Posted on 04/15/2014 7:42:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his well-armed supporters forced the well-armed federal government to back down and return Bundy's seized cows -- which were seized because Bundy, 67, stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. How does anyone get the government to back down?
At first blush, Bundy seemed to have right on his side. He's a cowboy who just wants to keep being a cowboy.
The federal government, which owns more than 80 percent of Nevada land, including the land on which the Bundy family had settled, threatened to put him out to pasture. The Bureau of Land Management told the rancher he would have to cut back cattle grazing on federal lands to accommodate the threatened desert tortoise. So in 1993, Bundy stopped paying federal grazing fees. "They were managing my ranch out of business," Bundy explained, "so I refused to pay."
As the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized, the federal government has endangered a Western way of life in deference to "the 'threatened' desert tortoise and a supposedly fragile desert ecosystem that somehow has sustained cattle and the reptiles since the 19th century."
The BLM surely has earned its black-hat reputation in Nevada. In a classic example of federal overreach, the BLM carved out a small "First Amendment Area" for pro-Bundy protesters, which only fueled the public's distrust of government. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval suggested that the BLM reconsider its approach to constitutional rights -- and Sandoval's a former federal judge, whom you would expect to stand up for the federal court orders Bundy is flouting.
Sandoval issued a statement before the BLM backed down in which he argued, "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation" that he was placing on BLM's doorstep.
That sentiment ought to apply to Bundy, as well. The rancher says he does not recognize the authority of federal courts. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws," Breitbart Texas reports that the scion told talk radio. "But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."
He was willing to start a "range war" and risk the lives of his supporters in order to retrieve some cows. He doesn't feel he has to recognize a government elected by his fellow citizens.
The BLM clearly can be accused of overreach, but who elected Bundy to be judge, jury and sheriff?
Bundy could have fought the government at the ballot box by trying to elect members of Congress who want to defang the BLM. (It's strange when you realize that for all their anti-Washington sentiments, Nevada voters have sent Harry Reid to the Senate repeatedly since 1986.) That's the American way. Threatening to shoot law enforcement officers who simply are carrying out court orders is not
Something motivated the government to go after this guy after all that time, and I think Harry Reid knows the answer.
bump!
Western freepers seem to get this much more easily than those on the east coast.
Please show me where he has said this.
I kinda think the point is the Feds should NOT own land
I agree. The land should have been sold a long time ago.
When the feds come and tell you how to maintain your home I hope you step up and obey.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I would imagine most jurisdictions are ‘basically’ the same.
I used the example of the city having a ‘right-of-way’ for a few feet behind your sidewalk, - In Maryland, (it used to be) the first 5 or so feet of your driveway had to match the specs of the street or road...- ANYHOW,
Say the city came along and PROCLAIMED that their ROW extended to your stoop.
Really not a whole lot you can do about it - Maybe vote the fools out but by the time that happens, “THEY” are so far entrenched that ‘they ain’t going nowhere’.
The GOVT gets more intrusive...go back to the DC BUSHWACKERS, when ‘they’ stopped all lanes of a Major Highway and went car to car, In Boston they were withing an “RCH” of declaring martial law - some probably thought they were under siege anyway, and recently the MD State and Montgomery County Police did a car to car on another Major Highway in order to try and get a couple of bank robbers.
When will ‘they’ take it upon themselves to STOP EVERY CAR AND SEARCH FOR WEAPONS?
Here, here!
Before statehood was granted, the land was occupied by settlers who had squatters’ rights. Why would statehood be necessary if the US already had jurisdiction and ownership???
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/statehoodproc.htm
The Typical Process
Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:
The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people’s desire for or against statehood.
Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
We citizens (subjects?) 'own' it and LET the gummint run it!
WHAT???
A vast majority of these are SOVERIGN nations!
Shove it Saunders, you became irrelavent years ago.
It’s funny listening to idiots like this who would be counted among the loyalist if this was 1774-1776.
Hello!
From what I've read, Bundy had paid NEVADA for years what they determined was fair.
When the FEDs decided that THAT wanted the money; he stated he had NO contract with them, but with NEVADA.
NEVADA refused to take his money.
So here we are today.
That’s how I’ve heard it!
In politics there are no coincidences.
Uh...
Not many people moved there and tried to buy it from the gummint in the early days??
And now the gummint don't wanna sell any of it?
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.