It has NOTHING to do with this man. This incident is but convenient.
History is clear. Those we honor as Saints and heroes were admirable figures - not squatters who did not follow property rights. I get it. I don’t like the fact that the government owns the property to begin with, but that’s the way it is - the public owns it.
There are lots of people around here chomping at the bit to take up pitchforks, but if you can’t find a better Saint than Bundy in the craptastic world in which we live most won’t hold onto their pitchfork for long. Your cause will be lost before it even begins because the average Joe understands squatting without paying the owner. They won’t buy it no matter how many threads are posted on FR as some kind of battle cry.
Defending this man is a recipe for marginalization and defeat because he was wrong and he had his day in court (several according to some). He paid - then he chose not to. He destroyed his own argument and claim. Grazing rights on BLM land is a common practice that his peers accept and follow. Every major movement has a face or central theme people can rally around - this one is a squatter who eroded his own arguments through his behavior.
If you’re represented Mr. beer, why were tens of millions of Americans totally ignored for the past several decades when they screamed, protested, petitioned and voted for relief from this epic invasion of our country?
Why did your government at all levels aid and abet this massive epic lawlessness?
Due, I give you credit for a new American term.
But the fact of the matter is that nobody think Bundy is the issue, on either side.
Few, if any, are in this for Bundy.
The engagement principles are:
1. First, ensure the Feds know the poeple will resist, with arms if necessary. Nobody wants to kill or die. But at least one side is willing to do both.
2. The Federal Government is not the Master of the People. They are our servants. We thank them for that.
3. Should they forget their proper role, it is up to us, not our children, to remind them.
4. To forget the above dooms us, and our children to slavery.
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...