Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 20:31

I'm not sure why the Bundy rebellion hasn't been mentioned on this forum. It strikes me as very strange and dangerous. Basically, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refuses to pay "grazing fees" for his cattle grazing on govt. land. At this point, self-styled "militias" are showing up, heavily armed and declaring themselves ready to die in defense of Bundy's right to ignore govt. fees if he wants to. Bundy's militias were ready to shoot federal officers, if necessary. When the federal officer's avoided a confrontation, Bundy's militias proclaimed themselves the victors in the confrontation with the federal govt.

Senator Reid (from Nevada also) has labeled Bundy and his militia protectors with their gunpower as "domestic terrorists."

I think I agree. How about you?


From the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy "domestic terrorists" because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm's way.

"Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They're nothing more than domestic terrorists," Reid said. . . "I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism."

The BLM shut down its weeklong roundup of Bundy's cattle Saturday after an armed confrontation with dozens of militia members who had traveled to Southern Nevada from across the country and from neighboring states.

Bundy has not paid federal grazing fees for 20 years and owes about $1 million to the government.
. . . . . . . . .

Reid accused Bundy backers of bringing their children to protest the BLM so that federal authorities might harm them, which would prompt negative headlines around the world and hurt the government's case against the rancher.

"There were hundreds-- hundreds of people from around the country -- that came there," Reid said. "They had sniper rifles on the freeway. They had assault weapons. They had automatic weapons."

According to Reid, some protesters said they had "children and women lined up because if anyone got hurt we wanted to make sure they got hurt first, because we want the federal government hurting women and children. What if others tried the same thing?"

No shots were fired during the confrontation.

Reid didn't have kind words for Bundy either, calling him a lawbreaker.

"Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States," Reid said. "He says that the United States is a foreign government. He doesn't pay his taxes. He doesn't pay his fees. And he doesn't follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority."
. . . . . . . . . . .
The federal government owns about 85 percent of Nevada land and politicians, particularly states' rights conservatives, have long argued the state should try to take back or buy back the property.

Nevada’s 1864 Constitution, however, cedes rights to the vast stretches of public land to the federal government.


Waco, The Branch Davidians, the Weavers, Oklahoma City. And now Bundy. Yes, I think they are domestic terrorists.

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: Bundy supporters called ‘domestic terrorists’


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I know, eh? Such a great idea!! I think I'll go run 1,000 head of cattle on 120,000 acres of public land, not pay anybody, and say I don't believe the US gummit hasn't any say in the matter. When they come to take away my cows, well, I'll call these guys ……


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 22:14

Actually Kate I did post a thread on the Bundy clan, dropped to page two quickly with little interest shown.

There were some good posts though, especially from David :)

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Early in the confrontation, one of the armed to the teeth yahoos, spokesman of the moment, said they'd be putting the women in front if and when the shooting started.

The Bundy's threw them all a big BBQ today. Few less cattle to freely graze on "gummit" land?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Would be better if they protected our borders from all the illegals that are coming in. So easy for terrorists to enter our country.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Ohiomom--sorry I missed your earlier thread on this topic. Guess I wasn't online or something that day. I just heard about this Bundy business the past few days.

On PBS, I heard someone say the govt will just wait Bundy out. Perhaps confiscate this tax refunds and things like that. The point, of course, is to NOT give them another Ruby Ridge or Waco that would turn them into heroic martyrs with a cause in their own eyes.

Why are some people so eager to find a situation in which they can die for the cause? (whatever that cause may be--freedom from govt control, I guess?)

Elaine, there is no record of terrorists entering our country illegally over the border, but there is lots of evidence that they enter legally--the same way everybody else does, with all the correct papers and govt stamp of approval. The problem, of course, is that terrorists do not announce they are terrorists and they go out of their way to NOT look like terrorists. Militia protecting our borders would just mean that some poor Mexican farm worker would be deprived of a low-paying job in our country and sent back to his hungry family in Mexico. Surely you are not thinking of militia shooting and killing illegals crossing the border, are you? Though they might like that job.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I meant to add that Senator Harry Reid called them "domestic terrorists" and they are furious. How dare anyone call a patriot a domestic terrorist! What's more, Fox News has taken up their cause and is presenting regular info, in a sympathetic way, about the Bundy Resistance to Dictatorial Govt.

I expect, any day now, Fox News to join Bundy in declaring there is no American govt, but just a foreign govt run by that foreign dictator Barack Obama--don't you think?

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

As an American I have to say Mr Bundy is breaking the law. He is wrong to say he doesn't recognize the government's ownership of the land. He has lost 3 times in court.

What got everyone upset was the mass attack by the Feds. They came armed to the teeth with weapons drawn, which in anybody's book was over the top. Bundy's son was tasered, and his daughter was shoved to the ground.

There was absolutely NO NEED for that big a show of force.

So as we like to say, they arrested the cattle instead.

Fellow Americans showed up to show solidarity. They were told NOT to bring any weapons. The guy in the photo was asked by a member of the press to pose. And I believe he was there to cause trouble as a plant. Just as there were plants at the Tea Party rally in Washington in 2010.

The people expressed their First Amendment right by protesting. And Dublin, you have a problem with that? People who don't like what they saw as Americans are "yahoos"?

More Americans are going to "take to the streets" just as the Left has done for decades. Protests are no longer the property of the Left. But there was no violence, unlike the likes of Occupy Wall Street and the rent a mobs the DNC hires.

And for Harry Reid to call these Americans "terrorists" when he calls the terror attack at Ft Hood "workplace violence" is absurd.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

So where does Bundy sell his cattle, what currency does he use, does he have a passport and if so what country issued it, and so on. I am always puzzled by these folks who want to secede or claim there is no American government while enjoying all its rights and privileges.

Plunking women and children out in front and putting them in danger is so smarmy. I suppose the women can make their own decisions on that situation, but the kids?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

The people expressed their First Amendment right by protesting. And Dublin, you have a problem with that? People who don't like what they saw as Americans are "yahoos"?

You must have me confused with someone else. I have never called anyone a "yahoo" in my entire life!

I did call them "domestic terrorists." Why?

Because they were breaking the law. And prepared to murder the law enforcement--and even their own women and children.

"There were hundreds-- hundreds of people from around the country -- that came there," Reid said. "They had sniper rifles on the freeway. They had assault weapons. They had automatic weapons."

According to Reid, some protesters said they had "children and women lined up because if anyone got hurt we wanted to make sure they got hurt first, because we want the federal government hurting women and children. What if others tried the same thing?"

Those are some of the reasons why I called them domestic terrorists.

I have nothing against PEACEFUL protest. Aiming guns at law officers--yes, I strongly object to that.

And why are you so surprised and outraged that the govt. would confiscate the property of a 20-year lawbreaker who owes the govt nearly a million dollars in fines? How naïve of you to think that anyone would ignore such a debt!

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

And for Harry Reid to call these Americans "terrorists" when he calls the terror attack at Ft Hood "workplace violence" is absurd.

*

Harry Reid is absurd, period in my opinion.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called "domestic terrorists"

Bundy is no better than the welfare cheats the right is so fond of vilifying. But he has armed friends willing to kill Federal agents and Faux News taking up his cause.

What hypocrites.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

This may have opened up a new can of worms.

The western states are getting together and planning to demand the Federal Government, with the exception of National Parks, return the ownership of the federal land to the states.

The Feds are no longer managing the forests, and wildfires are bigger as a result. The states say they can manage their own land better.

The Feds own 86% of the land in Nevada, and 68% of the land in Utah.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Yeah they can handle it better until they have a raging , spreading fire and then they want federal $$'s


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 9:31

Christopherh, I agree with you except for the notion of inappropriate force. Bundy had months of judicial attention, at least twice, and federal courts repeatedly ruled that he has no right to use the land. The feds came to take cattle off the land, and Bundy arrived to force confrontation. The feds are the good guys here, and they called off the cattle roundup to protect those few misguided wackos who actually did flock to fight for Bundy.

That should be the end of the story except that some on the right see this as something they can blow up into another Benghazi or, even hopefully, Branch Davidian showdown. It will, however, require a lot of lies and torching if they are to accomplish it. Not to worry about THAT.

Darryl Issa has now leapt in front of the cameras again to announce an official "investigation." I especially love the sinister Chinese part of it, which SNOPES already reports is false. Issa is bald-face lying for attention, as usual. How many miillions will THIS phony investigation/attempt at mccarthyism cost taxpayers?

"According to a source within Issa’s office, who spoke with National Report on the condition of anonymity, “Rep. Issa is taking this issue very seriously. This scandal has the possibility of being a huge blow to the Administration and could overshadow recent scandals involving HealthCare.gov and Benghazi. This man [Obama] has repeatedly ignored the Constitution and initial reports show his hands all over this violation of Clive Bundy’s Constitutional rights. It is imperative we understand how much he knew about the violation of Bundy’s freedom to graze his cattle on Federal land and to what extent the deal Harry Reid’s son negotiated with the Chinese in order to build a solar farm on the land had to do with the final decision. We have what we believe to be the smoking gun in this investigation and subpoenas will be sent out and those responsible will be forced to testify in a court of law.”

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches-federal-investigation-obamas-involvement-clive-bundy-land-grab/#sthash.zr0VqDI8.dpuf

Here is a link that might be useful: SNOPES report on this situation


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

The western states are getting together and planning to demand the Federal Government, with the exception of National Parks, return the ownership of the federal land to the states.

No they're not. A handful of noisy fruit cakes want free land and think this is a great way to get it.

The Feds are no longer managing the forests, and wildfires are bigger as a result. The states say they can manage their own land better.

The fires have far more to do with climate change, drought, and the bark beetle epidemic than management. Maybe if the Republican house would pass the requested budgets they'd get some funding to do management and fight fires, not have to spend their entire budget on fighting fires. As for the states doing a better job managing the forests: ~~~~snort~~~~


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"I expect, any day now, Fox News to join Bundy in declaring there is no American govt, but just a foreign govt run by that foreign dictator Barack Obama--don't you think?

Kate"

Well Kate, Fox will need to change its tune then. The Fox Saturday a.m. show is on as we speak, and they just said that Bundy has broken/is breaking the law by not paying his grazing fees.

IMO the show of armed force by the po-po for enforcement of non-payment of grazing fees is just a little over the top.

I agree that the protesters should be unarmed, but I do not agree that they are domestic terrorists. For some time now, it has appeared to me that Reid is unhinged. That's no reflection on the Democratic Party, both sides have had their share of loons, it's just a sorry fact IMO.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I'm glad to hear some people on Fox understand that breaking the law is breaking the law. However, I paused on Hannity the other evening, and he was assuring the armed militas that he would be out there this week-end supporting them.

But you are right. Considering Hannity, we can agree that he is one of the loons.

Not Reid, however.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

IMO the show of armed force by the po-po for enforcement of non-payment of grazing fees is just a little over the top.

Maybe you should look into all the threats Bundy was making in the months leading up to the incident. Calling for the militia to show up and support him in a "range war".

Here is a link that might be useful: link to Bundy's threats


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Wiki has a dispassionate and well-written background and history of the issues and how this came about. Of particular value are their footnotes to their sources.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to wiki article


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

I can only imagine the outrage were Bundy and the majority of his supporters of a certain ethnicity common in the western states, or indigenous peoples, or of a different skin color.

Edited due to obvious spelling error that should have been corrected in preview. Shame on me!

This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 13:00


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 10:33

That thought brought a smile. Of course they would turn out to be those who don't pay taxes but do expect handouts. :)

It's been often noted that Fox, to build the product it sells sponsors (viewership), takes its cue on what positions to support from its readers, feeding them back what they indicate they want to hear. IF Fox were starting to back off pro-Bundy coverage, that would probably mean its viewers weren't turning out to be sufficiently sympathetic.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"I paused on Hannity the other evening, and he was assuring the armed militas that he would be out there this week-end supporting them.
But you are right. Considering Hannity, we can agree that he is one of the loons."

We definitely have common ground there, Kate. Hannity reminds me of the odious Glenn Beck. Loons to the bone.

Let's agree to disagree about Reid.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

That sounds workable, elvis.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Amen, Nancy!


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"domestic terrorists" Would that be like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn? I don't think that the Bundy's have killed any cops or blown up anything. Harry Reid is becoming a bit unhinged. Yes, Bundy owes grazing fees, some people owe the IRS. Did you see a federal force show up at Tim Geitners house and wave AK-47s in his face and round up his dog for not paying all of his taxes? This was handled very badly, as the government handles most things.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Would that be like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn?

Where have I heard this refrain before?

A rose by any other name . . .


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I would not agree that these extremists are terrorist.

Terrorists try and place fear in the general population. These guys are just plain old fashioned criminals.

Nancy, I'm waiting for the reference to the KKK being an Democrat led organization before deciding.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

" Did you see a federal force show up at Tim Geitners house and wave AK-47s in his face and round up his dog for not paying all of his taxes?"

The only place that you would probably see federal forces show up with AK-47s is Russia.

EDIT I did some amateur sleuthing, and you are correct Nancy. Either that, or there are some incredible coincidences.

This post was edited by frank_il on Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 13:33


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

LOL, Pidge Chase.

Edited because I addressed the wrong person.

This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 13:23


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

It's taken the govt 20 years to get around to doing something about this law-breaker. That hardly sounds like Gestapo behavior.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

It's taken the govt 20 years . . .

That's because the "government" can't do anything right, even at its Gestapo worst!

See above comments for the handy meme that it's always the fault of the government.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Good link David because it explains why and how this land is actually Federal or to use another term-ours.

Christopher, I can only assume that it has gone right over your head that the land that Bundy is abusing belongs to you.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Any chance to call Obama unlawful,Fox jumps at it.
Reporting on ACTUAL lawbreakers..?

They make them out to be heroes. Go figure.

I'm not sure that I would call these guys terrorists either,but it makes me think.

If a network were openly in support of a known terrorist organization,would the government intervene and shut it down(an obvious violation of free speech)...or just wait to see whether the ratings went up or down?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called "domestic terrorists"

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 14:20

I'm not sure what label fits them

Mr. Bundy is clearly breaking the law, and his friends came, armed, and ready to shoot at Federal agents trying to enforce the law after many years of resistance on the part of Mr. Bundy.

These men are very misguided. I wonder if they spend a lot of time on Stormfront?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I am not weighing in on the terrorist designation because it is hyperbole but I could point out that this mess has been in the courts all these years. While it might seem that the feds have been sitting on their thumbs I suspect that they had to wait out the legal process before they could make their move. While you wouldn't normally go to round up cattle armed to the teeth, in the face of a promise of a range war it wouldn't be remotely prudent not to.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"domestic terrorists" Would that be like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn? I don't think that the Bundy's have killed any cops or blown up anything. Harry Reid is becoming a bit unhinged. Yes, Bundy owes grazing fees, some people owe the IRS. Did you see a federal force show up at Tim Geitners house and wave AK-47s in his face and round up his dog for not paying all of his taxes? This was handled very badly, as the government handles most things.

*

Great post--exposing hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Demi-this has nothing what so ever to do with the Obama administration. You are aware that there is a vast civil government that just keeps on keeping on no matter who the president is or what the party designation is aren't you?
Bundy lost his last court case in October of last year and has been given time to move his cows which he didn't. Unless he can get the Supreme court to weigh in on this issue-which they wont because for heaven sakes it is in the state constitution then something is going to have to be done unless you would prefer that anyone in America can just make it up as they go along.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

The Bundys as well as many other ranchers in Nevada had been using these lands for grazing since the 1800's. The BLM didn't even come into existence and claim the land until 1946. I think all of these ranchers have a legitimate gripe.

Here is a link that might be useful: Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I don't know Betty. I prefer David's link.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

What are you arguing? Squatter rights? They illegally used the land all those years after the Constitution in 1869 ceded all that land to the Fed. govt. Therefore, they have squatter's rights to the land?

Somehow, I don't think that one will make it through the courts.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Wonder where they'd all be if the media hadn't become so heavily involved. The lack of shooting made it a NASCAR event without a crash.

If I were a rancher and dutifully paying my grazing fees, I doubt I'd be looking at Bundy and see "hero".


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Did this really start with Bundy? It seems like ranchers have been fighting this for a while. I don't think anyone believes that he shouldn't be paying for the grazing rights. It's just the way the government has been going about things. Shades of Waco and Ruby Ridge. And calling hard working ranchers who provide the beef for our tables, "domestic terrorists". Do you think they poison our beef?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 16:41

Some ranchers have established rights, and like any contract there can be disagreements. This is different. To put it mildly.

I do not see where the federal government -- acting for the people of the U.S. in pursuit of our interests as a whole -- did anything wrong at all. The only "shades of" anything is the cynical inflaming of anti-government paranoia.

A few people answered Bundy's call to come from various areas and confront federal workers working in the quiet, empty Nevada desert. Some brought their CHILDREN. Don't you think that makes the claim that they were afraid of being attacked by the feds more than a little questionable?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

This one has me a bit baffled.

As I said up thread , these folk aren't terrorists but they are criminals and they are arming themselves to defend an illegal action.

What baffles me is that people who I otherwise thought were people who believed in the rule of law seem to be siding with people who are occupying land they don't own and using it for their own personal financial gain.

Is that OK? Why was it so wrong when the Occupy Wall Street folk did it but this one is OK?

For my money it is just plain wrong to take over land that is not yours. It is doubly wrong when you arm yourself.

In my heart I know that most of those , on this thread, who are "supportive" of this action aren't really..they are just simply anti the Administration.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Yes Chase,..exactly!


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

It seems like ranchers have been fighting this for a while.

Fighting what for a while? Range management? Grazing leases and fees? The grazing fees on your land - since this is taxpayer, public-owned land, are about as low as it gets - $1.35 per cow/calf unit/month. On private pasture, here they get $10-$12 per cow/calf unit/month.

Oh, and that fee doesn't cover the costs of maintaing the roads, doing the forage quality surveys, fencing the cattle out of the highways* fighting grass and forest fires, etc etc etc. The rest of the tax payers cover that subsidy um, 'freedom'.

As for running cattle on the land since 1860 or what ever, does that mean those big cattle barons who used all that free range in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas etc grazing then driving their cattle to the rail heads in Kansas City have claim to all that land?

Or why stop there? Hey, we're busy ignoring laws and treaties and such, so why not the go back a little further?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Exactly. These guys have been using huge amounts of public land almost for free for generations, and slowly destroying it in the process. Hopefully BLM will grow some balls and enforce the public rights, and protect the environment.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"And calling hard working ranchers who provide the beef for our tables, "domestic terrorists". Do you think they poison our beef?"

Thankfully Nevada does not even provide 1% of the nation's beef (.72%).

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

these folk aren't terrorists but they are criminals and they are arming themselves to defend an illegal action.

Right. Some hedge fund manager breaks 28 laws, then calls a buncha militia types to come protect him in his office suite on Wall Street when the SEC comes to arrest him. They set up sniper positions along the roof tops etc. And claim that they're fighting for liberty and against the oppressive Kenyan Marxist in office. And Hannity is all over it like a cheap polyester suit on a sweating used car salesman.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I don't think anyone believes that Bundy has any legal standing. But many people do feel the government becomes more intrusive every day.

"That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?"

There was recently a claim of "imminent domain" for a couples lake front property to install a bike path. Government over reach is real.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

For the record, it’s “eminent domain." My family’s farm was taken in an act of eminent domain and I was and am appalled by difficulties it caused my family. But that is not remotely linked to the Bundy debacle.

This man is a greedy buffoon and wants to take my tax dollars (you know, the tax dollars that support the right of the government to collect fees for cattle men to graze their cattle on the land that belongs to the American people).


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

barondesnoy - there is so much disinformation in that link, and in that quote, that its hard to even know where to start.

Nearly all ranchers in the West use BLM or National Forest grazing as integral parts of their operation. With very, very few exceptions, like this bozo, they have had a long and profitable relationship with the Federal Government. The fact that his neighbors have quit ranching are very likely the reasons that anybody quits ranching these days - the price of beef cattle is abysmally low compared to the production costs, their kids don't want to take it up, their equity is in the land they own, not graze, and they sell out for suburban housing tracts around Las Vegas or somewhere, or to some Silicone Valley or oil tycoon with millions to buy a hobby ranch. Then take the money and retire.

Their problem is some feedlot in Florida that can stuff cattle with free bagasse, not the BLM charging them $1.35 a month to graze a cow-calf unit.

When cattle prices were high following this past exceptional drought in Texas, Oklahoma, and southern Kansas, half my elderly ranching neighbors sold their entire herds. They're done.

Keep in mind this guys' cattle were in the National Park, in National Recreation areas, he was just letting them run any which way.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"There was recently a claim of "imminent domain" for a couples lake front property to install a bike path. Government over reach is real."

Eminent domain is taking private land for public use with just compensation. What is the part of that scenario that does not apply? I am not saying that I completely agree with the reasoning, but I don't necessarily see it as overreach.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Eminent domain is taking private land for public use with just compensation. What is the part of that scenario that does not apply? I am not saying that I completely agree with the reasoning, but I don't necessarily see it as overreach."

Actually "imminent domain" is ironically appropriate in some cases, IMO. That would be funny, if not for the fact that sometimes the circumstances are truly tragic for the landowner.

Eminent domain is a necessary evil in some cases of road improvement and public utilities. Taking private lands for a recreation trail is ludicrous, IMO, and if it was me I would fight that all the way. "There was recently a claim of "imminent domain" for a couples lake front property to install a bike path." That surprises me, because generally run-off from impervious surfaces, i.e., paved paths/yards/driveways is discouraged within certain distances of lakes, at least in Wisconsin, and particularly my county, where we have in excess of 1,500 "official" lakes, and scores more of small ones. If I was Baron, I would question the source on that factoid.

Frank, "just compensation" is too vague a definition. In Wisconsin it's fair market value, and can be negotiated.

"Eminent domain" certainly doesn't apply here. The federal gov't owns the land and has the responsibility for stewardship of same, in trust for all the people. The guy hasn't paid his fees, and he is aware of this. He's gotta go. The show of force on both sides is very unfortunate. I hope this ends peacefully, and I think it probably will.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

A case could be made that OUR government which is supposed to be representing OUR interests hasn't been intrusive enough in protecting OUR land. If you have seen what this land looks like with all but the virtually inedible vegetation gone then you might have a different opinion on the case. Once the landscape is that far gone it typically keeps going on to bare sand. When even creosote brush starts to die out there is no going back in our life time unless climate change delivers a whole lot of rain to the area. I don't think anyone is predicting that. For the most part governmental entities who are supposed to be looking out for us err on the side of the people they know-loggers, cattle grazers and the like. This man on the other hand doesn't admit that you or I have any interest in this land at all. He thinks it is his because he has been able to abuse it for his own profit for so long.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Frank, "just compensation" is too vague a definition. In Wisconsin it's fair market value, and can be negotiated."

Those are the exact words of the 5th amendment.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

When there's a drought, and there has been an on-going drought in the inter-mountain West, California, etc where these public lands are located, it shouldn't be some sort of shock that the BLM or Forest Service range managers tell the ranchers they have to cut down on the number of animals or time they're able to graze them. They do that here. The ranchers know about it in time, and manage accordingly. They might take a loss that year, but then so does everybody in a regional drought.

I haven't heard anything that can be verified with the BLM trying to limit the number of Bundy's cattle - quite the opposite, it sounds like Bundy does what ever he wants with the public lands, runs how ever many cattle he wants, BLM be damned. For the past 20 years.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"For the past 20 years."

BLM is s-l-o-w; I've had intra-government land exchanges with them in the course of my work.

The guy is a bum, just like any other who wants something for nothing from the rest of the people and takes advantage of government benefits (and it sure sounds like his was a sweet deal) and doesn't play by the rules.

This situation has obviously gotten out of hand, and needs to be put to rest. The media needs something to divert their attention; that would probably be helpful.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I am aware that Bundy is likely to be in the wrong as far as not paying the grazing fees. Problems between BLM and ranchers have been going on for decades. But, I would like to know who gave the orders to kill the Bundy's bulls, often the most valuable part of a rancher's operation. The bulls were penned, not running free. It looks like the BLM is trying to bankrupt the man. It already forced 16 other ranchers in the area out of business. It makes me think that PETA is now running the BLM or that something else is in the works and I wouldn't trust Harry Reid as far as I could throw his scrawny carcass or his sons.

If you did not see the weapons carried by the government's employees, I would suggest you are not looking.

What kind of obsession does Reid have to keep making false accusations of failure to pay taxes? He claims it about anyone who he doesn't like and it is never true. No one has suggested that Bundy hasn't paid his taxes, not even the IRS has made that claim.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 6:58

Sleepless, why not expand your range of sources? We all benefit from the ability to evaluate the likely reliability of their facts and analysis.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Interesting how those who object to the govt collecting fines/fees and to Harry Reid are always Republicans/conservatives/tea types. There wouldn't be something political going on here, would there?

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

wake, you leave out one important piece of info--that the govt had been corresponding with Bundy and the govt had received threats from the Bundy camp. Bundy also publically asked militia types to come help defend his position and at least some of them came armed, and the govt knew that armed militia types were planning to greet the govt. These milita types were saying things about being willing to die for freedom!

And you expected the govt to not be prepared to protect itself? How naïve.

I assure you that if I hadn't paid local taxes/fees for 20 years despite my local govt taking me to court several times (and winning) and finally 20 years later it decided to serve confiscation papers on me, those papers would have been delivered by a sheriff who was armed. That law enforcement is armed should not be news to you. Every time you are pulled over for speeding, you are written up by law enforcement that is armed.

So why would you think the law enforcement confiscating the property of a 20 year lawbreaker would suddenly show up not armed? Especially when it sounded like they were going to be attacked by the milita types who were just spoiling for a new cause and new martyrs.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Interesting how those who object to the govt collecting fines/fees and to Harry Reid are always Republicans/conservatives/tea types. There wouldn't be something political going on here, would there?
Kate"

Kate, you are referring to the protesters, maybe? I don't see any posts here that present objections to the government collecting fine/fees. I missed that?

As to objecting to Harry Reid, what can I say. Not finding him objectionable would be about as easy as Nancy Pelosi relaxing her face. I'm not going to go on about Reid, I promise, but you did bring him up, and I am reading... ;-)

"The BLM came down with guns drawn, helicopters, Armored personnel carriers, flak jackets, dogs, etc just to collect a tax bill."

And the protesters over-reacted. That's a tough one. If a firm statement (protest) isn't made, how far does the government go the next time. Bundy's crime isn't a violent one, but the government threatened violence (pretty in-your-face implication there). IMO the government acted unreasonably here and the protesters reacted unreasonably.

IMO it would be a very bad thing if matters reach the point wherein the government displays this kind of implied imminent violence over a non-violent crime, and the people don't react with some spine.

If that's the way it's going to be, I suggest everyone persuade their progeny to invest in careers in law enforcement, because that's where the power will lie.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

IMO it would be a very bad thing if matters reach the point wherein the government displays this kind of implied imminent violence over a non-violent crime, and the people don't react with some spine.

That is your opinion, not mine. You ignored all the threats and armed militias types willing to attack law enforcement. In my opinion, the Bundy camp and "protectors" are so out of line that anyone who defends their position ought to be thoroughly ashamed.

I don't think either of us have anything new to add to this "discussion"--so perhaps we should leave the differences there. I sincerely doubt either of us will ever concede that the other side is right.

End of discussion for me. I'm out of here.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 10:41

The same bunch defending Bundy have no problem with the "police state coming down" on unarmed protesters ... no Kate it couldn't possibly be political :)


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

All government always and anywhere is backed up ultimately by implied violence. Otherwise it is meaningless, because anyone willing to be violent could nullify government.

The number one assault on personal freedom, the property tax, is also the number one example. Now and then a Free Person doesn't pay their tax for years, and eventually resists eviction with violence. What is the outcome? If the resistance is with fisticuffs, the resister gets fisticuffed, and jailed. If it's with weapons, he gets shot.

This guy Bundy is simply expanding on that idea: he considers some vast slice of land to be his own property, and he doesn't want to pay any tax on it. Understandable, but in our current social system not allowable.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

While Bundy should pay up, to his credit he has spent a long time going through the existing system to try to achieve his goal. He lost, but it indicates to me that this is not an impulsive, dangerous guy.

The government owns so much of the land out there that it must be difficult to find alternatives. Isn't something like 85% of Nevada lands owned by some division of the federal government? That doesn't leave a lot of room for grazing ranch animals.

When thinking of Ruby Ridge and/or Waco and even this, do we really want a government that launches military style assaults against its own people who are not mainstream and maybe even a little crazy, especially for not paying taxes or, in this case, grazing fees? That hardly rises to a level that warrants what could be a government-sanctioned death penalty if it escalates out of control.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I would like to know who gave the orders to kill the Bundy's bulls

That never happened.

it indicates to me that this is not an impulsive, dangerous guy.

Then why didn't he 1) pay his grazing fees like everybody else does, 2) hold some bizarro notion that the US has no jurisdiction over BLM and National Park land in Nevada, 3) in March, weeks before this confrontation, send out a call to militia groups to bring arms because the was a "range war" about to start.

The militia guys show up, armed to the teeth. Later, BLM and Park Service rangers show up, armed as well, with a court order. Clearly, the militia guys were justified, amirite? And no problem when a group of armed militias shut down an interstate highway?

What? Nobody has posted yet with the Harry Reid / Chinese solar panel theory?

Why does the Nevada Cattlemen's Association want nothing to do with this nutter?

This post was edited by david52 on Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 11:31


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

Thank you, David, for once again putting the events in their proper perspective.

OMom, funny how the opinon shifts, isn't it?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Actually david, the Nevada Cattlemans Association does support Bundy's intent, just not the way he is going about it. Which is what many here have said. He has to pay the fees and be compliant with the law, which doesn't make the law right. And the government is handling it poorly.

"In its statement, the NCA explained its philosophical support for Bundy on issues related to the Endangered Species Act, and its opposition to certain federal laws that dismiss the historical use of public land ranching.

But the association said such laws need to be changed through the avenues of law, and that it does not “condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands.” "

I'm sure most of us can think of at least one law, that although it must be obeyed, is a bad law.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

Kjun, that statement from the Cattlemen's Association clearly demonstrates that Bundy and his crew are toxic.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

From Mrskjun's link:

"The Nevada controversy, the statement said, shows how federal agencies place a higher importance on environmental and wildlife issues than livestock grazing. "

I am dumbfounded by that statement. My reaction upon reading it was to look at my computer in amazement at the idiocy of the people writing it. Well, hell yes wildlife and the environment take precedence over cattle grazing. It is not like this is TX where the economy is somewhat based around cattle production. This is Nevada where less than 1% of the country's beef is produced.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 12:36

Lionheart, Bundy indulged a standard business practice of using the court system to drag things out while he continued to run his cattle and avoid paying his bill. That process also created large bills we get to pay for the operations of the legal system he abused. I'm afraid he gets no credit from me at all. Very much the contrary.

Right, Nancy. BD, or whomever, the Cattlemen's Association statement is designed to support the group's interests. It does not support Bundy's criminal actions. You missed the significance of this part:

"Taylor Grazing Act (TGA). Under the TGA, ranchers
have a right to graze livestock on federal lands based on historical utilization. While this property interest is complex by nature -- given that it exists on surfaces owned by the federal government -- it is nonetheless a real property interest that is taxed and saleable. It must be protected. [I.e., what this statement IS issued in support of.] On the same token, ranchers who exercise their grazing rights are obligated to pay a grazing fee as established by law."


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Thanks, I hadn't seen that new Cattlemen's Association. They do bring up a valid point. There has been a shift, over the past 20 years, from an an almost exclusive approach almost towards public lands of grazing, timber, and other extraction industries to one looking more at hunting, recreation, environmental and endangered species protection.

But it's far more complex than this one-sided position paper. Just to mention a few of the other factors, there's water and water management in a desert environment. There's a huge problem with invasive species - just one - cheat grass and cheat grass fires are changing the plant cover across much of Nevada - which is having all kinds of disastrous effects.

The other big difference is the economics of cattle ranching. When I was growing growing up, a rancher could sell a couple of steers and buy a new pickup truck. Now you'd need to sell 40. In terms of the over-all economy, (speaking here of National Forest) hunting, fishing, and recreation are far more important and employ far more people. To the point that several of my neighbors who own land surrounded by their federal grazing lease make a lot more money with hunting (elk - $5,000 per gun per season, 3 seasons) than they do raising cattle.

So the alternative question - should Bundy be given 120,000 acres of public land for free which he can over-graze, trespass with his cattle on National Park and National Recreation land, and hold off all comers with a band of heavily armed militia types because?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

This man is a greedy buffoon and wants to take my tax dollars

Exactly. And the usuals who yell and scream about the lazy and irresponsible taking their tax dollars to feed their children (oh, the horrors!) are either totally quiet on this, supporting this moron, or deflecting to Obama being a hypocrite. Obama is not the hypocrite here. The inability to criticize a tax cheat if they happen to be rich is the height of hypocrisy

barondesnoy = Mrsk? I guess I'm a little slow at picking this stuff up.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

should Bundy be given 120,000 acres of public land for free which he can over-graze, trespass with his cattle on National Park and National Recreation land, and hold off all comers with a band of heavily armed militia types because?

Because...he's rich and we can't piss him off?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I’m slow on it, too, jillinnj. I only wish lily was also back.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

I guess I'm a little slow at picking this stuff up.

When one has made an HT career of mentioning Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn since 2008 (trying to discredit Barack Obama), their interjection into this thread is an "aha!" moment.

As an aside: I don't think most people realize how hard it is to write in the voice of a person other than yourself -- especially if expounding on your personal opinions. I know that it would extremely hard for me; I doubt that I could fool anyone for two seconds.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 15:31

A tale of two nations of people in "one" land ....

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Of course I see that now--duh!

But I do admire the shift from mrs to baron--quite a rise in status plus a shift in gender. Neat trick.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I admit I was skimming baron's posts. Now having gone back and read them more closely, it is clearer. nancy is right, of course. Very hard to hide (if I were paying attention!).

Pehaps lily has more integrity than to ignore being banned and come back as someone else...


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

LOL, if you only knew.............


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Do tell, mrsK. We see you back under a new name. Haven't seen lily back under a new name, have we?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Actually I think I do......I always said that there were two Mrs.

One that wrote quite well and knowledgeably when it came to matters like creationism, religion and certain family values.

Then there the other Mrs who was argumentative and not well very informed. The Mrs that didn't mind having 90% of her OP's blown out of the water.

HT's own Sybil......except I really think it was two different people using the same handle.

I still believe that too be true....

One seems to have come back...and that's fine by me ..we'll see if and when the other shows up.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

jillnnj, why would mrsK be gone? Or lily for that matter?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

How would I know that? I can only go by what posters here have said.

Why the games? If you have something to say, say it.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Just reading your post jillnnj, thought you knew something others might not.

"Pehaps lily has more integrity than to ignore being banned and come back as someone else..."


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Which was in response to:

I’m slow on it, too, jillinnj. I only wish lily was also back.

I thought that was obvious.

You are the one that responded with --

LOL, if you only knew.............

Which most certainly implied you knew something I did not.

So, why are you backing away from that now and claiming you thought I knew something?

Like I said, if you have something to say, say it.

Here's a little piece of advice -- if you want to pretend to not be mrsK, don't start posts with "LOL".


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I have brought up the "two identities" phenom before this, as have others. IMO there are more than a few posters doing this. It seems to me that the pattern is: one "is" better educated (self or otherwise) while the other uses pretty awful grammar, or one "is" red and the other blue, one younger and the other older, etc., but something rings eerily familiar, or it's likely just my imagination. Since most of us have something in common with others at some point, it does makes sense to me, though. I can't think of how many times I posted POV's that seemed contradictory to certain posters, and they actually become incensed about that. With 2 identities, one could make all kinds of friends and allies. Since most topics become 2-sided here, one couldn't lose. I admire the energy it would take to spread oneself that thin; I for one am unwilling to expend the energy doing it...or am I?

We're exchanging ideas here, not internet dating. What difference does it make?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

What difference does it make?

None, if you don't mind deception. If you have integrity, it matters.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 19:40

Could it be a sun-moon syndrome in which a person capable of thoughtful analysis in daylight turns into a blood-sucking Koch-head after dark... ?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Well, if it's 'my' land, I give my permission to the Bundy family to graze there for free in perpetuity. I also forgive them whatever debts they may have incurred from that extortion agency.

as for
Rosie Apr 20 6:58
expand your range of sources?

And david Apr 20 11:26

would like to know who gave the orders to kill the Bundy's bulls
That never happened.

Bundy Family Uncovers New BLM Cattle Grave

A new photo released by the Bundy family posted to the official Bundy Ranch Facebook page Sunday shows more evidence that the Bureau of Land Management was illegally killing and burying cattle...

The picture is emerging just days after Republican member of the Nevada General Assembly Michele Fiore tweeted out an image of a dead bull apparently killed by a gun shot wound to the back of the head. A wound Fiore said came from a BLM helicopter gunman.

“Near their compound, right off the highway, they were digging holes,” Fiore said. “They tried to bury some cows on the compound, but I guess they didn’t dig the hole deep enough, so they throw a cow in and they put dirt over him and you have cows’ legs sticking up out of the dirt.”

Pressure from the likes of Fiore and alternative media outlets ultimately pressured the BLM to admit to shooting and killing two prized bulls earlier this week, claiming the animals were a “safety hazard” after vehemently denying it.

* * * *
I've become more interested to know what Reid Bunkerville LLC is. Nobody seems to know though it seems to own a lot of land in Nevada it paid ZERO dollars for.

The link provided has videos you'd need to watch, though.

Then there's something called "prescriptive rights" and the BLM thinks Bundy may have them.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land, a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

* * * *

The plot thickens.

Here is a link that might be useful: Reid land deals?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"What? Nobody has posted yet with the Harry Reid / Chinese solar panel theory?"

Spoke too quickly. Cait had to give you a link.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I don't know if the prescriptive/proscriptive rights angle would work for Bundy. In Wisconsin at least, there is recent law that prohibits adverse possession of government property. It's not retroactive, though. Interesting.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Well, if it's 'my' land, I give my permission to the Bundy family to graze there for free in perpetuity

It's not. It's our land and thankfully you alone don't set the rules.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

What absurdity. There is no possibility of adverse possession against the public.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 7:32

Or maybe there IS...!

Cait, there is no chance he "possibly" has prescriptive rights to the land. He lost twice in federal court, remember, both delaying maneuvers while continuing to rack up the bill he owes us. This is long-established law and custom, and he could not have expected to win. Unless he's insane, of course.

It's fine to check out the Kool-Aid, just don't swallow.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called "domestic terrorists"

I get the feeling some think they still live in the Wild West, where land or cattle barons make their own rules, and they and their henchmen can run the Sheriff out of town.

They don't. They can't. This is the 21st century in which laws apply to all ranchers in a state equally.

Other ranchers aren't having problems with permits or fees. I wonder why one guy does?

Oh, and the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

The “rumor” that the government is digging holes, killing Bundy’s bulls, and burying them is so far-fetched that I can’t believe even the Becks or Hannitys believe it.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Well Pidge it is on the family Facebook page, so it must be true.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Yes it must be true since the TPNN (TeaPartyNewsNetwork), Top Conservative News, Infowars, Fox, Breitbart, RightWingNews.com, The conservativetreehouse... all lend their support to the Bundy family Facebook page.

I'm probably one of the few not on Facebook - and proud of it since no one I know cares about what I had for lunch.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 14:55

Honest sources are not reporting on the dead cattle yet, meaning they haven't had time to gather and verify facts.

What is it about lies, lies, and more lies that appeals so strongly to some? Especially these days when they can be exposed literally in moments.

Regardless of why the bulls were shot, IF they were, IF they were among those rounded up by the BLM, they were not Bundy's. There's one big lie. The BLM took possession of cattle on federal land in payment of his debt.

BTW, any cattle that got shot in the head in the desert escaped days of continual misery and terror until they finally met a more prolonged and painful death at the slaughteryards. We, courtesy of our eternal search for greater profits, have become viciously barbaric and uncaring.

____________

"Flint Wright, an administrator with the state’s division of Animal Industry, said the BLM told state officials that they shot the bulls because they were too wild and couldn’t round them up.

Wright said he didn’t see the bulls that were killed out on the range, and he didn’t know whether they have brands. The state agency isn’t doing an investigation because they didn’t see any violations, Wright said, adding that any investigation would be up to the Clark County sheriff to determine whether animal cruelty was involved.

“The BLM told us they shot them, and their explanation at the time was the bulls are very wild and they couldn’t get them gathered,” Wright said.

He stressed that his agency’s role was simply brand inspection and establishing the ownership of stray livestock. Five cows in the roundup were returned to another owner, he said."

Here is a link that might be useful: VERY sweet photo of Bundy petting some veal


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Interesting that their cattle management practices include letting bulls run with the cows on the range, all the time, instead of keeping them separate until they want to breed the herd.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Honest sources are not reporting on the dead cattle yet"

So if Media Matters doesn't report it, it's not true?

"Interesting that their cattle management practices include letting bulls run with the cows on the range.."

No, they did not. From what I read, the bulls were penned separately. When the BLM cowbots were rounding up the cattle they let the bulls out of the pens and a couple of bulls, being bulls, weren't doing what the BLM wanted so they shot them - one was shot from a helicopter sniper.

The episode was an incredible waste of money. There's an alledged document that shows the BLM paid Utah rustlers over $900,000 to take and sell the cattle. Millions was spent on the show of force, including helicopters, alleged closure of cell phone towers and the FAA declaring a no-fly zone over a portion of that land. That is not the kind of response one expects from a sane government or its agencies.

The best comment I read about this is from Lyn McCormick from the Wildlife News blog where she wrote:

"Ralph, why did this issue languish with the BLM for so long ? Couldn’t they just go gather up the feral unbranded cattle without taking in SWAT Teams ? And, then, when Bundy gathers his cattle to go to market have a lien in place? All of this should have been done a long time ago! Let him be the one to threaten with armed force first. The whole militaristic thing is what got everyone so worked up.

I mean, this kind of martial law stuff is happening all the time. Like at the WH&B rally in DC in 2010. For over 40 years the WH&B advocacy has only EVER demonstrated peaceful law-abiding efforts to effect positive constructive change in the way BLM has been managing the range, managing WH&B, managing for multi-use but with clear bias. DOI could have at least had a representative come outside to accept the Petition and maybe have an impromptu Press conference. Instead, we get armed guards with guns pointed at us & threats."

Many here think it's fine that government guns were pointed at those who are their ideological opposites, but how soon will you change your minds when those same guns are pointed at those whose ideologies mirror yours? At least Lyn was decent enough to recognize no American should be threatened like that and appealed in kind.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Did anyone else read that and look up WH&B?

Edited to add a question mark.

This post was edited by frank_il on Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 23:40


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Yes. Somewhat curious... it's the Dept. of the Interior's Wild Horse and Burro Program.

Beyond that my curiosity sort of waned.

But here's a link to a PDF file.

Here is a link that might be useful: WH&B


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I finally just got around to reading this link. It's interesting, the way some here perceive this incident to be compared to others - I must send that wiki link Frank kindly provided to my DH at his workplace as he very recently commented that he had only heard bits and pieces of the story but thise bits and pieces didnt add up.
Thanks, Frank!

Corrected to add that the credit for the link must go to David, though Frank is no slouch in his accurate info. always backed by reliable links, himself! :)

This post was edited by mylab123 on Tue, Apr 22, 14 at 0:24


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I agree that it's stupid to call them "terrorists", domestic or otherwise. They haven't hurt anyone or anything. At worst, Bundy is a high profile scofflaw, but hardly a terrorist.

If the supporters/protesters plant bombs in the nearest town to scare or harm non-participants, then they are terrorists. If they randomly start shooting at people, then maybe they are terrorists, although I would call them "criminals".

Questioning the government and standing up peacefully (so far) to the government is not terrorism. I think the word "terrorist" has a specific meaning and this crazy incident hasn't reached that level.

That said, Bundy owes the money and should pay it. However, BLM handled the situation stupidly at the beginning. They came in hard, then backed off. Not a great strategy. They may have over-reacted initially, but they should have picked a response and stuck with it, not this on/off approach.

There's enough stupidity to go around in this situation. Having Reid call fellow citizens "terrorists" simply because they were not compliant and are protesting is way over the top. Reid needs to go. I'm afraid that, between this and his penchant for labeling his opponents as tax evaders without evidence, he has lost it.

If this is the new definition of "terrorism" then a lot of protesters could be labelled as such.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Many here think it's fine that government guns were pointed at those who are their ideological opposites, but how soon will you change your minds when those same guns are pointed at those whose ideologies mirror yours?"

I'll say it again, pay attention this time:

All governments are based on force - ultimately, superiority of force.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I'd call them...domestic deadbeats.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Someone up thread posted this in defense of Bundy:
"That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence."

This turns out not to be remotely correct. The local CBS affiliate researched the records, and it turns out that while some of Bundy's family lived in the area since 1900 or so, in fact his family bought the acreage at issue in 1948, and didn't start running cattle there until 1954.

Seems to me Bundy is just a con artist who's good at PR.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I agree. Bundy is a con artist and a dead beat!

However, the militias who came running to defend him with their firepower and, in fact, claimed they were willing to die for this cause as they pointed their rifles at U.S. law enforcement and swore they would shoot any federal authority who tried to act on the court findings in favor of the BML's position--if they are not terrorists, then they are potential terrorists. Defying court orders and the federal govt lawfully acting out its rights may make one an outlaw, as several of you have suggested, but threatening to shoot federal authorities behaving in a lawful manner is right on the verge of entering the terrorist category.

Insofar as Bundy issued calls for milita around the country to come and defend him a week or two ahead of time, yes--I think he also acted as a potential terrorist.

By the way, how come everyone has forgotten that the State of Nevada--back in the mid-19th Century--ceded all that land to the federal govt.? That doesn't mean anything to you?

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

If this is the new definition of "terrorism" then a lot of protesters could be labelled as such.

This guy remind anyone of Occupy Wall Street? Or the Anti-war protestors on the Mall in Washington DC? Or how about ‎Timothy McVeigh?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Deep South, USA 7A/B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 22, 14 at 11:16

How about armed rebels (who then went about whatever other plans they had for the weekend)? I do realize that it unduly dignifies their idiot hooligan behavior, of course, and that they had to be saved from themselves by sensible and responsible government decisions. Nevertheless, it would seem to be technically correct for some who set the mood for all.

They're not terrorists because, although they threatened violence as a tactic, they did not murder many in an attempt to frighten the American people into surrendering to their goal without fighting -- which is the object of terrorism.

An example of real terrorism is 9/11, which achieved its goal magnificently. This Manhattan-media-lead country couldn't jettison its freedoms or principles fast enough in a frightened scuttle for "safety."


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I never understand people who want secure borders yet coddle this kind of BS!
Same crowd supports Keystone pipeline a foreign corporation using various state governments to seize the property of US citizens .

PARIS, Tex. ��" The Canadian energy company TransCanada can take over land owned by a Texas farmer to build its Keystone XL pipeline, a county judge ruled on Wednesday night. In a 15-word ruling sent from his iPhone, Judge Bill Harris of Lamar County Court at Law upheld TransCanada’s condemnation of a 50-foot strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture here. The pipeline is being built to carry oil to Texas refineries from Canada.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

"Judge Bill Harris of Lamar County Court at Law upheld TransCanada’s condemnation of a 50-foot strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture here. The pipeline is being built to carry oil to Texas refineries from Canada."

Yup, eminent domain. The gubmint can (and does) do that: utilities, parks, highways, waysides, etc. It's for your own good doncha know.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Here's part of an interview from Bundy and his race theory.
Unfortunately there are people on this forum who will celebrate his comments.

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Posted by pidge z6PA (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 8:56

Here's part of an interview from Bundy and his race theory.
Unfortunately there are people on this forum who will celebrate his comments.

*

(a) Exactly who "are people on this forum" who will celebrate Bundy's comments?

Not me.

(b) Why do you even post comments like that, projecting and speculating nasty things about other posters?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

projecting and speculating

When a participant consistently uses Stormfront as a source, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think he'll be pleased to see someone who shares his views.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 9:32

So the "negro" that Bundy references lives in government (taxpayer) subsidized housing and Bundy grazes his cattle on government (taxpayer) land. Seems to me that Bundy shares a lot in common with the "negro" he references, in fact he is that which he hates.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Same law & order crowd winks at this!


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I don't wink at it.

Who is winking at it?

Why the comment speculating about what others think and what of it if they do?

That's a separate thread.

I don't have much of an opinion on it to tell you the truth.

The law should be followed, clearly, this man shouldn't be exempt from it if there is no legal reason to be exempt.

From what little I've read about this incident, the government hasn't handled it well.

You don't play games with force, and you don't threaten to use it unless you are going to use it, in my book.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 9:44

Republican politicians doing the "backstroke" ...

The remarks brought about a quick rebuke from Chandler Smith, a spokesperson for Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). Heller had previously called Bundy and his supporters “patriots” for their actions and challenged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) description of them as “domestic terrorists.”

Smith told the Times that Heller “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Bundy’s speech also seemingly derailed Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s (R) apparent attempt to link his gubernatorial campaign to the Bunkerville camp; Abbott had allegedly written a letter to the BLM accusing it of “threatening” to seize land along the Red River in northern Texas.

But after being contacted regarding the rancher’s “Negro” remarks, a spokesperson for Abbott was quoted as saying that Abbott’s letter “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

Oh, those law-and-order types!

Thanks, Ohiomom.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Deep South, USA 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 10:00

Well, however strongly this restates what is said here so often, here's where Bundy differs sharply from the usual espousers of their common meme:

"And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?

They didn’t get no more freedom. They got LESS freedom.”

It may be a slip since it's a violation of far right group-think to understand, much less state flat out, that poverty is inimical to freedom, that the poorer one is the more difficult, more expensive, more inaccessible, and even impossible most of the freedoms we enjoy become.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Why am I not surprised at this revelation of Bundy (from his own mouth)--nor of the backtracking of some of his "supporters" ! (rhetorical question)

Let a Bundy run at the mouth every morning before his fans and sooner or later the mask will drop, revealing a Ted Nugent underneath.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Deep South, USA 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 11:15

I suspect that some freedom-for-all-loving economic libertarians may have missed the clues in the behavior that make this side of Bundy very unsurprising. I've been seeing troublemaker social conservative fingerprints all over this event.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

You don't play games with force, and you don't threaten to use it unless you are going to use it, in my book.

Which is why, after Bundy called in the militia types saying he was going to start a range war, the feds showed up with guns.

What, you thought that the Feds showed up with their guns, and suddenly, out of the blue sky, in parachuted all the heavily armed militia to protect poor Mr. Bundy ?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

The negro comment is right in line with the duck Dynasty guy-the idea that goes all the way back to slavery that blacks are better off as slaves since they don't have the common sense to look after themselves.

I love the politicos scrambling to distance themselves-as in lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Bundy does seem to have captured the imagination of Sean Hannity. That'll be good for many many more shows and hard hitting interviews

But here's a very recent item on Bundy from the Daily Kos.

Here is a link that might be useful: Savoring that ego trip


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Deep South, USA 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 14:43

In talking about Hannity's support of Bundy, John Stewart showed a clip of Glenn Beck calling Bundy a a "welfare rancher" and pointed out that Bundy-boosting Hannity managed to make Beck seem like the "voice of reason" in comparison. :)

A lot of GOP politiicans who were praising Bundy are now back-pedaling and throwing themselves behind the nearest sage bush for cover.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Thanks Rosie the winkers are now blinkers when the should be off nodding!
Tom DeLay scoundrel creep praising Bundy for fighting the lawless Obama Tyranny!

"Senator Rand Paul, the man who rails constantly against those who “suckle at the government teat” and deadbeats who don’t want to be bothered with providing for themselves, has now spoken out in support of deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy, a man who does not even recognize the government of which Paul is a part."


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

•Posted by pidge z6PA (My Page) on Thu, Apr 24, 14 at 8:56

"Here's part of an interview from Bundy and his race theory.
Unfortunately there are people on this forum who will celebrate his comments."

What do Bundy's racist beliefs have to do with the situation with his ranch, non-payment of grazing fees, and the show of weapons on both sides?

I do see that he sounds terribly bigoted. It's possible he has other repugnant traits as well, but what does any of that have to do with the OP? Why the major change of subject?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

That’s disingenuous, elvis. You don’t usually play the naiveté card.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Well I suppose you could go several ways with that one Elvis.
Like posters like to take a whole approach to a moron when that moron has the stage! Surely character counts for something in a news story (please) You'd be fired from any newspaper for missing such a glaring & obvious feature as his rants about (anything from stamp collecting to Martian equality)
He describes sucking off the state while he sucks off the state.

Why not describe the whole HOG and all it's view is this an alien concept where you come from?
Then again it could also be an attempt to add another boxcar to the Patriot militia's Chochoo the boxcar of what the term FELLOW TRAVELERS!
Play connect the dots how many connections to how many like minded groups can you come up with

I find the concern funny (haha) rather than curious!

This post was edited by labrea on Fri, Apr 25, 14 at 7:35


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called "domestic terrorists"

What do Bundy's racist beliefs have to do with the situation with his ranch, non-payment of grazing fees, and the show of weapons on both sides?

Mr. Bundy is complaining about people who receive welfare, especially blacks, yet, as Glenn Beck (??) pointed out, Bundy is a welfare rancher, and, it seems, quite a hypcritical one.

There is no change of subject.

I assume your "naiveté" elvis" speaks to your support of Mr. Bundy - is it his welfare ranching you support or his comments about black welfare recipients being better off as slaves?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I think this idea that blacks were better off in slavery has been circulating around certain groups for some time now. I can remember students making statements like that back in the late 80s/early 90s. I was stunned by such statements being offered matter-of-factly right in the middle of the classroom discussions.

I even remember one very white looking young woman rather nostalgically opining that she wished SHE could have had it as "easy" as black slaves did--after all, they were "protected" and "cared for" by the system.

HUH?

I never inquired further about those individuals, but I definitely had the impression that they are part of some kind of right-winger conservative groups. Evidently among some of those groups, it is commonplace to observe blacks were better off in slavery.

Kate


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

.....support the Constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic........
This seems like a home grown variety to & me seems like a whole pack of home grown have crawled out of the woodwork & congealed into these little bands who aren't so secretive anymore.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

This loser keeps saying the Federal Government has no rights over land in Nevada. The precedent was set when some colonies gave up territories & claims to territories to the Federal Government & became States ratifying the constitution.
When Nevada became a state in 1864 Bundy's claim to the land is 16 years later.

When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution (* and the ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT) state:

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”

Yadda yadda yadda sucking off the fed & then costing more money with all this hubbub!
All the losers calling him a patriot....pitiful!

tempest in a teabag!


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

  • Posted by rosie Deep South, USA 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 25, 14 at 9:42

Yes, we're going through a period where being able to connect with each other and express themselves on forums accessed nationally and internationally has been encouraging extremists to reveal themselves for what they are to larger and larger audiences. That's a good thing. Just as Bundy now exposes supporters who are themselves too clever to use the wrong terminology.

Extremism's successful masquerade as mainstream since the 1980s has been painful, but nothing lasts forever.

We can finally see their party gradually coming to an end as the inattentive majority of people are increasingly gaining awareness and finally arriving at their conclusions on all this. You know, "you can't fool all the people all the time." And so I thank Bundy for his contribution to understanding.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called 'domestic terrorists'

Just as Bundy now exposes supporters who are themselves too clever to use the wrong terminology.

Give a nut case enough rope (unrestricted communication and national attention) and he will spectacularly hang himself (rhetorically, of course), abort the viability his 'cause,' and embarrass knee-jerk anti-government supporters.

Thank heavens!


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

They loved him when it was believed he personified government overreach; they hate him when someone reached over and handed him a microphone letting him define himself as a subsidized deadbeat racist.

Whole lot of back peddling going on.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

He’s apparently spinning it that the media is “twisting” his words--to loud cheers from his groupies--uh, no, there’s a video.

I keep wondering how all those generally overweight white guys and their families can spare all that time to hang around and barbecue and listen to each other talk. Don’t those men and women have jobs? Don’t kids have to go to school (when they are not being used as human shields)?


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called "domestic terrorists"

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 25, 14 at 11:03

And here it is - the video

When asked about his remarks on slavery Friday morning on CNN, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy said, "If I say 'negro' or 'black boy' or 'slave' ... if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive then Martin Luther King didn't do his job."

Objecting to what he says doesn't mean his "supporters" don't actually believe the same thing he does, it just means they don't say it out loud.

His beliefs are sickening and wrong, and very much represent GOP ideals.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

Bet many of them are unencumbered by jobs. I suspect, too, that there is a good sized contingent with fugitive warrants - they'd get picked up sitting at desks at the cube ranch.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters

Bundy's views are steeped in a cesspool that blends Second Amended Rights, overt and covert racism, States Rights, and hostility toward the Federal government.
This morning, I was both surprised and disappointed that Cuomo on CNN defended Hannity and revealed that he is a friend of his.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I didn't understand how anyone could support this man prior to this interview.

But anyone supporting him now......well lets just say it speaks volumes.

~Ann


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

We have I think a deeply confused man who has never actually thought through what he professes to believe. Like so many people he is only thinking as far as will get him what he wants when he wants it. That his beliefs could apply to anyone else would be outside his universe. He want Rosa parks to be able to sit anywhere on the bus but doesn't think she should have gone to the front of the bus. He wants to call a black man 'black boy' if he chooses and that black should just get over it instead of exercising his free speech and telling Bundy where to put it.


 o
RE: Bundy supporters called �domestic terrorists�

I still don't see why this guy gets a pass to freeloading year after year it once was free now it's not! The very same again who demand fiscal responsibility (oh but not for this guy because what?) he serves some petty political purpose!
Same crowd would eject protestors from public parks that they would occupy for a short term over long term sucking off the fed!
Stinks to high heavens!


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here