Federal Government Caves to Right Wing Terrorists At Bundy Ranch

[Twichy]

What if a generation of a family lived in a Section 8 housing project, like the Grady Homes in Atlanta. And then, the government decided to close shop, and evict them. And instead of leaving, they and 1,000 locals took up arms and tried to refuse leaving?

Its the SAME scenario.

It is a similar scenario, but there is more to it than that.

If they removed grazing rights to ALL ranchers throughout the U.S., I would be more inclined to agree. Picking and choosing which areas to remove the right from based on political influence is different. If the Federal Government is going to pick and choose, it has to be VERY careful when doing so and look at the whole picture.

Personally, I think that the change in designation had more to do with the influx of people from surrounding states (California) than it had to do with the tortoise. The tortoise was a means to and end. Many people in the nearby retirement communities don't like seeing cows while they are playing on the public lands.

 

[Erand7899]

Federal Government Caves to Right Wing Terrorists At Bundy Ranch | Americans Against the Tea Party

that is one ugly hateful site folks..Americans against the Tea Party.....they are calling you the American citizens standing up to the government, TERRORIST..

do not go to that site and give it any support...it would be good if it withered on the vine but as we see they have a lot of followers who thinks the same as they do or this wouldn't be on this board

just awful stuff

Persons seeking to avoid court sanctioned punitive measures lawfully administered by Federal officials acting in good faith does not constitute ‘standing up to the government.’

The notion is ignorant nonsense.

You wanted to see a shootout, didn't you? Blood and guts would have given you renewed confidence that the federal government can do no wrong.

 

[Twichy]

That's all well and good, but Mr. Bundy is still under the obligation to obey the law.

As are all the citizens of this country.

While I would tend to agree with that sentiment, it has to be equally applied.

“I inhaled — that was the point.” helped one man become President. It is hard to demand that one citizen follow the laws while rewarding another one for breaking them.

 

[Contumacious]

What if a generation of a family lived in a Section 8 housing project, like the Grady Homes in Atlanta. And then, the government decided to close shop, and evict them. And instead of leaving, they and 1,000 locals took up arms and tried to refuse leaving?

Its the SAME scenario.

It is a similar scenario, but there is more to it than that.

If they removed grazing rights to ALL ranchers throughout the U.S., I would be more inclined to agree. Picking and choosing which areas to remove the right from based on political influence is different..

Bundy Ranch Showdown Not Over if Harry Reid Has Anything to Say About It

Despite the BLM’s announcement, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told local TV station KRNV that the showdown wasn’t over. “We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it,” said Reid. “So it’s not over.” How involved is Reid with the drama at the Bundy ranch? The Washington Times reports:

Speculation on Mr. Reid’s role in last week’s confrontation at the ranch has been rife, given his prominent position as Nevada’s elder statesman and his ties to BLM director Neil Kornze.

Mr. Kornze, 35, served for eight years on the Senate leader’s staff before joining the BLM in 2011. He was the Mr. Reid’s pick to head the agency, and his final confirmation was April 8 as the roundup at the Bundy ranch was underway.

In an updated statement Saturday, Mr. Kornze said the cattle gather was halted “because of our grave concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.”

Mr. Reid also has been accused of attempting to shut down the ranch in order to move ahead with two nearby solar energy projects, an accusation denied Monday by the senator’s press aide.

Reid spokeswoman Kristen Orthman told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas that “there is no truth to the conspiracy theories that are being pushed by right-wing media outlets."

.

 

[jillian]

That's all well and good, but Mr. Bundy is still under the obligation to obey the law.

As are all the citizens of this country.

While I would tend to agree with that sentiment, it has to be equally applied.

“I inhaled — that was the point.” helped one man become President. It is hard to demand that one citizen follow the laws while rewarding another one for breaking them.

that may be one of these stupidest things i've read today...

but thanks for yet another example of obama derangement syndrome. your lack of ability to address the topic is certainly amusing.

 

[Vigilante]

The Rule of the Lawless

Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.

Deserts always feel like my natural habitat, and I am very fond of them. That being said, I have, for my sins, spent a fair amount of time in Clark County, Nev., and it is not the loveliest stretch of desert in these United States, or even in the top twelve. Protecting the pristine beauty of the sun-baked and dust-caked outskirts of Las Vegas and its charismatic fauna from grazing cattle — which the Bureau of Land Management seems to regard as an Old Testament plague — seems to me to be something less than a critical national priority. At the same time, the federal government’s fundamental responsibility, which is defending the physical security of the country, is handled with remarkable nonchalance: Millions upon millions upon millions of people have crossed our borders illegally and continue to reside within them. Cliven Bundy’s cattle are treated as trespassers, and federal agents have been dispatched to rectify that trespass; at the same time, millions of illegal aliens present within our borders are treated as an inevitability that must be accommodated. In practice, our national borders are a joke, but the borders of that arid haven upon which ambles the merry Mojave desert tortoise are sacrosanct.​

​

​

Strangely, many of the same people who insist that Mr. Bundy must be made an example of for the sake of the rule of law protest at the same time that it is not only impossible but positively undesirable for the federal government to deploy federal resources to rectify the federal crime of jumping the federal border.

Apparently, there are trespassers and there are trespassers. The citizens of this country, like those of any country, have an interest in the question of who is permitted to immigrate here and on what terms. Those interests and the ability to act in their furtherance are generally considered to be a substantial part of what we mean by “sovereignty.” Sovereignty has, historically, been regarded as a serious business. But if we judge the federal government by its actions rather than by the words of its functionaries, the defense of national sovereignty is many, many places down the federal to-do list from looking after tortoise welfare.​

​

I myself am fairly liberal on the question of immigration and a sucker for desert creatures that have fewer than eight legs but at least two. There are intelligent and honorable people on both sides of our immigration disputes and on both sides of the Endangered Species Act. But juxtaposing the energetic and heavily armed attempted enforcement of the Endangered Species Act with the utter disregard that the federal government has shown for our immigration laws produces a political equation that is impossible to balance. You could be a strict rule-of-law man and demand rigid enforcement of both immigration laws and environmental laws. You could be a latitudinarian and prefer lax enforcement of both. You could make a case for focusing on legitimate federal priorities and be Attila the Hun on the border but Mr. Magoo on turtle turf. But what argument is there for taking a pass on actual federal responsibilities, among which defending the border looms large, while sending in the big guns against felonious specimens of beef on the hoof?​

​

The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of environmental laws, and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners, so much the better, in their view. 2) Very powerful political interests in Washington do not wish to see the scrupulous enforcement of immigration laws, and if that undercuts the bottom end of the labor market or boosts Democrats’ long-term chances in Texas, so much the better, in their view.​

​

This isn’t the rule of law. This is the rule of narrow, parochial, self-interested political factions masquerading as the rule of law.​

If we are to have the rule of law, then, by all means, let’s have the rule of law: Shut down those federal subsidies and IRS penalties in states that did not create their own exchanges under the Affordable Care Act — the law plainly does not empower the federal government to treat federal exchanges identically to state exchanges. And let’s enforce the ACA’s deadlines with the same scrupulosity with which the IRS enforces its deadlines. Let’s see Lois Lerner and a few hundred IRS employees thrown in the hole for their misappropriation of federal resources, lying to Congress, etc. — and let’s at least look into prosecuting some elected Democrats for suborning those actions. And if you want to get to the real problem with illegal immigration, let’s frog-march a few CEOs, restaurateurs, and small-time contractors off to prison for violating our immigration laws — and they can carry a GM product-safety manager and a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration executive under each arm. Let’s talk about enumerated powers.​

​

Tell you what: We can have a nice, interesting debate about the rule of law — but not while Lois Lerner is at large and Charlie Rangel is a prominent feature of public life. Not until a guy who owns a car lot in Waxahachie gets the same deal on his back taxes that Tim Geithner did. But I have the strangest feeling that a great many residents of Washington would not fare especially well under any robust interpretation of the rule of law. It all makes you not want to think too hard about the fact that President Obama has ordered the assassination of more than one U.S. citizen with no obvious legal authority for doing so.​

​

Cliven Bundy may very well be a nut job, but one thing is for sure: The federal government wouldn’t treat a tortoise the way it has treated him. Harassing a tortoise is a federal offense. But harassing the country? That’s federal policy.​

​

The Rule of the Lawless | National Review Online​

 

[occupied]

"Securing" the border would require some pretty drastic land grabs from private citizens. I guess that's just fine.

 

[Twichy]

that may be one of these stupidest things i've read today...

but thanks for yet another example of obama derangement syndrome. your lack of ability to address the topic is certainly amusing.

Please elaborate.

The statement was that Mr. Bundy MUST follow the laws because he is a citizen. I merely gave an example that it was not correct. Your labeling of it as "President Obama derangement syndrome"* is silly. It was just the first, easily recognized example that came to mind.

In my mind, the law should be enforced equally. You should not arrest one man for breaking a law that you agree with, but let someone else break a law that you disagree with.

* I modified the quote because referring to the President of the United States with just a lowercase last name is disrespectful.

 

[namvet]

Ooo a rumor...

Nope.

Harry Reid says so.....lesson he's lying again.

Q) How can you tell when Harry Reid is lying?

A) His lips are moving.

Q. how can you tell when Obama is lying??

A. his ears get bigger

 

[Stephanie]

people better wake the hell up

SNIP:
ted April 16, 2014 - 9:22am Updated April 16, 2014 - 4:15pm
Nevada Cattlemen’s Association gives statement on rancher Bundy




The Bundy family and their supporters drive their cattle back onto public land outside of Bunkerville after they were released by the BLM on April 12, 2014. The conservative Nevada Cattlemen’s Association issued a statement Wednesday that sympathizes with Bundy.(Jason Bean/Las Vegas Review-Journal)



By KEITH ROGERS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
While distancing itself from the legal issues that prompted the Bureau of Land Management to round up Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy’s range cattle then release hundreds of them as the threat of violence loomed, the conservative Nevada Cattlemen’s Association issued a statement Wednesday that sympathizes with Bundy.

“The situation in Nevada stands as an example (of) the federal agencies’ steady trend toward elevating environmental and wildlife issues over livestock grazing,” reads the statement from Ron Torell, the cattlemen’s group president.

The statement adds that ranchers like Bundy, who graze livestock on multiple-use public lands, which include habitat for the threatened desert tortoise and other federally protected species, “have found themselves with their backs against the wall as, increasingly, federal regulations have infringed on their public land grazing rights and the multiple-use management principle.”

“This is not only devastating to individual ranching families; it is also causing rural communities in the West to (wither) on the vine. In the West, one in every two acres is owned by the federal government,” the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association statement notes. “Therefore, the integrity of the laws protecting productive multiple use is paramount to the communities that exist there.”

The group contends that the Endangered Species Act and other such laws “are being implemented in a way that are damaging to our rights and to our Western families and communities. In Bundy’s case the designation of his grazing area as a critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise gave the BLM the rationale they needed to order a 500% decrease in his cattle numbers. There never was any scientific proof that cattle had historically harmed the desert tortoise.”

The BLM halted its roundup Saturday as gun-toting militia and protesters in support of Bundy converged on a corral near Mesquite where government cowboys were preparing to haul away some 380 head of cattle gathered in the Gold Butte area for auction.

The association emphasized, however, that it doesn’t support those who break the law and abuse grazing privileges.

all of it here
Nevada Cattlemen?s Association gives statement on rancher Bundy | Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

[Vigilante]

Nope.

Harry Reid says so.....lesson he's lying again.

Q) How can you tell when Harry Reid is lying?

A) His lips are moving.

Q. how can you tell when Obama is lying??

A. his ears get bigger

 

[namvet]

Q) How can you tell when Harry Reid is lying?

A) His lips are moving.

Q. how can you tell when Obama is lying??

A. his ears get bigger

 

[namvet]

BTY the OP's link is to a radical left lug nut site

Americans Against the Tea Party | Because Fox News Lies

im finished here

 

[Darkwind]

When you "stand up" to the government by threatening them with guns and violence?

Yeah..that's terrorism.

The young lady is demonstrating the ONLY LAWFUL manner in which Americans may "stand up" to the gestapo.

.

Yep

By all means, be meek and craven in the face of government aggression.

Its the new American way.

 

[Katzndogz]

So far Bundy made a case for his cows. Harry Reid has only convinced the hard left that he has the right to take payoffs from the Chinese for this land.

I'd rather it go to the cows.