Bundy Ranch Nutters Cowardly plan to use female human shields

[GodIsSalvation]

Way I see it this is a simple situation that has been made complex.

The simple part is the Rancher is using public land illegally by allowing his cattle to eat off Federal Land thus he is illegally harvesting off the land. A comparison would be like fishing in public waterways without a fishing license.

Where this situation has been complicated is first with the Feds brutally beating and tasering non-violent protestors. Then the situation became more complex when armed militias enterred the scene. And yet more complex when the Politicians politicized the event in the mainstream media, especially with the "Domestic Terrorist" epithet.

Simplest solution in my opinion would be for the Militias to either put away their guns or to leave entirely and the Federal Agents to back off since they are just agitating the crowd. This would take care of the Violence Possibility which as far as I can see is a possibility for either side to unleash and is the most important thing to prevent here.

If the Violence Possibility is dealt with appropriately then I think things become a lot easier to work out. Gotta keep in mind the Rancher did very clearly break the Law, and not just once, this is an on-going thing. He simply needs to be served his papers and then things can be worked out from there in court.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Bundy has been grazing cattle on this land for generations. There was a time when the association known as the BLM existed as a different entity to actually assist ranchers. The fact is, that entity was federalized and became just another tool for people like the Reids to use AGAINST ranchers.

The fact is, the Bundy’s held their grazing fees in escrow with the county. The Feds came in and usurped Nevada state and Clark County authority. The FEDS don’t want the “grazing tax”. They want to implement rules like blocking of sections of the land where the cattle can’t graze, and eventually pull out their illegitimate authority to regulate this rancher off the land, like they’ve done with so many other ranchers, and like they are doing with many others to appropriate the land and lease it to trans-national corporations.

His family has tended to this land for 150 years long before the federal government ever voted themselves the authority to displace state authority and just take whatever they want for the profit of the federal government and federal politicians bought and paid for by the trans-national corporations.

Way I see it this is a simple situation that has been made complex.

The simple part is the Rancher is using public land illegally by allowing his cattle to eat off Federal Land thus he is illegally harvesting off the land. A comparison would be like fishing in public waterways without a fishing license.

Where this situation has been complicated is first with the Feds brutally beating and tasering non-violent protestors. Then the situation became more complex when armed militias enterred the scene. And yet more complex when the Politicians politicized the event in the mainstream media, especially with the "Domestic Terrorist" epithet.

Simplest solution in my opinion would be for the Militias to either put away their guns or to leave entirely and the Federal Agents to back off since they are just agitating the crowd. This would take care of the Violence Possibility which as far as I can see is a possibility for either side to unleash and is the most important thing to prevent here.

If the Violence Possibility is dealt with appropriately then I think things become a lot easier to work out. Gotta keep in mind the Rancher did very clearly break the Law, and not just once, this is an on-going thing. He simply needs to be served his papers and then things can be worked out from there in court.

 

[posthuman]

The Louisiana Purchase.

 

[posthuman]

the Bundys owe the federal government more than 1 million dollars in unpaid grazing fees and has been in defiance of multiple court orders for over 15 years.

what do we want law enforcement to do about tax dodgers & people in contempt of court? it's unfortunate that he got a bunch of armed men to support him mooching off public grace. i think the tenor of the media would be different if someone wanted for tax evasion brought a militia to the food stamp office to demand a payout though.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's a really ignorant picture posthuman. I didn't know the Bundy Ranch was located in Washington DC. The truth is that the federal government is by far the largest landowner in the U.S. and more than 80 percent of Nevada property is owned and controlled by the federal government who are presently seeking to grab more land.

Texas is next! AG warns BLM wants 90,000 acres after Bundy ranch standoff - Washington Times

What you're omitting from your myopic and false presentation that this is solely an issue between a rancher who refuses to pay grazing fees and the federal government who is just looking out for "the people's" best interests is that Nevada counties had tired of the federal government's ownership and control of almost their entire state and begun challenging federal ownership of the land many years ago. There is a back story and it's an important one.

In fact, elected officials from across the American West held a historic gathering in Utah recently to discuss how states can wrest control of land in their states claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns, with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. to lease to trans-national corporations for their own profit. These legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for their effort.

So how did the federal government end up owning more than 80 percent of Nevada? What happened is that Congress reserved vast amounts of federally-owned land in the “Enabling Acts” for statehood in the West and Nevada, at the time, agreed to them. The problem is that this is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the very concept of statehood.

That pesky U.S. Constitution, the contract whereby state governments delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, the American people, acting through their sovereign states, granted this authority to their agent: “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

In other words, the federal government’s purported claims of jurisdiction over more than 80 percent of the state of Nevada’s land mass is brazenly unconstitutional. The language of the Constitution is clear.

It's in this backdrop that in 1991, Catron County in New Mexico passed an ordinance that claimed state ownership and local management of public land in the state. Thirty five counties followed suit. Nye County, Nevada, became the first to act when the county commissioner bulldozed his way down a closed national forest road. Forest rangers soon followed, who the county commissioner threatened to arrest if they interfered.

It was at this point that Cliven Bundy stated, "They've taken their authority and abused it. I'm not being regulated to death anymore." Bundy states that his rights derive from the fact his Mormon ancestors were using the land far before the federal government claimed authority over it.

Despite Bundy's arguments having been rejected by two appeals courts, the BLM-Bundy case has morphed into a much wider debate over freedom, personal property, state rights, taxation and government overreach.

The Saga of Bundy Ranch--Federal Power, Rule of Law and Averting Potential Bloodshed

So while I understand your concerns posthuman, I have to ask are you consistent or are you a hypocrite with respect to them. Do you support illegal aliens flouting U.S. law in coming here illegally and displacing Americans from the labor market? Do you realize some of these illegal aliens are setting up dope growing operations for Mexican cartels in U.S. national parks?

Or do you reserve your passion for the rule of law for American citizens ranching a piece of land since the late 1800s when the federal government decides to boot them out?

In any event, there's a LOT MORE going on here than a rancher failing to pay grazing fees and you should at least have the integrity to acknowledge it.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Bundy has been grazing cattle on this land for generations. There was a time when the association known as the BLM existed as a different entity to actually assist ranchers. The fact is, that entity was federalized and became just another tool for people like the Reids to use AGAINST ranchers.

The fact is, the Bundy’s held their grazing fees in escrow with the county. The Feds came in and usurped Nevada state and Clark County authority. The FEDS don’t want the “grazing tax”. They want to implement rules like blocking of sections of the land where the cattle can’t graze, and eventually pull out their illegitimate authority to regulate this rancher off the land, like they’ve done with so many other ranchers, and like they are doing with many others to appropriate the land and lease it to trans-national corporations.

His family has tended to this land for 150 years long before the federal government ever voted themselves the authority to displace state authority and just take whatever they want for the profit of the federal government and federal politicians bought and paid for by the trans-national corporations.

Aye and this is true, but it is also true that right now and for my lifetime the US Federal Government owns and has owned that land. Therefore what Bundy is doing is illegal. There's just no way around that. It's like if I went out fishing on federal land without a fishing license, harvested many fish, got caught, and refused to pay the fees for years on end. Sure the Federal government might be wise to sell some of that land to either the State Government or to private enterprise (for instance if I were a rich fisherman, if they sold a pond to me), but that doesn't pre-empt the fact I would have all ready broken the law via poaching.

I do agree that poor governance in many ways is behind the problem since they own all this land and its basically going unused. However, fact is Bundy is in violation of the law, and this isn't a one time deal where you can make excuses for him that it was an accident. He admit with his own words on national television he is fully aware that what he is doing is illegal and has continued to do such anyways.

Now I also don't think the Feds should've tased those protestors or slammed them on the ground though and in my view that's how this situation got blown out of proportion in the first place. Yet also its not justifiable for a bunch of yahoos to be running around a High Stress Situation brandishing lethal firearms. If I had the Power (and I most certainly do not) I would make the Feds and Militias back off first and foremost. Most important thing is no one wants this to turn into a Waco Tragedy (Feds massacring protestors) or Wild West situation (outlaws gunning down Feds.) If it were up to me I'd reduce Bundy's fine, but still make him pay some sort of fine and issue a public apology and after that maybe look into selling him a bit of the unused land to prevent any future conflicts and also because I believe it would help the economy both by raising some money and giving a US tax payer and food supplier some extra resource (the land) which isn't being used at all anyways. However US Politics rarely ever works out the common sense way lol, so stay tuned.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Politicians in the federal government want to kick off family ranchers so they can lease the land to transnational corporations supplied by Chinese manufacturers (NOT made in the USA) for their own profit, that of wealthy investors, to increase revenue to the federal government, and create some jobs (not a lot of jobs either for the industries they plan on leasing to are the opposite of labor intensive) which about half of the new job growth in the U.S. presently goes to foreign born workers completely bypassing American citizens born here. Obviously, I cannot cosign that paradigm.

What I would like to see is the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution and allow the state (and affected counties) of Nevada to take possession of the land and decide locally if they wish to retain the current situation with family ranchers continuing as they have since the 1800s or develop the land and if they decide to develop the land, I want to see U.S. manufacturers profit and U.S. citizens get what jobs are created.

There are many pieces to this puzzle and how it is resolved will determine the future for other states. I don't want to see a future where the federal government is leasing vast swaths of U.S. land to transnationals supplied by Chinese manufacturers funded by the Chinese government and staffed by foreign workers after booting every U.S. citizen out of the way. That's the direction it's headed right now. That's what you're supporting, whether or not you realize it.

 

[posthuman]

That's a really ignorant picture posthuman.

it's called an "editorial cartoon"

my bad; i assumed everyone had seen something similar in the past.

if people have been growing pot or making moonshine in federal parks for generations, i take it you're in favor of militias defending them from the ATB?

is it different if they are Hispanic immigrants?

i just find it ironic that the right wing media is so gaga over a guy who's basically evading taxes and freeloading off public land. i guess that's over some people's heads.

 

[Desdichado]

i just find it ironic that the right wing media is so gaga over a guy who's basically evading taxes and freeloading off public land. i guess that's over some people's heads.

People will go to great lengths to find heroes if they feel themselves sorely lacking.

 

[Drett]

it's called an "editorial cartoon"

my bad; i assumed everyone had seen something similar in the past.

if people have been growing pot or making moonshine in federal parks for generations, i take it you're in favor of militias defending them from the ATB?

is it different if they are Hispanic immigrants?

i just find it ironic that the right wing media is so gaga over a guy who's basically evading taxes and freeloading off public land. i guess that's over some people's heads.

You make a good point. There is empathy for some people forced off their land but a people overseas may be forced off their land and there is no empathy. Actually I have found the opposite, empathy for the occupiers.