Posted on 04/12/2014 10:31:38 PM PDT by servo1969
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 in which the Federal government attempted to bully it's 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 imminent domain where the government for any number of reasons--few of them valid--have 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 enth degree to insure 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."
3. 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 to 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.
What screen names were they operating under?
The government acts as though we don’t understand they’ve stacked the courts with statists. Most Americans are plenty smart enough to read and understand the US Constitution for ourselves, and we see right through the malarkey some justices try to spin. So they put a bunch of statists on the courts and then make all sorts of rulings based on what? They’re making it up as they go. Again, it’s like they think we aren’t smart enough to understand their game. For example...
- Obamacare isn’t a tax and it isn’t an enumerated power of the federal government.
- Government can’t take our property unless it’s for public USE and we’re given fair compensation.
- Gay marriage is NOT a civil right per the 14th Amendment.
- No. They have no right to search us without a warrant and probable cause.
- The federal government has no enumerated power to control education within the states.
- Regulating interstate trade does NOT mean the government can tell you what you can and cannot grow on your own property.
The list is virtually endless, but I’m sure you’ve seen it all before. We are onto the statist’s game!
Confused. They didn’t use attack dogs, and they didn’t confiscate cattle?
Someone from BLM might pour a bottle of water on the ground at the ranch and declare it a wetland...
That or an endangered tortoise or too much CO2 or...
Well, just about any pretext to control use of a person’s land, EXCEPT illegal aliens crossing it. There’s no stopping THAT...
you have links?
Alex Jones broke the story about Dingy Harry on infowars. Then got Drudge to post it. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Alex Jones needs a big attaboy on this one!
Nope.
Link was first mentioned on FR.
Jones picked it up from here.
Afterwards, credit for the find was dropped
“It’s alllll about meeeeee!” -a.jones
Slimey corrupt reid, money, f’ing the voters to line his pockets - yea that says it all.
Sorry friend. Too much flailing all around. Links for what?
I can’t believe they caught Harry Reid. It’s common knowledge he’s as corrupt as they come, but catching him at it? That’s tough. Alex Jones does indeed deserve big kudos for it.
I think it was ray76, not Alex jones .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143497/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142972/posts?page=97#97
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142972/posts?page=98#98
Nope.
He doesn’t.
Links in post 73.
Some additional information.
My brother grazes cattle in Nevada. He has, of necessity, become very knowledgeable on Nevada grazing law.
Here is what he tells me about this case that I haven’t heard or read anywhere else:
In Nevada, ranchers could vote to establish or not establish grazing districts. Once these districts were established, the BLM would “manage” the grazing land. By statute, the fees paid are not to lease the ground, but for BLM to manage the range.
According to the Taylor Grazing Act, the BLM is there to manage the range for grazing - NOT for tortoises or solar panels. BLM has been so far off the reservation for so many years that it is unlikely they will ever return to performing their legal activities.
The area where Bundy grazes voted against a grazing district. This means the land remained open range, and by Nevada law, the Bundy family had established their grazing rights by historic precedence. This right is to the forage on the property - regardless of who owns the deed to the land. (analogous to mineral rights). Therefore, since the ranchers voted AGAINST having BLM manage the land, they had no right to demand management (grazing) fees.
Also - cattle have enhanced the environment for the tortoises. Cattle can travel farther and faster than a tortoise. By shitting, the cattle deposit food and water for the tortoise - making areas previously too far from water now hospitable to the tortoise.
Finally - Nevada range cattle are far different than most other cattle in the US - even other range cattle. Because of the harsh environment (over 300 acres required to support 1 cow for 1 year), native cattle do much better than non-native cattle. My brother tells me that non-native cattle will lose at least a year of production before they learn the range. So Bundy cannot just go buy more cows and be made whole - he needs HIS cows that were taken, or he needs to be compensated for the cows AND the lost production while replacement cows become acclimated.
I hope you’re not telling me you didn’t see video and pics of the fedguv using attack dogs against free citizens. They’re all over the place! Of course my definition of using attack dogs might differ from yours.
When an agent of the fedguv puts an attack dog between itself and the free citizen, that’s too much. Imagine a crowd of black protesters with the same scenario. Suddenly it becomes heinous.
“Confused. They didn’t use attack dogs, and they didn’t confiscate cattle?”
Yes, the had dogs, and yes they confiscated cattle, but as far as I know the dogs didn’t attack anyone, the cattle have been returned, and the BLM says that they will pay for the one’s that died. And yet you can still say that because “the BLM chose the time to leave the scene” that somehow they won? When armed men “leave the scene,” they are “retreating” according to what I know about armed conflict.”
There is a possibility that they pulled back to regroup and allow the hullabaloo to cool off some.
Once the attention is elsewhere, they return with more people, shoot some dogs, a horse or three, kids, and burn some buildings.
Then they pat themselves on the back for civilians well executed.
They were setting up for a Waco redux, and after getting caught their collective noses are out of joint.
They aren’t going to like letting this perceived “slight” go.
During discussion the connection with solar power came to the fore, AJ drew the Dingy Harry connection.
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.