Ok lets open the Cliven Bundy can of worms

[ckcs]

The Bundy story was fabricated by the Government ,because, -The BLM had a contract with the Chinese to build a solar instalation on the land-- the Fedral judge stopped that also-- and Bundy is a true American, -- and for once the truth is coming out. ---And ...we still had an honest Federal Judge, -
---Will the American people never learn, -- the media is controlled by the " Federal ministry of mis-information" and only reflects what they want you to think or feel.....You will never get the "other side of the story" , or "the truth", from the regular [main-stream] news. They just feed you propaganda [and emotional programing]so you can think you you are "informed".
If you really want to be informed look up the local news from the area the stories are coming from. or Drudge report..or AMTV news.----- even the Moscow Times [ http://www.themoscowtimes.com ] does a better job of informing their people...

The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government.

__________ Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:56 am __________

They should have removed his cattle from the land humanely. You believe marching on a 60-70 year old man's house with a helicopter and swat team isn't going overboard? Then, to add the cherry to the top, they shoot, kill, and maim many of his animals. Would you like it if an AR person came, confiscated your animals, then proceeded to kill most of them? Plus, it was calving season and many of the cows had young 'uns. They were trampled then left for dead. How can you possibly think that is okay? I agree that he did violate the law, but I think the gov't should not have gotten involved and it should have been left to the state to handle.

As I understand things the cattle were confiscated on federal land not Bundy's house. The infamous standoff where Bundy's son was tazered didn't happen on his property either. I believe it was in the area they containing the cattle at but I am not completely sure on this. I've read that there were 6 cattle that were killed. Only 2 were branded as Bundy's. They were put down supposedly because 1 bull was behaving aggressively and another injured itself on a fence. As for the calfs being separated and dying, I have no numbers on that. Now you can argue they would still be alive if the BLM didn't try to seize them. I'd counter that Bundy had a court order to remove that cattle and had ample opportunity to do that.

 

[Ramjet]

The guy is a loon and I believe a racist.

Ahh, and here is the "racist" thing again.

rac·ist
ˈrāsist/
noun
1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
(racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted

So, basically, you believe he is a racist because he called African-Americans Negros? Do you know, that was the most common term used to describe black people back in the 60's-70's? Now it's changed due to "Political Correctness." Again, I believe he could have said it a lot better, but I think that he does have a point.

To add, where exactly did it scream "racist!" to you? I saw no indication of believing white people to be superior to black. Could you point out where?

Since when is being a racist or bigot against the law ?!


Those comments by Bundy have absolutely no bearing upon the right & wrong or final outcome of this matter.

 

[ckcs]

Ahh, and here is the "racist" thing again.

So you think it's a huge leap to think someone is racist when they wonder that negros were better off as slaves. picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, Oh they were a family then and you had the mom, dad and little ones. They had stuff to do like pick cotton. Never mind they lacked freedom, would be killed for leaving, hanging, beating, rape, torture, oppression. But look they could tend the feels, the joys of having something to do. Bundy makes his assumption (from his comments) from a trip by downtown las vegas. Wow you can really get to know the black race by driving down a street. Bundy grew up in a town that according to the census has a 2010 population of .69% AA. Neighboring Moapa Valley is even lower.
I've spend most of my 45 years living in very mixed communities (40% AA) and now live in an area that is 8.7% AA. My experience has been the less black people you know or are around the greater the racism. The same thing happens when the racial makeup is opposite.
I'll admit the left overuses the race card. I don't disagree with the Bundy situation because I feel he is a racist. I disagree with it because he broke the law for 20 years. To let him get away with it is an insult to the 16,000 ranchers that pay their grazing fees. <br /><br /> __________ Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:44 am __________ <br /><br />

Since when is being a racist or bigot against the law ?!


Those comments by Bundy have absolutely no bearing upon the right & wrong or final outcome of this matter.

It's not. I feel you have a right to be a racist is you want. You can think however you want. I don't think he is wrong because I believe he is a racist. That has no bearing at all to me. I think he is wrong because he broke the law. You can disagree whether the law is just but when you break the law there should be consequences. I've yet to read anything that demonstrates that Bundy disagreed with the Feds owning the land prior to 1993-94. He paid his fees prior to that. His protest of ownership seems to only have come out when the cattle limit was capped. How convenient

 

[Ramjet]

I disagree with it because he broke the law for 20 years. To let him get away with it is an insult to the 16,000 ranchers that pay their grazing fees.

So that justifies the military style actions by the Feds ??? You could be on the wrong end of their cannon some day. Would you sing the same tune then ?!


As for the Feds owning the land , they may have control of it , but it definitely doesn't belong to the US Gubmint. They acquired control thru less than scrupulous means. That land belongs to the Western Shoshone tribe of Native American Indians. Any claim made after the Treaty of Ruby Valley is just downright false.

Unless you think that $1.08 an acre is a fair settlement ....which has been refused for decades by the tribe.

 

[Dood]

I wish I could graze half a millon dollars worth of cattle ($1/lb x 1000lb cows x 400 head) on federal land and then when the landlord says i can only have 150 cows I tell them I'm not going to pay rent anymore and I squat for 20 years.

Finally when they've had enough and try to forcefully evict me and my property, since I'm an "old ranch dude" and civilized requests haven't worked in 20 years, I 'll have my gun toting buddies come to my aid so I can continue to squat and to protect my kids and my grand kids and my great grand kids squatters rights.

Maybe Nevada is the perfect place for all them "negros" to live after all

 

[Miss M]

No, his comments don't necessarily make me think he is a racist. His comments tell me that he does not know much about slavery and how truly horrible it was. Being ignorant and being racist are not the same thing. You don't have to be black to understand slavery; I am quite possibly descended from Irish slaves myself (who were frequently treated even worse than the blacks). He should keep his mouth shut about slavery if he doesn't know enough about it. Welfare, though... that is modern slavery.

I don't consider Bundy a hero, and I wouldn't have handled things the same way. But that doesn't change the fact that his rights should be protected like everyone else's.

 

[ckcs]

So that justifies the military style actions by the Feds ??? You could be on the wrong end of their cannon some day. Would you sing the same tune then ?!

As for the Feds owning the land , they may have control of it , but it definitely doesn't belong to the US Gubmint. They acquired control thru less than scrupulous means. That land belongs to the Western Shoshone tribe of Native American Indians. Any claim made after the Treaty of Ruby Valley is just downright false.

Unless you think that $1.08 an acre is a fair settlement ....which has been refused for decades by the tribe.

If I break the law for 20 years and the feds come after me, I won't fight them. I accept that is a battle I will never win. Any laws I knowingly break (like speeding) I do so with the understanding that if caught and prosecuted I will pay the price. If he believes the Bunkerville allotment is owned by the Indians does he have permission to use that land freely? If so can he prove this in a court of law? My guess is he can't. I can't even think of how I'd react because I wouldn't have stopped paying my fees because I didn't agree with the new limits and 20 years later try to claim the government doesn't own the land.

Since you think the government took a heavy handed approach. How do you propose the government had handled this? <br /><br /> __________ Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:24 pm __________ <br /><br />

I don't consider Bundy a hero, and I wouldn't have handled things the same way. But that doesn't change the fact that his rights should be protected like everyone else's.

I agree he should have his rights protected. In this case he has no rights to use the land freely. No matter whether the local, state, federal government or indians own the land, Bundy does not own the land.

 

[Ramjet]

Since you think the government took a heavy handed approach. How do you propose the government had handled this?

I'm not sure how I would have handled the situation but there was no cause for a full on military style assault.

Those gun toting supporters haven't been there since the get go , they showed up in response to the Fed actions.

They surely could have done a lot less damage to the cattle. How many dead , injured and calves separated from their mothers ?!

The one thing we are overlooking here is that its the land owner's (BLM) responsibility to secure that land with proper fencing to keep those cattle out. Had BLM done so , then Bundy is liable for damages ..... but they didn't do that , they came in with an army and escalated the situation to one of heavy handed violence.



Both sides are wrong here ....


Then we get these politicians involved & the China solar project .... There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Someone stands to make a big pile of money off of this thing , and its definitely not the people that "own" that land (We the people , who are the government , not run by our government).

 

[HoppinHalfPints]

Since you think the government took a heavy handed approach. How do you propose the government had handled this?

Ehh, let Nevada handle it. The feds had no reason to encroach on state's rights.

I would like to make this very clear.

I believe that both sides are in the wrong. Bundy for ignoring the law for 20 years, the feds for being overkill.

 

[ckcs]

Can someone send me a link about this fencing thing. I read on the solar and it didn't pertain to the allotment bunch uses. Plus the china company pulled out. I haven't been able to research the fencing thing.

 

[Ramjet]

Can someone send me a link about this fencing thing. I read on the solar and it didn't pertain to the allotment bunch uses. Plus the china company pulled out. I haven't been able to research the fencing thing.

I think it was Miss M who quoted the law a few pages back in this thread about the fence issue ....


As for the solar project , it may not have anything to do with this ... but SOMETHING does , there is some reason besides a few cows that they took this action all the sudden. Someone stands to make a pile of money exploiting some natural resource here , be it solar , uranium , silver or whatever the hell .... This wasn't just done out of the blue over grazing fee's.

There's a whole lot more to this than a turtle , some grass & a few moomoo's.


One dollar and eight cents per acre .... that's fair compensation ?!

 

[Miss M]

I think it was Miss M who quoted the law a few pages back in this thread about the fence issue ....

I paraphrased what I had read about it, but Sagebrush, who lives in Nevada, confirmed what I said. Here are the Nevada livestock laws, which contain the open range laws:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/nv_fnc.htm

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-568.html

As for the solar project , it may not have anything to do with this ... but SOMETHING does

It seems that, though the land for the solar project itself is not the same land, that the land he was grazing on may have been marked for a buffer around that land. I have not been able to find anything solid on that, only intimations.

there is some reason besides a few cows that they took this action all the sudden. Someone stands to make a pile of money exploiting some natural resource here , be it solar , uranium , silver or whatever the hell .... This wasn't just done out of the blue over grazing fee's.

There's a whole lot more to this than a turtle , some grass & a few moomoo's.

Here's something I have heard mentioned a few times, but again only as "You know, I bet this really has to do with..." -- and that's water rights. Then I read this in comments on a blog entry:

There are two different “rights” in play here and they are interrelated. The grazing rights, which until the BLM came along, had been promised to the Bundy family in perpetuity by the Federal government while Nevada was still a territory as an inducement to settle in Nevada. There was a push at the time to try to get the population above 60K in order that Nevada could qualify for statehood, Lincoln ended up short circuiting that by accepting them as a state in violation of those requirements in order to guarantee reelection.

The other right is the water rights, and this is where things get a bit sticky. Bundy owns patented water rights for the land. And the way water rights work, you have to actively be using and improving the land and the water in order to maintain ownership of those rights (it is a form of mineral rights). Once those rights are lost due to inactivity they are gone forever, so by restricting his ranching use of that land, the BLM are effectively taking the water rights which he owns and paid money for, away as well. That is when it becomes an illegal taking, because he was not offered anything to compensate him for the loss of water rights. It also effectively made the land he DOES own outright effectively useless because without access to BLM land for grazing, the land is useless for much of anything else, so his resale value is effectively nil as well.

-- from comments to http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/wh ... ck-people/

http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevad ... ights.html

Again, I CANNOT at this time verify that any of this is true. However, it would fit neatly with the feds' grab on water.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/livest ... reams.html

http://pjmedia.com/blog/epa-unveils-lar ... -property/

http://cumberlink.com/news/local/govt-a ... f887a.html

 

[ckcs]

One dollar and eight cents per acre .... that's fair compensation ?!

I agree that is likely undervalued even in 1966 dollars. Some estimate the land at $250-1000 an acre today which factoring in inflation would work out to $34 to $137 in 1966. Based on some land prices I have seen online it probably is worth less than $250 today, considering how many acres is was. No doubt the Indian have and continue to get screwed by the government.

If Bundy is allowed to get away with not paying his grazing fees, what reason do the 16,000 rancher that pay grazing fees have to continue. Regardless of who you may feel owns the land, $1.35 an animal unit per month is a sweetheart deal.

Bundy should have taken all that money he saved over the past 20 years and bought more land. You can get a 212 acre parcel in Clark County for $9,000. Of course free beats that too hrmmmm........

 

[michaels4gardens]

the feds have been trying [successfully] to steal all land grant lands from all people-- this is just another example.
The land was a land grant,,- it is crazy to think he should have to pay rent to the feds for this--- most people have no idea that the land tax "laws" [public policy statuates] came long after the grants were given, "allodial title" to the land would forbid the Gov. to require taxes, or confiscate land for not paying said tax....
In N.Ca, the feds came in the same maner as they did to Bundy and murdered all the ranchers and burned their homes, when they did not give up their "land grant " lands.--and start paying tax to the Feds.
--look up the war of 1812,[they burned Washington in 1814] why it happened, and what followed our surrender [treaty] to Rome and their world bankers, and our exceptance of the rule of the Roman Empire. and how land tax , and later income tax, was started as "tribute" to our new masters.

 

[Cottie]

First off, this is possibly the most amazing, civil and intelligent discussion I've seen on this topic anywhere on the internet.

For the racial issue, I would encourage anyone to watch the full conversation, start to finish. It's approximately 18 minutes long and gives full context to his comments on "the Negro".
http://youtu.be/6RMKFc06FQA

From my view, this guy is a grandpa. Lots to say, gets on a topic and wants everyone to hear it. I found nothing racist I'm his remarks when placed in full context. He was calling it as he saw it. Should he have named races? Maybe not. He was asking why only whites were present to question the government, and was discussing why blacks and Hispanics weren't present. After his "racist" rant, he goes on to say that Hispanics have better family units and work ethics than many whites.

While the viewpoint isn't popular in modern American culture, to a lifelong agrarian the ability to work with one's own hands and directly benefit from that work without government control is one of the hallmarks of freedom. Shoving people into government subsidized tuna cans, handing them food and discouraging a day's work is - from the agrarian's vantage point - nothing more than enslavement.