My revised position on the Bundy Ranch crisis

[Politico]

I commend you on being willing to accept when you've been running down the wrong path.

The one thing that I'll say is that to a large extent, the heavy-handedness of the government's response is due to Bundy's bluster and calls for militia to come from all over the country and help him make a stand.

He's the one baiting the militias, not the Fed.

Other than that, I think you've got the whole story now. While an argument could be made that morally he's in the right, there's really no question that legally and ethically he's completely wrong.

I agree. Thank you for admitting your error.

 

[Claudette]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

I agree. The guy wasn't abiding by the rules for letting his cattle graze.

Its also kinda funny that Harry Reid wanted the land for a solar ranch.


It still isn’t clear what the crisis was all about. Rumor has it that Reid wants the land for a giant solar farm that would be supplied by a Chinese company and, presumably, subsidized by the federal government. Reid’s son is apparently a participant in the deal. Whether that is true, I haven’t yet tried to figure out. One thing I will say with some certainty, however, is that tortoises had little or nothing to do with it.

 

[idb]

It's interesting that, in some eyes, it was acceptable for the Occupy people to be maced and brutalised for exercising their right to free speech, but not OK for an illegal squatter to be moved on when instructed to do so by the courts.

I wonder if one's political stance has anything to do on your viewpoint?

 

[Iceweasel]

It's interesting that, in some eyes, it was acceptable for the Occupy people to be maced and brutalised for exercising their right to free speech, but not OK for an illegal squatter to be moved on when instructed to do so by the courts.

I wonder if one's political stance has anything to do on your viewpoint?

You need to look in the mirror for your hypocrisy. The urban Occutards weren't brutalized and the issue had nothing to do with free speech. Who's land did the Bundy supporters take over illegally?

 

[hateriarch]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

I agree. The guy wasn't abiding by the rules for letting his cattle graze.

Its also kinda funny that Harry Reid wanted the land for a solar ranch.


It still isn’t clear what the crisis was all about. Rumor has it that Reid wants the land for a giant solar farm that would be supplied by a Chinese company and, presumably, subsidized by the federal government. Reid’s son is apparently a participant in the deal. Whether that is true, I haven’t yet tried to figure out. One thing I will say with some certainty, however, is that tortoises had little or nothing to do with it.

This is all clearly about the US and China. The US promised China development zones for conversion of $1 trillion in debt.

The Fed gov cannot own land except when it needs a school, post office other admin building. It owns the 10x10 square mile area known as Washington DC.

Harry Reid and son are willing to sell this land to the Chinese solar company for pennies on the dollar and it falls under the previous development zone agreement.

The rancher may be wrong from the federal perspective but he has no contract with them. His contract was with the state. He paid his fees to the state and has stated that he will gladly continue to do so.

I don't know where all the talk of him breaking the law comes from. The feds are breaking the law in the first place to even be in possession of the states land per the Constitution. That is why Bundy won't pay them. This is a state matter and there is no provision in the law for the BLM to have "law enforcement" anyways.

All this bickering back and forth between R's and D's is to take away from the real issue here. The federal government is selling your birthright to the Chinese because it mortgaged your grandchildrens future and cannot pay the debt. All so they can play empire and be the worlds police. I really wish people would wake up and stop the partisan bickering. The Trading With the Enemy Act was about you and me. As the federal government sees it, we the people are the enemy.

 

[Silhouette]

...Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress....

Well then you of all people should know that when Mr. Bundy lost to the federal government twice in court that the odds were heavily stacked against him winning. How many indian treaties have been enforced by federal courts to the native americans' advantage in your memory? You know what bastards the feds are and how locked up "our impartial judicial system" is in practice when it comes to favoring people in positions of power.

So maybe you'll change your mind again when you consider that this rancher is just the modern version of the native tribes driven from the region. At some point the little guy has to win against Goliath. I'd think you'd be all about being on his side, at least to gain a little satisfaction. Or better yet, sue the government for the native rights to be returned there! Then you can run Mr. Bundy and the feds out of there..