My take on the Bundy deal is that I don’t care if he was right or wrong,
the fedgov reaction was absolutely wrong, so he and the Patriots were right to stand up to them.
Well, this guy started out smart - he really did - then he swerved into a ditch. This is not at all like the issue of discrimminating against blacks or gays on one’s own property. Nope, sorry, that ain’t gonna fly.
But it is about the question of just WTF is the Fed doing owning and ruling one eighth of the country, and allowing Harry Reid to cut deals on that land, in the first place.
Mr. Bundy asked the government why he had to pay to graze his cattle if the drug traffickers and human traffickers can use the same federal property with immunity and at no charge. Good question!
This was posted elsewhere on FR, it is a good summation of why Bundy is not the clown liberals try to make him out to be. This was posted in the comments section of the link below.
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/20/world-through-militia-eyes/
Anyone confused about the reason the Bundy family and friends are taking the stand they are, below is a letter from Bundy’s neighbor. This should shed light on the CRAP the liberal marxist media is spewing out.
“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”.
Idiot author assuming an obtuse intellect, to promulgate what?
Moronic and meandering thinking.
Pot holes have more depth....
There's nothing complicated about it. The federal gov is out of control, and now that it might be too late to turn things around, people are finally fed up.
what’s good for the goose is good for the gander...so lets also supend this person right to use public things..like the internet, roads, water, air.
Nothing is real. It is whatever you want or imagine it to be. You can be a rainbow colored unicorn.
I thought that the states had original jurisdiction. It is the states that delegated powers to the federal government, not the other way around.
If there is a "correct" view, it is the state's view.
-PJ
If this were private property, he would have a valid claim to ownership. We all know the courts are open to the claims of a squatter sitting on personal property.
Why would anyone want to read anything posted on Salon?
It’s like trying to find news and insight in the New York Times. Not gonna happen.
I think a better analogy may be something like this.
You own a property. A farm, for example, surrounded by property that has been acquired by the government.
Your historical access to and from your land and the Highway (about six miles) cuts through this now “Government Property”.
The government says “no problem” we will allow you access since you were here first. Later they say, “no problem” as long as you follow our rules. You comply since the rules don’t seem too unreasonable.
Then they decide that you need to pay for that access and follow their rules. You comply since the rules and fees don’t seem too unreasonable.
Then they change the rules again. Now, in order to get on and off your property, to go to work, you are no longer allowed to drive a motor vehicle and the only transportation allowed is a bicycle or by foot.
You refuse. You refuse to sign a contract and paying the fee is acceptance of the contract and the terms/rules.
They contend that they are not restricting your “Historical access”, never mind that to gain access to and from your property it will take two hours by foot where as driving would take 5 minutes.
What would you do ?
Just a thought.
He makes it all the way through one sentence before coughing up a furball of ignorance. Bundy does not claim the land as his own; his claim is that it is Nevada’s land and that he has paid Nevada appropriately.
This is at least arguably supported by Article 1, Section 8, which says something along the lines of federal lands should be used for forts, armories, “and the like” — “for grazing” is not “and the like” by no stretch of the imagination.
For those unaware, basically this rancher wanted to graze cattle on federally owned land without paying the grazing fee, due to some strange legal theory that the land was really his.
Wrong. I don't recall him ever claiming the lands were 'his', but that the rights to graze were and predated the BLM.
The phrasing also asserts that Bundy refuses to pay the fees, which is a lie, as he offered to pay the fees to the State of Nevada, which refused them, in the wake of his permit getting revoked in 1994 for non-payment.
It's also my understanding that the BLM wanted Bundy to give up rights in signing the new permit, in addition to limiting grazing to 150 head, which is why he offered instead to pay the fees to the State, as this same tactic is what they used to force out the other ranchers. Coupled with others, Breitbart has a decent write up of this
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
and I wish I could verify some aspects of this
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/
The left is alive in repeating lie after lie on the web.
Are they doing this in MSM news, too? I'm disconnected from that...if dingy harry's statements are any clue, I'm betting they probably are.
Well, it’s always nice to see the COMMUNIST perspective where is there no PRIVATE PROPERTY.
You can always tell when a lib writes something by their overuse of the word “construct.”
“Construct” this, clown.
Wow! He get the Alinsky “Isolate and mock” strategy out of the way in the first 5 words of the story! Good for him...
I still believe that Mormon Harry Reid will pull a few Mormon strings and get Mormon Bundy excommunicated. Give it time.