. While you can argue the merits or the lack of them of Bundy's case, it is disturbing how the federal government is handling the situation.
First, the BLM has set up areas where you can exercise your First Amendment rights. If you're outside of those areas, you're subject to arrest. Cliven Bundy's son, Dave Bundy, was tasered and arrested for protesting outside the First Amendment zone. As an American, the fact that government officials are outlawing free speech is abhorrent (colleges are doing this as well). The entire United States is a First Amendment area, pure and simple. The designation of free speech zones is anti-American and sickening to the extreme.
Second, the large amount of armed response that the Bureau of Land Management is bringing to bear on this situation is obscene. It's estimated that several hundred federal law enforcement are being used, along with canines, helicopters, vehicles, and (reportedly) snipers. It seems like a huge amount of overkill for a land dispute, and it smacks of the federal government flexing its muscle to intimidate. Since so many resources can be allocated to removing a grand total of 900 cattle, I guess that the entire border with Mexico is finally secure and that the proliferation of gang and drug cartel activity within the border states must have been stopped.
From all the accounts I've read, I think that the farmer seems to be in the wrong. With that said though, it doesn't mean that the government doesn't have to pull a blitzkrieg in the area and stifle free speech. You could have the local authorities take a larger role in the situation to calm things down, but I guess that would get in the way of the federal government getting to show off their power. It's almost as if the federal government wants the situation to blow up so they use full force. Who knows how this situation will end? I only hope it doesn't end like Ruby Ridge or Waco, where lives were lost.
I just checked your posting history. You sure have a thing about this, and are in full support of the government.
The FEDS are the ones that pulled the trigger on the taser. Regardless of who you thought was more likely to be violent.
That needs to be repeated.
This is a cluster, and the feds aren't doing anything but aggravating it.
Good management would dictate bringing things down a notch or 5, since there isn't a violent crime occurring, and it's a dispute about land rights.
/johnny
Is there evidence that the “endangered” turtle cannot co-exist with cattle? Or is that an impertinent, irrelevant question? Yes, I know. Depends on who is doing the defining.
These shouldn’t even be federal lands, They should be state lands. Get the feds out!
The government says you only have the right to free speech on the section of land they authorize even though it’s privately owned.
Or the government authorizes free speech on the section of land the people own.
In either case, it’s not what the constitution says.
Congress should pass a bill now regarding grazing land and send it to Reid. Let him table it....
Then go after him and the rats.
DING! DING! DING!
You sir, are a winner!
‘Open Range.’ I love that movie.
And I’m still rooting for the cowboys!
agenda 21 kicking people out of rural areas. note they aren’t doing it to ted turner, biggest landowner in america.
How much money did the federal gov. pay for that land...?
Just asking....???
““IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof....DATED this 9th day of July, 2013””
Hauling a private citizen before government lawyers, in a government court, before a government judges seems to be a stacked deck...! I guess some of the sheeple would call that a “fair” hearing.
If what his daughter says is true, he may not own the land, but he DOES own the right to use it.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range
BLM unilaterally changed the designation of it from "Public Lands" to "Federal Lands", and placing it, & all the roads & trails on it, off limits to entry.
Maybe I’m being the old curmudgeon in this, but it isn’t his property.
***********************
On videos I saw a couple of days ago there was a shot of a large yellow sign with black letters that showed “FREE GRAZING RANGE”.
The fees to the BLM were supposed to help pay for wages and their upkeep of the roads and fences. The BLM stopped their upkeep about 20 years ago.
Agree fully with your posting!
That’s exactly the same takeaway I’ve gotten from reading many articles and seeing coverage on FoxNews.
The Feds ran off all of the surrounding ranchers, but the Gundys are fighting back; and they are getting support in their efforts.
Been awhile since the feds made and example of someone to show the little people who really is the boss.
Sooooo,
How the hell many are they going to kill this time?
This vaunted federal gub mint of ours?
The wording on this is all wrong.
They refused his payments; he tried to pay the state so they could hold the money until things cleared up, but the state didn’t want to be part of the process; he then just stopped paying, because they refused the payments.
As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 states, Congress has the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Where does BLM get it’s assumed authority over this very large tract of land? The law says that it can’t be greater than ten miles square.
I suspect that this is all Dingy Harry’s doing and related to kickbacks from Fracking Leases.
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html#
“Good management would dictate bringing things down a notch or 5, since there isn’t a violent crime occurring, and it’s a dispute about land rights.”
No, it is not a dispute. Bundy had his day in court. The court applied the law just as it would with any private landowner. This is an open/shut legal case: Bundy has NO CASE AT ALL. Refusing to pay grazing fees because ‘the federal government doesn’t own the land’ when, in fact, the federal government DOES own the land ranks right up there with refusing to pay your taxes because ‘I’m a citizen of Arizona and not the USA”.
This makes conservatives look like idiots. If you want to graze your cattle on someone’s land, you should expect to pay that person or organization. If you do so without paying, you are trespassing and your cattle can be seized to pay your bill.
George Washington would have no problem with throwing Bundy in jail and seizing his cattle. Like most of the Founders, George believed in property rights.
I believe in property rights...and the federal government owns the property. It is not in dispute. If you drive 100 mph down the Interstate, you won’t get out of a speeding ticket by claiming the speed limit doesn’t apply to you.
Running to join Bundy is the sort of knee-jerk reaction I expect from inner city folks rioting because ‘the man’ did something legal. People supporting Bundy rank right up with the folks of Detroit supporting their crooked mayor because he’s black.
I’m a conservative. I believe in property rights. I also believe in applying the established law that has held true in our country since the Constitution was approved, and earlier in the colonies. If you enter someone’s property without permission, that is trespassing.
Only people who believe in tribal politics and the abuse of power would see it differently.
“he tried to pay the state so they could hold the money until things cleared up, but the state didn’t want to be part of the process; he then just stopped paying, because they refused the payments.”
So let me get this logic straight....
I lease something from Party A but I unilaterally decide that I am going to pay Party B instead.
Party B refuses to accept my payments because they are not the rightful owners and therefore not entitled to lease payments.
Party A has been trying to get satisfaction on this lease for 20 years including successful court decisions but I still insist I will only pay Party B even though they won’t accept payment.
I don’t even bother to put money in escrow to cover my a** in a show of good faith intention to eventually pay someone nor do I bother ever going to court to get a judgment against Party A for their supposed refusal to maintain roads or arbitrary changes to the lease agreement.
Since Party B won’t accept payments for something Party A owns, I am ok just using it for free and then crying foul when after almost 20 years of illegally using what isn’t mine, someone finally says “enough” ?
Wow that is a great deal....imagine what life would be like if everybody tried doing that with their rent, mortgages, car payments etc. (sarc)
Seriously though both sides on this issue are being stupid and reckless. The rancher sounds like someone who feels he is entitled to free “for profit” use of taxpayer owned land and the government is grossly overreacting with their current tactics and policies. This is a convoluted case and I don’t have sympathy for either side.
You seem to be buying the media presentation of the 'facts' without doing any deeper research. Much more is going on than is described by media accounts.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.