Posted on 04/15/2014 7:42:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his well-armed supporters forced the well-armed federal government to back down and return Bundy's seized cows -- which were seized because Bundy, 67, stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. How does anyone get the government to back down?
At first blush, Bundy seemed to have right on his side. He's a cowboy who just wants to keep being a cowboy.
The federal government, which owns more than 80 percent of Nevada land, including the land on which the Bundy family had settled, threatened to put him out to pasture. The Bureau of Land Management told the rancher he would have to cut back cattle grazing on federal lands to accommodate the threatened desert tortoise. So in 1993, Bundy stopped paying federal grazing fees. "They were managing my ranch out of business," Bundy explained, "so I refused to pay."
As the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized, the federal government has endangered a Western way of life in deference to "the 'threatened' desert tortoise and a supposedly fragile desert ecosystem that somehow has sustained cattle and the reptiles since the 19th century."
The BLM surely has earned its black-hat reputation in Nevada. In a classic example of federal overreach, the BLM carved out a small "First Amendment Area" for pro-Bundy protesters, which only fueled the public's distrust of government. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval suggested that the BLM reconsider its approach to constitutional rights -- and Sandoval's a former federal judge, whom you would expect to stand up for the federal court orders Bundy is flouting.
Sandoval issued a statement before the BLM backed down in which he argued, "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation" that he was placing on BLM's doorstep.
That sentiment ought to apply to Bundy, as well. The rancher says he does not recognize the authority of federal courts. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws," Breitbart Texas reports that the scion told talk radio. "But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."
He was willing to start a "range war" and risk the lives of his supporters in order to retrieve some cows. He doesn't feel he has to recognize a government elected by his fellow citizens.
The BLM clearly can be accused of overreach, but who elected Bundy to be judge, jury and sheriff?
Bundy could have fought the government at the ballot box by trying to elect members of Congress who want to defang the BLM. (It's strange when you realize that for all their anti-Washington sentiments, Nevada voters have sent Harry Reid to the Senate repeatedly since 1986.) That's the American way. Threatening to shoot law enforcement officers who simply are carrying out court orders is not
New alert suggestion: Useful idiot - props to V I Lenin.
Again: he had an understanding with the federal government to use our land.
The federal government then changed the rules on him, and gave very flimsy reasons for doing so.
He had a right to be displeased and to stand up for himself.
But now he is going deeper and deeper into Wesley Snipes lunatic land with his bogus constitutional and sovereignty theories that have no relationship with history or reality.
Except with voter fraud, national media in their corner, and Reid using the Senate floor to advance his agenda, what chance does the average citizen have for a voice in D.C.
Oh my goodness, I had no idea that Bundy was violating the “law” here! I suppose the Obama administration (including the Holder “Just-Us” department) will now finally begin following the law, just to show Bundy the error of his ways.
In the meantime could someone figure out how much we owe the British government for all the tea we illegally dumped in Boston harbor some years ago?We had better send them a check including interest right away!
Sounds as crazy as that talk about "alter or abolish it." Best not go there and get back to rearranging the deck chairs on the current Titanic.
It truly baffles leftists that ANYONE would dare think they should resist illegitimate authority.
Don’t know how to print the map - but since 1776 -the Feds sure have seized more land than the Brits could have ever dreamed of.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
No, those are two completely different things and it is illogical to conflate them.
The Founders were not whackjobs who bought into "sovereign citizen" horsehockey.
They had spent plenty of time engaging with the British government and insisting on their actual, documented, constitutional rights, only to have every avenue blocked to them.
So they then did the hard work of forming committees of correspondence to address their problems.
Mr. Bundy doesn't actually have a right to graze his cattle for free on our land.
He made that up.
There is no such right.
But he was given the runaround by bureaucrats and he does have a right to be mad.
He is entitled to his own opinion. But he is not entitled to his own facts.
Debra J. Saunders
Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle. Debra Saunders has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, and Reader’s Digest. Debra Saunders is the author of the book The World According to Gore. Saunders is married to Wesley J. Smith, a lawyer, author and senior fellow in bioethics at the Discovery Institute.
“The BLM clearly can be accused of overreach, but who elected Bundy to be judge, jury and sheriff?”
When the government has proven to be incapable of restraining itself, “the people” have just shown they’ll step up and do the job for them.
Isn’t Bundy saying he will pay the State...just not the Feds?
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,/a>
The federal government owns it through purchase or treaty.
It organized territories on land it owns.
It authorized the creation of new states on those lands.
While I think it's high time a lot of this land was put on the market, it is ridiculous to say that US government seized its own land.
So he is supposedly offering money to someone who has no right to take it.
He is also making comments about not even acknowledging state authority, but only recognizing county level law enforcement.
Picking and choosing jurisdictions.
Excellent point.
Wow it looks like the government owns almost all of Nevada. How did that happen?
That is what he said.
Thank you. Watching first one now.
All true, and as John Hinderaker pointed out on his Powerline post from yesterday, just because Bundy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, he still deserves our sympathy. While there is probably no direct nexus between the solar power project and the Bundy’s problems, there is no question that the BLM is implementing a scheme that will drive every last rancher off of the land, and free up the resource for other, better connected interests.
Bundy’s situation is not dissimilar from those living in anti-gun states who all of a sudden find themselves owning “illegal assault rifles”. The people didn’t change, but our ruling elites managed to change the rules to make a few million instant felons.
Neither represent the rule of law. Both are examples of mere power politics and both the gun grabbers, and the land grabbers are acting for the exact same reason: because they can.
Cliven Bundy can certainly be forgiven for losing a few marbles under this level of relentless pressure. The question is, will we be forgiven for standing idly by and watching the smooth talkers dismantle both liberty and the rule of law that upholds it?
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.