"And come sunrise, you hitch up your wagon and get your damn free-graze cattle moving and keep them moving till you're off my... I mean the government's land!"
Posted on 04/14/2014 4:29:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Warning follows threat from Harry Reid that grazing dispute 'not over'
The chief of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government are warning that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was just to distract and defuse – because a raid on the family’s ranch still is being strategized.
And there probably would be violence involved, said Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz.
“I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence, he told WND Monday. “I don’t the Bundys would lie down and be taken.”
He cited the threat from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the confrontation was far from over, despite the weekend’s retreat by armed gunmen working for federal agencies.
Reid on Monday told KRNV-TV in Reno. “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Why did your government at all levels aid and abet this massive epic lawlessness?
What? They did not aid and abet this. As I have stated several times above he chose not to pay, after he paid BLM, and after he tried to pay the state because he did not like BLM. He had his day in court (several according to some stories) and lost. His own peers (other ranchers) pay the grazing rights and make a living doing it - he chose not to. He is a squatter who is violating the law to profit himself.
If Bundy had taken the grazing rights and paid it to a charity of his own choosing I would have much more respect for him, but he did not do that. He paid his own bills with grass he did not own.
I have already answered your question about illegals above so no need to say it again. Like much of our government - it’s abuse of the many to profit the few. We can change that in public opinion or we can each choose our own hill to die on - Bundy won’t be mine because the vast majority of his own peers understand the theft he committed. Most of his peers own land and water rights and they don’t want somebody else to come along and squat on that like Bundy did. I will accept cows on my pasture eating my grass as long as it’s on my terms and I am compensated. If not, the Sheriff would come remove them. The Sheriff has no jurisdiction on the lands Bundy squatted on - that is BLM and the court ordered them to remove the cows.
If you don’t believe me talk to someone who raises cows for a living. We can’t violate property rights because the government owned the land instead of a citizen - that opens a whole can of worms most are not considering. BLM is not price gouging these guys.
What if we find out one of Bundy’s neighbors threw in the towel because he was willing to pay for grazing rights but didn’t want to get in the middle of this mess? All this talk about the government putting all those ranchers out of business has not been sourced. There are plenty of ranchers where I live who make a decent living at it. There are also plenty of his former peers who profited from the real estate bubble and sold land that was worth far more than the beef it generated.
That's a fact. And they'll be packing a lunch.
They're gonna need it.
Because he is far from the only one who did not follow the law.
Because civil disobedience is sometimes the RIGHT thing to do.
Because in this country the largest law breakers are the ones in power.
Because there are perhaps thousands of people who are delinquent in some form for paying taxes or fees to the feds, but they are not sending SWAT teams to visit them. THINK. Why not?
A pharmacist I used to work with told me how many old and very well-tolerated and effective medications, old "standards" that were used for years and years were driven out of business and shut down. By Obama. With the use of restrictions and laws supposedly about healthcare safety.
When just the history of how safe these meds had been all these years should have told the story.
This is not about his refusal to pay the fees. When you get that you will see the picture more clearly.
not since state and federal government quit obeying them...
That is not their goal, to make a profit or to keep the lawn mowed.
Their goal is to control what is allowed on "their" land, beholden to national political interest vs the state or local interest.
Hell, a buck .35 is CHEAP pasture.
But when the "owner", who is supposed to represent the fee-payers, undertakes to eliminate their business, folks have a legitimate bitch.
The Feds own about 5% of the land east of the Rockies.
They "own" over 50% of the land west.
The people intend to change that.
Bundy is the face of this - like it or not. It’s his argument that is being used for a rallying cry and it’s terribly flawed.
My view of the government is probably identical to yours. However, I own a good plot of acreage and I am sitting the middle of it typing. If my neighbor just pushed his cows onto my property that would be wrong and illegal. I like that it is wrong and illegal. It protects my property and rights.
Bundy let his cows graze on land that was not his. He paid for the rights then stopped paying. A nice profit there. He is not a victim - he is a thief. Showing that we will rally behind his cause is telling my neighbor he can push his cows on my grass for free - sorry, if you can’t see the problem.
You and I probably agree that the land Bundy’s cows were grazing should belong to the state of Nevada because it would likely generate more economic activity benefitting us all. I don’t like the amount of landlord business our government is doing, but I do like laws that protect my property. If those laws are not enforced on public lands what would they care about my lands?
I am not your enemy. If we can’t win the battle of public debate over government it will be each man or group of men for themselves. That is the reality we face, but let’s be realistic - right now the federal government, my state government, and county government to include the courts all protect my right to let my grass grow and die each year as I see fit. Bundy opposed that - albeit on public land, but the principle remains the same.
His cows are not a constant - they are born - they graze and fatten up, and they are harvested. He can’t plant trees he is going to sell on my land either without my permission. That is the real argument here and I am disappointed more of us seem to miss the point. If Bundy can’t cut it in the cattle business he should fold. I can grow apples you won’t believe in my orchard here in the Northwest, but I could not do the same thing living in Florida. Range cattle in scrub brush like this is a tough business and the market dictates if they make a living or not.
If Bundy’s family did not have enough land to support a ranch that’s not my fault, but it does not give him the right to graze his cattle on my land without compensation or my permission. Again, the BLM is NOT price gouging these guys and every roundup every year this man should have adjusted his herd to what he could legally support. That is ranching.
Yes they did...And by following those BLM rights, the ranchers were forced out of business...
You've been told time and again this is not about Bundy...It's about who owns the land...The Constitution clearly lays out what land the Fed gov't can own and it doesn't include anything in Nevada...
The BLM was given control of the land because the BLM claimed it would manage the land to benefit the ranchers...Instead, it ran the ranchers off...With one left to go...
As is, you and your children are sold into slavery.
Or do you think that our servants
have any intention of bringing to heel the debt that we are on the hook for (currently to the tune of more than $17 Trillion)? This is even now happening. (In 2011 United States public debt-to-GDP ratio was about 100%.)
The truth is that the political caste views themselves not as your servant, but as your master.
You can either accept this implicit assertion, or fight them… it is quickly becoming a binary choice between these two options.
Men of the West
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBJY7Q4S0rY
Short Grass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL3F0rlGh-A
enviroweenies sued the BLM to ‘protect the tortoise’ on Gold Butte, setting the BLM into action. But maybe their suit is invalid, since it's pretty much proven science now, even if it wasn't in 1998, that tortoises need cattle to thrive and so the BLM would no longer worry about enviroweenies suing them to act.
http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/commentary/sorting-fact-from-fiction-on-chinese-solar-in-nevada.html
“... in 1998. That permit was bought by Clark County shortly thereafter and retired, as part of a mitigation arrangement allowing the county to develop desert tortoise habitat closer to the burgeoning city of Las Vegas.
Though environmental groups urged, and then sued, the BLM to evict Bundy’s illegal cattle from Gold Butte... it took until 2012 for the BLM to act...”
Would you send a SWAT team next door then?
No sir, our views are not the same.
You're comparing your natural right of ownership, to the DELEGATED right of administration of the Federal Government.
This man, however unlawful, is grazing his cattle on public land. And, to no SMALL degree this land rightfully should be delegated to the states for further disposition.
Folks East of the Rockies don't get it for the most part.
Out here it's hard to have a beer on BLM land without a Ranger telling you he's going to look in your truck, or he's going to seize it on the spot.
50 miles from nowhere.
That's why the BLM backed out. They have to go back to the roads wearing their history and reputation.
I agree with you and have stated it several times that I think the government needs to start turning over the wide open spaces. Trust me, I live in the middle of it here in Eastern Washington and Idaho.
Like many things the government is involved in they don’t always get it right on property management, but this case is so established and clear to me that I am dumbfounded at what I am reading here.
He did not pay. If he can’t make his ranch pay with what he legally owns or can lease he needs to find a different occupation. There will still be hamburgers. The law is established and his peers accept it.
Where are the articles quoting other ranchers in Nevada who support what he was doing? Perhaps there are some I have not seen, but a man’s peers often understand him best of all. I don’t see that and did not hear it and he was quite the topic of discussion at church on Sunday among the cattlemen.
We should not be so anxious to choose battle when the other side has such an advantageous position. That is a recipe for defeat.
How much do you suppose the federal government paid for the land they now own?
Here is the opportunity for the sheriffs in this country to stand up and protect their fellow citizens. If they don’t, where do the people turn?
It’s so obvious Reid has no fear whatsoever of being found guilty, or even accused, of anything.
Don't confuse volunbeer with the facts...
Who did they pay? Where are the legal contracts showing their purchase and ownership?
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.