BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[Katzndogz]

It wasn't public land owned by the federal government until 1993 when the government seized open range.

If the obama regime doesn't slaughter this family outright now, then they will certainly have accidents until they are all gone.

 

[WinterBorn]

You really so sure he's not a victim of this Police State? Maybe you should read up a bit more on the story? Just a suggestion anyway.

I have read up on the story.

This guy stopped paying his grazing fees in 1993. A federal judge ruled in 1998 that he must stop grazing on public lands. He has never stopped feeding his commercial cattle operation off of public lands. Now the feds are there to remove his cattle.

What part of that is inaccurate?

And what part of that signifies a "Police State" to you?

Read up a bit more on the story. It goes back a long long way. It may or may not change your perception of the issue. But check it out. Is he really the 'Thief' or 'Criminal' in this?

Come on, Pauli. Give us some of the wisdom you have gleaned from your thorough research of this topic.

What have I stated that was inaccurate? How is anyone but the rancher stealing??

 

[WinterBorn]

It wasn't public land owned by the federal government until 1993 when the government seized open range.

If the obama regime doesn't slaughter this family outright now, then they will certainly have accidents until they are all gone.

It was public land before 1993. Bundy paid the grazing fees until he got mad that they were raising them. If it wasn't public land, why was Bundy paying grazing fees?

 

[bendog]

By God, Tom Horn would do something about this. (there's a joke in there)

 

[WinterBorn]

If the obama regime doesn't slaughter this family outright now, then they will certainly have accidents until they are all gone.

What a load of crap!! Let me guess, you think the feds are going to kill the family while they have them surrounded???

 

[nodoginnafight]

It amazes me how few people understand the facts in this case, but are all too ready to jump in and pass judgement.


Fact #1 - The feds have NOT surrounded the Bundy ranch. They have surrounded the 600,000 acres of public land that Bundy has been stealing feed from.

Fact #2 - Even Bundy admits that he owes $300,000 in grazing fees.

Fact #3 - A federal judge ruled in 1998 that Bundy must STOP grazing his cattle on the public land.

IMHO - the sheer volume of threads and the general lack of information about the issues involved by those who are starting the threads leads me to believe that some right-wing militia - type organization has released an "action alert" trying to whip people up into a frenzy about this.

Have you noticed all the Waco and Ruby Ridge references? I don't think that is an accident - I think they were prompted by the action alert. The Turner Diaries crowd is trying to whip the faithful into a frenzy so they'll grab their guns and rush off to this guys ranch to try to ignite the civil war they've been fantasizing about for so long.

I KNEW IT!
They even used the words "Action Alert"

Last Man Standing: Armed Feds Surround Nevada Rancher?s Property

It contains all of the common misinformation that these threads begin with - like the feds are surrounding this guys ranch, etc ...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube

In this riot video, Winter Born, they are accusing the law enforcement of bringing in back hoes - killing the cattle and burying them. I do not see any evidence of this other than the claims of the protesters at this point as they continue to demand, what are the back hoes for? I think they should settle it in court. If the govt. killed all of Mr. Bundy's cattle that would be a major lawsuit I would think. With the price of beef going up this does not make sense to kill perfectly healthy cattle and bury them. There is nothing on tv about this story. I checked.

It has already been settled in court. A federal judge ruled that Bundy must stop grazing his cattle on the public lands. The messed up part is that the judge made that ruling in 1998. So for 16 years, not only has Bundy been grazing on public lands for free, he has been in violation of a court ruling. Another judge reaffirmed the ruling in July of last year.

Now, if the feds do slaughter all his cattle and bury them, it is no one's fault but the rancher who ignored the court orders for 16 years.

But I have not seen any evidence that that is there intention. But what it boils down to is, if you leave your property where it does not belong and where you have been told to remove it from, you really have no complaint about the way the land owner removes it. Especially when they have given you 16 years to get it.

Not only did you destroy OP on page 1 but OP destroyed himself with his overacting typing "God help him" in the first sentence.

Alas...The full story and also I need to add. This was started by Lovebear. Lovebear is always wrong

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As is free-loading on the People's dime.

Because grass that regrows without human or monetary intervention is costing us what?

Why does the fucking government have to charge us for every damn thing they can? What's next, oxygen use surcharges?

This is NOT that man's land. He was leasing the right to graze his cattle. He decided to not pay his rent. That's ok with you, now?

Depends on the facts. And since I don't think any of us have the facts I can't answer your question.

 

[bendog]

but shouldn't they just confiscate his cattle and have a judge give them "title" so they can be sold to a feedlot, and the money go to the BLM?

the price of steak is too damn high. (-:

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So I am gathering that your arguments are based on what you think the laws ought to be and not based on existing law - is that correct?

Because clearly, existing law doesn't support the homesteading claim and has not since well before Bundy's family started allowing their cattle to roam this land. And since the Federal Government paid Mexico for this land (they may have even gotten a receipt - we can check ) I think that creates a far better case for the Feds than for a farmer who got free grazing land for a while.

I wouldn't phrase it as such, but I suppose that's a fair assessment of my position.

Though in response I would say that the federal government simply makes laws in an attempt to benefit itself and its cronies. In this case, we see that perversion of principles of property ownership by the law have created a scenario whereby the government is claiming the right to go after a person's livelihood. And I would say there's no reason we should defend something simply because it's a law.

The alternative is even worse.

In the United States we traditionally respect the rule of law. It's why we've enjoyed peaceful democratic transitions of power for 150 years. It's why the most lethal guy in the area isn't allowed to make the rules.

Do we trade some freedoms - yep. Do those in power sometimes abuse the power we give them - oh yeah.

But in practical, realistic terms, I still think it's the best alternative. If enough people believe the way you do, then we have the power to write laws to reform the worst parts of this trade-off. Are the others gonna make it easy? Nope. But if enough people feel strongly enough about it, there are peaceful ways to fix things.

Grabbing your gun and inviting your neighbors to join you in a range war - like this guy did - is not (imho) a method of addressing grievances that I can agree with. If we are going to maintain a civilized society, we have to respect the law, at least enough to get it changed in the legal, peaceful ways our founders put at our disposal.

And yet our founders also knew the value of breaking the law, hence the fact that we're an independent nation.

 

[rightwinger]

Because grass that regrows without human or monetary intervention is costing us what?

Why does the fucking government have to charge us for every damn thing they can? What's next, oxygen use surcharges?

This is NOT that man's land. He was leasing the right to graze his cattle. He decided to not pay his rent. That's ok with you, now?

Depends on the facts. And since I don't think any of us have the facts I can't answer your question.

If he owned the land this would have been resolved 20 years ago

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because grass that regrows without human or monetary intervention is costing us what?

Why does the fucking government have to charge us for every damn thing they can? What's next, oxygen use surcharges?

This is NOT that man's land. He was leasing the right to graze his cattle. He decided to not pay his rent. That's ok with you, now?

Depends on the facts. And since I don't think any of us have the facts I can't answer your question.

Oddly enough - some of us DO have many facts - including who owns the land these cattle are being removed from.

What has happened here is that some right-wing militia-type organization has released an "action alert" with a lot of misinformation in an effort to whip up the faithful.

Last Man Standing: Armed Feds Surround Nevada Rancher?s Property

It includes all the common misinformation that so many are repeating here. And none of the FACTS that so many are claiming ignorance on. The facts are readily available for those who are interested. For those who are not interested in facts, only talking points - they can stick to their "action alerts."

 

[WinterBorn]

Because grass that regrows without human or monetary intervention is costing us what?

Why does the fucking government have to charge us for every damn thing they can? What's next, oxygen use surcharges?

This is NOT that man's land. He was leasing the right to graze his cattle. He decided to not pay his rent. That's ok with you, now?

Depends on the facts. And since I don't think any of us have the facts I can't answer your question.

We have enough facts to make a determination.

1) The rancher stopped paying the grazing fee in 1993.
2) In 1998, a federal judge ruled that the rancher had to stop grazing on the public lands and had to remove his cattle.
3) The rancher has not complied and his cattle are still grazing on public lands for free.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wouldn't phrase it as such, but I suppose that's a fair assessment of my position.

Though in response I would say that the federal government simply makes laws in an attempt to benefit itself and its cronies. In this case, we see that perversion of principles of property ownership by the law have created a scenario whereby the government is claiming the right to go after a person's livelihood. And I would say there's no reason we should defend something simply because it's a law.

The alternative is even worse.

In the United States we traditionally respect the rule of law. It's why we've enjoyed peaceful democratic transitions of power for 150 years. It's why the most lethal guy in the area isn't allowed to make the rules.

Do we trade some freedoms - yep. Do those in power sometimes abuse the power we give them - oh yeah.

But in practical, realistic terms, I still think it's the best alternative. If enough people believe the way you do, then we have the power to write laws to reform the worst parts of this trade-off. Are the others gonna make it easy? Nope. But if enough people feel strongly enough about it, there are peaceful ways to fix things.

Grabbing your gun and inviting your neighbors to join you in a range war - like this guy did - is not (imho) a method of addressing grievances that I can agree with. If we are going to maintain a civilized society, we have to respect the law, at least enough to get it changed in the legal, peaceful ways our founders put at our disposal.

And yet our founders also knew the value of breaking the law, hence the fact that we're an independent nation.

Our founders also learned from their experiences about the value of creating peaceful and lawful avenues for addressing grievances that were not at their disposal.

 

[WinterBorn]

but shouldn't they just confiscate his cattle and have a judge give them "title" so they can be sold to a feedlot, and the money go to the BLM?

the price of steak is too damn high. (-:

They have contractors in right now removing the cattle. With +/-900 head, it is not an easy task. And due to the harassment from locals, it is going even slower.

 

[nodoginnafight]

but shouldn't they just confiscate his cattle and have a judge give them "title" so they can be sold to a feedlot, and the money go to the BLM?

the price of steak is too damn high. (-:

They have contractors in right now removing the cattle. With +/-900 head, it is not an easy task. And due to the harassment from locals, it is going even slower.

I like the idea of going to the nearest military base and throwing a huge barbecue.

 

[paulitician]

Look for the big T-Word to be thrown around by Big Brother real soon. Those darn cattle grazer thieves!! They're a threat to our American way of life dammit!

Better get em off to GITMO.

 

[Katzndogz]

The arab spring in Tunisia started with one guy opposing an unjust law. The American Revolution started with one man, firing a musket at a government bent on enforcing unjust laws.

If this evil regime sees the tide turning against it, they will not hesitate to bomb this little ranch.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The alternative is even worse.

In the United States we traditionally respect the rule of law. It's why we've enjoyed peaceful democratic transitions of power for 150 years. It's why the most lethal guy in the area isn't allowed to make the rules.

Do we trade some freedoms - yep. Do those in power sometimes abuse the power we give them - oh yeah.

But in practical, realistic terms, I still think it's the best alternative. If enough people believe the way you do, then we have the power to write laws to reform the worst parts of this trade-off. Are the others gonna make it easy? Nope. But if enough people feel strongly enough about it, there are peaceful ways to fix things.

Grabbing your gun and inviting your neighbors to join you in a range war - like this guy did - is not (imho) a method of addressing grievances that I can agree with. If we are going to maintain a civilized society, we have to respect the law, at least enough to get it changed in the legal, peaceful ways our founders put at our disposal.

And yet our founders also knew the value of breaking the law, hence the fact that we're an independent nation.

Our founders also learned from their experiences about the value of creating peaceful and lawful avenues for addressing grievances that were not at their disposal.

That's correct, but, again, they knew those avenues could fail and be co-opted. The trouble is that we all seem to disagree whether that's what's happened.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is NOT that man's land. He was leasing the right to graze his cattle. He decided to not pay his rent. That's ok with you, now?

Depends on the facts. And since I don't think any of us have the facts I can't answer your question.

We have enough facts to make a determination.

1) The rancher stopped paying the grazing fee in 1993.
2) In 1998, a federal judge ruled that the rancher had to stop grazing on the public lands and had to remove his cattle.
3) The rancher has not complied and his cattle are still grazing on public lands for free.

That's quite a selective recitation of the facts.