Is Bundy's Protest Tarnishing the Tea Party? (Weekly Standard jumping the shark?)

Senior writer John McCormack joined Greta van Susteren's political panel Monday on Fox News to discuss the protest at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Watch the video below:

Meanwhile, in this week's issue, the Scrapbook writes about the problems with Cliven Bundy's cause:

Twenty years ago, the federal government, which owns the land on which Bundy grazes his 900 cattle, decided to impose a grazing fee. Bundy opposes that fee, has consistently refused to pay it, and the federal Bureau of Land Management now claims that he owes $1 million in unpaid fees. Bundy has challenged the grazing fee in federal court—indeed, has challenged the federal government’s title to land in Nevada—and has consistently lost. Sixteen years ago, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering the removal of his cattle. Bundy appealed that ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and lost again. Last August, a federal court gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle, and in October, a federal district judge ordered Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”

This does not sound to The Scrapbook like the dread hand of tyranny, in Nevada or Washington, oppressing an innocent farmer, or pushing some law-abiding citizen around. It sounds, instead, like a rancher gaming the system to his own financial advantage, and disguising his scheme in populist rhetoric: refusing to pay a tax which others must pay, and “tying up the courts”—for two decades!—as he continues to ignore the law. Far from acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the federal government has shown patience and forbearance in the face of lawlessness that customarily lands people in jail. It is worth noting that Bundy’s rancher-neighbors and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, who contend with the same federal policies, offer him little support.

Bundy has exercised his First Amendment right to plead his case publicly and inflame his admirers. And inflamed they have been: A few hundred people from around the country converged on Nye County, Nevada—many armed and brandishing weapons—to disrupt the government’s attempt to enforce the law, taunting and attacking agents dutifully carrying out the orders of a federal court. Last week, fearful of violence, the BLM suspended its roundup and withdrew from the area.

This is no victory for anyone other than Bundy and, The Scrapbook hopes, a temporary one at that. There is a term to describe the people who surround him, and it isn’t “militia.” The word is “mob.” And what this mob has practiced is not civil disobedience but armed provocation of a democratic government which has afforded Cliven Bundy every right and privilege as a citizen. One of Bundy’s supporters boasted to the press that “we were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.” This is the same spirit that animates people who attack firemen during riots, or opposed school integration with violence in Little Rock, Arkansas. In that case, 57 years ago, President Eisenhower was obliged to send the 101st Airborne because, as he said, “mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.”

What was true then remains true today. Cliven Bundy is no hero of any kind. No conservative would pick and choose the laws he intends to obey, defy the rest, and challenge the rule of democracy with guns. No hero would adopt the terrorist’s tactic of placing innocents in harm’s way. Any fool can pick up a weapon and aim at an officer of the law; the moral power of civil disobedience lies in the willingness to defer to the law and accept punishment on principle.

The whip was for blasphemy. This isn't about blaspheming.

You're correct. It's about the BLM and the media lying about "grazing fees".

You understand that in order to pay the grazing fees to the BLM, Bundy must sign the contract, don't you?

Once he signs the contract, he's toast.

It's as if the bank came to you with revised mortgage papers with a clause specifying your husband as a sexual party favor for all the male bank staff.

You can't pay on your mortgage till you sign the revised mortgage papers.

What, are you a deadbeat? How come you won't sign the papers?

I call it "The Big BLM Lie".

What would YOU call it, cloudmountain?

Actually, Bundy refused to sign the lease and pay the money because he said the federal government did not own the land. He wrote multiple letters to the BLM to that effect in 1993. For example, “Bundy responded by sending a Constructive Notice and Order to Stop, in which he again questioned the United States’ authority to manage the Allotment. See Exhibit 28 to #11.”

However, when I talk to people about this, I point out that a government that prevents Arizona law enforcement from helping arrest illegal immigrants, and that prosecutes the Maricopa sheriff for trying to slow illegal immigration, has no business using federal SWAT teams to go after trespassing cows! Who is trespassing more - a foreign citizen who comes to the US illegally, or a cow eating grass it hasn’t paid for? And why do alphabet agencies like the BLM need their own SWAT teams? Why not just put a lien against the cattle?

I also argue that a government which refuses to obey its own laws, such as repeatedly encouraging companies to violate Obama’s own healthcare law, has no business accusing ANYONE of disrespecting the rule of law!

We then can talk about the 20+ year policy of turning public lands into “no humans land”, and by the time we finish, most folks fully understand Bundy’s frustration and how angry people are.

Stand With Cliven and Carol Bundy
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/fellow-ranchers-viral-letter-explains-so-much-about-why-ranchers-support-hero-bundy-112751

In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:

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 the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

===========

The BLM knows this. The spin around this resembles the media misdirection employed in the impeachment wars.

"It all depends on what the meaning of is, is."

The media marveled at the statement, but never took Bill "DoubleTongue" Clinton apart like they would have taken apart a Red Team president.

The same thing is going on here, due to the complicity of deadbeat "journalists".

Actually, it is ALWAYS about truth, and we should not ignore the truth. Bundy made it clear in 1993 that he refused to pay because he believed the federal government could not own the land. He was willing to pay Clark County for the grazing permit, but not the BLM.

In court, “Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...

...The FLPMA provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to regulate grazing and issue grazing permits that require permittees to adhere to the terms and conditions of such permits...The Allotment where Bundy and his father before him have been grazing livestock is classed as an ephemeral region, which does not consistently produce forage. The BLM has authority under the FLPMA to place restrictions on grazing when the forage declines to a level that would defeat the goals of multiple use and sustained yield...

...Bundy argues the federal government cannot have authority over lands “inside an admitted state.” See Motion to Dismiss (#4), p. 10. That argument must fail because federal lands located within states are federal territories under federal jurisdiction....”

Actually, it is ALWAYS about truth, and we should not ignore the truth.

Refresh my memory. How many years in prison did Bill Clinton, Jon Corzine & Charley Rangel get? You can cipher for a while if you need to. I'm not in a hurry for an answer.

Bundy made it clear in 1993 that he refused to pay because he believed the federal government could not own the land. He was willing to pay Clark County for the grazing permit, but not the BLM.

In order to pay the BLM, he had to sign the contract.

For argument's sake, let us say that the bank which holds your 30 year house mortgage approached you at 25 years into the contract, and gave you an updated contract which stated that your wife had to sexually service the male banking staff on demand. The bank further stated that you and your wife MUST sign the updated contract in order to continue making payments on your mortgage.

Would you and your wife assent to the terms of the updated contract, or would you become a "deadbeat" who refused to make his mortgage payments? The language from the court cases is just that - the language of the Double Tongues. It's telling that it took the Double Tongues TWENTY years to maneuver Cliven Bundy into a position where they could send in The King's gunthugs.

And speaking of court cases, did the BLM have some sort of court order enabling them to destroy Bundy's water infrastructure out there in the desert, or is The King's Law a one-way street in this case?

I'm sure the Double-Tongues will have some sort of ready explanation for us simple peasants...

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.