Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Bundy the Rancher and Bundy the Law Breaker?

I'm not even going to link to any articles here because there are SO MANY interpretations of what happened in Nevada this last week.   What I am going to do is ask the following questions:

- If Bundy hadn't paid, why is he not owing that money?
- It was definitely on federal land;  why do so many of you say it's a "State issue?", as does Bundy
- Since when is MILITIA called on and who the heck are they, really?

The more I hear/read, the more I think Bundy is in the wrong........that ought to get your hackles up!!

I'm going to say that and RUN FOR COVER!!!..................

Please comment!  Educate me!  By the way, Imp just sent me the following graphic:  No matter WHO's wrong or right, THIS no American could NOT agree with.  I hope.


Joe Conservative said...


T Krabby said...

To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century.

They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land.

For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation.

Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals.

Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission?

Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling?

Duckys here said...

He's been to court twice on the ownership issue and lost both times.

Z said...


Blogger Z said...
Krabby, thanks, I did just read Joe's link and still think it's not a cut and dried situation.

DO you need to pay a bribe to Reid's family or is that a Free Republic story with no backbone?

I'm completely on your side about the China power developers except they're paying the fees.

The tortoise is almost as stupid an excuse as the smelt in Central California, and I think the government MIGHT have a lousy case because they had to resort to blaming some of this on the turtle.

He did lose twice in court and I don't think that because a family was induced to come two centuries ago it should still stand exactly as it was.

Joe, your article more convinced me that Bundy is not 100% in the clear on this.

Z said...

Ducky, sorry you had to be so freaking insulting in your comment because it forced me to delete it.

But I will say your utterly ridiculous comment that Bundy expects free water is truly stupid and unwarranted.

Joe Conservative said...

...all the "other" ranchers in the area have been "regulated" OUT of the ranching business.

The government (BLM & Environmentalists) enjoys picking business "winners" and "losers". Mr Bundy has been selected for the "loser" column and the "endangered" desert tortoise for the winner column. After all, cattle shouldn't be allowed to kill the tortoise, only BLM hired guns should.

Duckys here said...

Hit home about how lame this clown is, eh z?

Joe Conservative said...

Joe, your article more convinced me that Bundy is not 100% in the clear on this.

He's not. And neither is any small business owner operator in America, when Uncle Sam decides to put you out of business.

skudrunner said...

It seems like he had the right to graze by paying to use the land. If he doesn't have to pay to graze should it be open to everyone with no fees or restrictions.

He took a stand for some reason, didn't pay his lease fee and now it is not his fault. That makes no sense to me and he should be denied access. On the other hand, if the federalists are stating they are doing this to protect a turtle that no use of the land should be permitted.

We must remember that we are not majority rule.

T Krabby said...

So...do we need to see the BLM dressed in military style battle garb, with weapons and assault vehicles raising them against a farmer? Or a couple thousand of their fellow citizens?

Why not place a force like this on our southern border to prevent the 20,000,000 illegals who are "grazing" off our taxes and not paying a dime into the treasury in return?

Why would they take up arms against Americans and not fire back at a Mexican Army intrusion into one of our states? Or take up arms against the deadly cartels and drug dealers coming across the borders?

This is what Americans are worried about...the complete militarization of our federal agencies, LEO's to take up arms against us. And the BLM have proved that they will for a few crummy dollars for some sorry ass cows?

T Krabby said...

The Bundies don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs.

They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician.

They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school.

So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

skudrunner said...

T Krabby

There is a very simple answer, cows don't vote so to hell with them

Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...

First let me tell Liberalmann that nobody's a 'teabagger' here nor are we unaware what that term connotes. I'm not too surprised he does.
I deleted his comment for that but wanted you all to know this:

Did you KNOW that?
How the heck FAR can these nuts like Liberalmann GO?? Had you heard that? SO FUNNY!

skudrunner; I'm completely in agreement with you on this.

There just has to be SOMETHING else that we don't know.

I believe the tortoise excuse was brought in at the last minute to help the feds justify, but it only made them look stupid amongst most Americans with brains.


What I've said here for a few years now is that the leftwingers started the purge FAR too early...maybe 20 years too early.
Had they waited, people would have put a turtle first, more Americans would have been enough indoctrinated in colleges to let the ACA slide by with no dissent, they'd have done a LOT of things that, thank GOD, Talk radio informs about and thank GOD, there are still enough of us not QUITE old enough to ignore all of this.

Bundy FOUGHT. He WON for now. THAT's the best part.

And, of course, I saw my linked image is also in the link Joe Conservative provided; and WHY IS IT that the feds were harder on Bundy than illegals sneaking over the borders?! Great point.

Z said...

I forgot to mention that "liberaljerk" also suggests that the "Kochs bought thousands of confessions" re the marathon bombing. Not sure what he meant, but he is getting a little scary....

Lib...are you still living at home and on medication, or?? :)

T Krabby said...


"cows don't vote so to hell with them.."

But those thousand on horseback do.

They ought to be hunting down dirty harry reid...who's now pouring gas on the fire by saying "he's not finished with them yet".

Why anyone in Nevada would vote for this weasel, crook is a mystery.

Mustang said...

I agree with Joe and the link he provided. For me, it comes down to this: who should win in a contest between the government of the people, and the people?

viburnum said...

I'm not usually prone to posting clips from articles John Hinderaker at Power Line sums it up well.

"So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?"

Z said...

Mustang, Joe, Viburnum; So because a guy's a good non-food stamp begging, hard working man whose family's ranched there for years, he can now break the law, which it appears he might have clearly done?

Mustang, is it "the people" even if this one "people" is wrong?

As you know, I'm ALL for fighting for THE PEOPLE, but this situation...not sure.

I'm eager to understand better and THOROUGHLY get your points and respect them, as usual, all you guys, but please keep this conversation going;

One PEOPLE who breaks a law can't be told "oh, it's okay, because you're part of WE THE PEOPLE," can it?

I TOTALLY get the tortoise thing and how really STUPID that is...a last ditch attempt by the Feds to legitimize what they did; WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THEY'RE WRONG..i'm just not clear on WHERE they're wrong if this is, indeed, Fed Land (Bundy still says it isn't but it is) and he's not paid.

PLEASE, let's get information that makes us more clearly see what happened....!
Please comment...thanks

viburnum said...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch


No farms, no food! No ranch, no roast!

Thersites said...

, he can now break the law, which it appears he might have clearly done?

Until the BLM lowers its grazing fees, sure.

The BLM has obviously over-priced it's grazing rights (according to laws of supply and demand). There are no longer any takers. Zero Zip. BLM put them ALL out of business Bundy is the ONLY grazer/ game in town, and, IMHO, a penny a year out to cover it... until BLM has other offers, I'd advise them to take it.

Mustang said...

@ Z

I certainly do agree that Bundy has handled this poorly, and thus subjected himself to serious consequences .... but my question for you are:
1. Do citizens have a responsibility to obey bad laws?
2. Are citizens obligated to bow to government bullying?

Rita said...

From what little I've read, Bundy is clearly wrong here. He might have had some reason,however you simply cannot quit paying some long standing fees and expect to get away with it for 20 years.

The fact that this story has wrangled up some 1,000 people to physically defend him indicates to me the government could have handled this is a less public method.

viburnum said...

If my family, having come on the promise of free use of the open range, had been there for a century or more, I might start thinking of it as mine under the Homestead principle, and resent some government drone showing up one day and demanding rent.

Anonymous said...

We've got millions of illegals cheating the citizens every day. To say nothing of crimes committed and other law breaking as soon as they set one foot over the border.

Shouldn't BLM, ICE and the FBI chase these illegals for breaking the laws too? Or is it just American citizens we go after and not them?

But the feds would rather go after a guy with a few hungry cows...that he slaughters to feed people, including those precious, protected ( as much as the snail darter and a tortoise ) untouchable illegals anyway?

Instead of amassing a small army to get Bundy...wouldn't we be better served with them on the borders?

Doesn't it bother any of us to see LEO's dressed in full combat gear with tanks and armored vehicles raise weapons against your fellow Americans? And a simple farmer at that?

I think they're sending a clear message to the almighty feds...when you stop breaking the laws, we'll consider it too.

Kid said...

Z, I agree with you.

1st. Government is always in the wrong when it takes from the people.

But still, there are an incredible number of things I cannot do that 'my family' could do in 1900. I don't support putting anyone on a pedestal above the rest of us citizens.

So the ranch pays the fee, raises its prices for beef and prices go up at the supermarket and restaurant and we go into an inflation spiral and when it gets high enough, stupid libtards are forced to concede that there is no free lunch, cry themselves to sleep and the country is put under competent leadership until the idiots once again begin to believe that something for nothing is a valid concept again.

This may be obama's WACO.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Thank for quoting Hinderaker,
As opposed to someone else who quoted him earlier and acted like they came up with it.

viburnum said...

"... libtards are forced to concede that there is no free lunch"

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath 'til then?

Ed Bonderenka said...

Bundy may be legally in the wrong, yet morally in the right.
There's more going on her than meets the eye, as many have alluded to.
Since when does the Obama administration enforce the law?
And why?

viburnum said...

That's the difference between law and morals. The law is malleable.

Kid said...

Virburnum. "Don't hold my breath"

Yea, maybe a pipe dream.

They had to do it in the late 70's and shuck jimmy carter. Maybe those days of lucidity are long gone with truely disgusting obama and crew being given 8 years.

T Krabby said...


I know who I am and I know I made an error. There's no excuse but I see it happen many times here and there...with out accreditation. So if they're the rules, thank you for informing me and be big enough to call me out by name next time, if theres an error I might make. I'd also like to see an ability to edit replies after they're made too...for typos or grammatical errors.

Anonymous said...

The other day Congress passed a resolution 274 or so to 181 to force the potus to enforce and obey the laws.

There were 181 democrats that voted against the law meaning they disagree that the prez has to follow the laws passed by Congress.

Has Holder followed the law as the nations top cop? Has His Majesty followed the law with his pen and phone to circumvent law? Has the IRS not engaged in criminal activity too?

Has the CIA, the FBI, Leon Panetta, a former POTUS or two, that were severely punished for their illegal acts too?

We need to be led by example...and the examples more than suck.

T Krabby said...

Speaking of the rogues in the IRS:

"Good News: IRS Set to Water Down Newly Proposed Free Speech Regulation"

"Shortly after former IRS Director of Tax Exempt Groups Lois Lerner admitted last year that her agency had been inappropriately targeting conservative organizations, a new set of rules were proposed that would make what the IRS did to tea party groups legal and would limit the free speech of tax-exempt groups across the political spectrum.

The rules specifically define "candidate related activity" as voter registration, candidate forums and debates, distribution of voter guides, discussion of incumbent voting records, simply referencing the names of candidates during meetings and more."

Now who would have thought that the IRS would make free speech illegal?

Thanks to TownHall.com

Z said...

I don't think it's bullying if the law's been broken.
And yes, we can't be deciding which law we want to live by any more than we like lawmakers to enforce only laws they like.

Obviously, there's a 'gray' in here somewhere, but I'm not sure Bundy's case is it.

Rita...it's just WEIRD. Any other law, and every law abiding commenter here would be screaming 'It's the LAW...WE have to obey laws, YOU have to obey laws'

Now, as someone said, if the fees are WAAAY too high, that needs to be looked at. I agree with that.

Kid, I think that, because it was getting to be a WACO, that's why the feds backed off. You're right.

Z said...

Anonymous; when ANY politician OR citizen votes that a president doesn't have to follow the laws, where's America go from there?
Dictatorship? Of course.

T Krabby said...

"because it was getting to be a WACO"

It looked to me like it'd be a reversal of Waco. A thousand + people ready to shoot back? I noticed they had the high ground too?

Looks to me like people are fed up and this is their red line in the sand?

Anonymous said...

"Dictatorship? Of course."

It's clear now what the goals of the left really are. With that vote, the mask is off and the cats out of the bag for those who pay attention to such things.

Duckys here said...

Did you KNOW that?
No. Fascinating. Any details?

Z said...

From my comment above:

First let me tell Liberalmann that nobody's a 'teabagger' here nor are we unaware what that term connotes. I'm not too surprised he does.
I deleted his comment for that but wanted you all to know this:

Did you KNOW that?
How the heck FAR can these nuts like Liberalmann GO?? Had you heard that? SO FUNNY!"

Yup....don't really care if you find that 'detailed' enough. But if Libmann thinks it, he didn't make it up...he's getting it from some loony leftwing rag.
I find that astonishing.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Krabby, I'm big enough to call you out. I'm also big enough not to.
I heard Hinderaker say that this am, and if I had not, I'd have thought you wrote it, until Vib quoted the source.
You're big enough to call it an error, obviously. Good on you.
I'm cool with that.
We good?

Z said...

My (used to be more liberal) German stepson is visiting for a couple of months.....he's been watching news of all stripes with me from time to time ...
Tonight, he asked "Doesn't your president have an awful lot of power?"

From the mouths of nonAmericans who see it....amazing, I thought.

"Yes," I said, "We used to have presidents who couldn't change laws without congress....not anymore."

He just looked stunned.

Z said...

Ed...your comment is one which reminds me what special commenters I get here at geeeZ.

Kid said...

Z, duck uses the teabagger term all the time. What's more offensive? teabagger or libtard?
Especially since Tea Party people are the definitive group trying to preserve freedom and individual liberty for ALL Americans, White, black, red, or green. Tea Party people are the most Non-racist, non-violent people in the country right now.

Isn't that interesting.

And why anyone even reads ducks 3 year old tantrum comments, let alone respond to them, especially when after years it is apparent he can't even learn the simplest thing with all the education nice folks here try to give him, it's a wonder.

But it's your blog and it's also a free country. I'm just making an observation.

Personally, I think his mom spared the rod and he's just here looking for some much needed discipline that he'll never get in the form required.

Kid said...

Z, libgirl is put on in my opinion. Types the most absurd thing she can think of, laughs like a hyena, comes back later to see people responding to her and laughs some more. imo.

Kid said...

Z, President's without power. Yes. not since FDR, did a president have much power until obama showed up and it was like a flip of a switch.


And add to this. If I was a libtard and 'my dream dictator' was in the white house, and every POS he could find was occupying the cabinet, would *I* be trolling conservative websites making an A out myself??? God No !!!!!!!!!!!

I'd be out partying ! What motivates these libtard trolls? It's never enough for them is it. What a riot. What an expose into their diseased brains.

T Krabby said...


Yes sir, we are. Thanks.

Baysider said...


As far as the 911 Truthers. Notice how fast the media shut up about the Unabomber when Ted Kaczynski was revealed not to be right of center but a greenie ranting against capitalism and technology. I still remember the first news reports projecting JFK's assassin to be a product of right wing Texas.

Whooo boy. They'll go far, Z.

Duckys here said...

And why anyone even reads ducks 3 year old tantrum comments, let alone respond to them, especially when after years it is apparent he can't even learn the simplest thing with all the education nice folks here try to give him, it's a wonder.

Thanks kid but we're all riding on the Pequod and you, z and mustang like Starbuck, Stubb and Flask ain't going to tell Ahab whoa.

Call me Ishmael.

Z said...

Baysider..you're so right.

Kid, I have often asked leftwingers here why they bother to come 'round. I remind them YOU HAVE WON...you've ruined this country beyond your wildest dreams; what more COULD you want?

Duckys here said...


Simple. To explain to the right that there is NO progressive movement in the U.S.
To explain to the right that private enterprise and kapitalism are not synonymous.

Or just to laugh at people who actually call Obama a socialist and try to understand that bizarre mindset.

Baysider said...

As for Bundy, I think the IBD put it well:

"Legally, Bundy hasn't a leg to stand on. He doesn't own the land. He hasn't paid rent. And he's lost three court battles.

BLM saw no contradiction sending in dozens of armed federal agents to confront a 67-year-old man behind in his rent while ... the nation's chief law enforcement officer [Obama] traveled to New York to speak on behalf of Al Sharpton, who's been more than $1 million behind in his income taxes."

The feds thought the tortoise excuse would play well with the public, especially if the public didn't know they were killing massive numbers of tortoises themselves.

So what has everyone so ANGRY? The unwarranted display of force and trampling on free speech. A 1st Amendment ZONE - really??.

The schoolyard bullies are all grown up.

There is a 'mounting distrust and suspicion of all things Federal' (IBD) in the west. That includes driving unemployment up to 40% in California's central valley over a specious cause linked to another enviro wackadoodle scheme.

We're connecting the dots in the mentality, yea the Oligarchy, that wants uber control, reverts to reflexive environmental excuses, then buys zillions of rounds of high power stopping ammo for domestic use (and pretends it's for target practice), tools around in not quasi but REAL military gear and hardware and sics dogs on a pregnant woman.

I am no fan of Alex Jones. But this gives his rants credibility. More 'unintended' negative consequences. Ugh!!

Baysider said...

Who on God's green earth thinks free enterprise and capitalism are synonymous? Did I miss something in the posts? Really, that's an honest question.

Sam Huntington said...

My biggest disappointment so far this week is that Rancher Bundy hasn't shot commie ducky.

Kid said...

Sam, I believe duck is hiding under eric holders bed. Waiting for instructions.

Z said...

Baysider...good luck getting a cogent answer.

T Krabby said...

Let's hope we all don't wake up tomorrow to find that the BLM shot a few ranch hands.

Duckys here said...

It's not in this topic, Baysider but it's a general goal of mine to give the fringe right a basic grasp of democratic socialism.

Conflating free enterprise (good) with kapitalism (not so good) is a common issue.

Baysider said...

Ducky: Want to educate the fringe right? Maybe you should go when they hang out -- instead of here.

Capitalism could be likened to a gun - an a-moral 'object. In and of itself it is neither good nor bad. Depends on how it's 'used.'

Always On Watch said...

From Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy:

...To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one....

More at the above link.

We need to understand that draconian and special-interests federal regulations are the enemy of WE THE PEOPLE.

Always On Watch said...

Bundy has lost in court.

Bundy will lose in court again.

He will be forced out.

Suppose that were happening to YOU?

Always On Watch said...

Bundy may be legally in the wrong, yet morally in the right.

I agree.

Always On Watch said...


Not so long ago and even today, the Left speaks of law vs. morality -- in their own contexts, of course.

But the same cannot be applied to Bundy? Go figure.

Always On Watch said...

And one more thing....

We on the Right are always screaming, "Do something!"

Well, Bundy has. Guts.

Always On Watch said...

I don't think it's bullying if the law's been broken.

My good friend, I strongly disagree!

I've been the target of the law's bullying.

In my own case, the county keeps changing the zoning code to the point that what was once legal -- and a few years ago I built a shed to conform -- is now illegal.

If the county had its way, I'd be forced to build another structure. A garage! At a cost that I cannot afford. In addition, for every day that I don't "conform," I'm supposed to be fined $100 a day.

I've balked.

Because Mr. AOW is disabled, the county has backed off. For now. This property is something that the local government wants developed. I hope to sell to a developer before I'm FORCED out.

Always On Watch said...

Please see this over at Texas Fred's blog. Comments too.

One comment:

While this is going on in Nevada. THIS is going on in Texas:
The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?
Byers, Texas along the Red River —
The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.
The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states…Since 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there has been a controversy over the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. The boundary is supposed to be the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River. But the River has moved over time. The problem is the definition of that boundary line- Oklahoma and Texas each use different semantics to define it. And the BLM is finding ways to use the disputed words to give them the ability to seize the land
They are looking to re-draw the entire portion of the Red River boundary. That includes 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the river.

Always On Watch said...

Just found this via something posted on Twitter. Excerpt:

For their part, the Feds must surely understand that no matter what they do, they are in a no-win situation. Having already spent an estimated $3M to collect $1.1 in fines, they have stirred up a hornets nest among the rancher, civil liberty and red-state constituencies; anything less than a well-strategized, diplomatic solution could be an unmitigated disaster.

christian soldier said...

?-How did we allow the feds to usurp over 40% of the US land mass--???

The role of the Federal section of govt was to be limited--

I-for one- believe in the original intent of the Founders' written Constitution-
It is not a "living-breathing" document-
for a reason-

Life-Liberty-PROPERTY ("royals' used to be able to take property at will-thus the word PROPERTY)-
Is the Fed now our "royal" scepter !!
original words-changed for reasons I will not discuss here-

Don't forget the dirty Reids in all of this--

christian soldier said...

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/04/a-tactical-retreat/#more-33032-you may want to read the account of an attorney from CA -who went to NV - it is toward the middle of the GoV article-she describes the heavy hands of the feds-

Baysider said...

Very interesting link there Christian Soldier. I have never read about feds confiscating and smashing the cell phones of the general public. The media loves sensationalism - how did they miss this? (ya, we know - it's a rhetorical question)

AOW: the other trick they use is to partially confiscate property and pay nothing because you have some value left in the ownership. (Baker v. Santa Monica)

Z said...

So, if we can pick and choose the laws we live by, why can't the enforcers pick and choose which laws they come down hard on us with and ignore the rest?

Of COURSE I think Bundy needs a day in court. Except he's had at least 2 and lost both times.

What should have happened is a REAL MEETING with REAL PROOF of what's going on and why he should be able to stay. With everyone there who's involved in this.

To champion a guy because he's been there a long time, during which laws have changed, just seems odd to me....and going against what we stand for, which is being law abiders.

If the law's wrong, CHANGE IT.
To call in the militia (by the way, what/who is that? They acted like it was "A THING...A GROUP", not just a bunch of scruffy gun owners on motorcycles, which I think they ARE)

I'm on OUR SIDE, the PEOPLE'S SIDE, ALWAYS.....but this case strikes me as one in which Cliven Bundy is not 100% in the right.

If BLM is starting to confiscate land (even selling some to China, from what we're hearing...even Conservative Larry Elder at a dinner I saw him at suggested we earn money in this country by selling off parklands! The crowd did NOT clap for that one!), then we need to know WHY and what's next. AND STOP IT.

We know they want TOTAL CONTROL in this White House'; they have shut down the Central Valley for the smelt, they're making it very hard for ranchers to raise cattle;
Do they REALLY want AMericans without food? because that's what it sounds like to most thinking people.

The question is WHY? and what can we do about it?

And, if Cliven Bundy's case has made this situation above (leaving us with no way to farm or ranch) more obvious, hurrah for him.

But, it'll die a sad death and we'll forget and he'll lose his land and so will other ranchers..particularly if Issa has a hearing; those situations always just go away he's that ineffectual.

SO, yes, I'm for Cliven in this manner...if he thinks bucking the federal government (and he's wrong, that IS STate land) is more emblematic of the cause ALL of us should find vitally important (Freedom and ability to make a living), I'm all for him.

Otherwise..he has broken the law, being there a long time is no excuse, and ...

that's my take!

Always On Watch said...

The problem is the widespread corruption, which has infected the courts as well.

The comparison isn't perfect, but I keep thinking of the American colonists vs. King George III.

The contract between the governed and those who govern is seriously broken. Bad days ahead, Z.

christian soldier said...

Fed 'ownership' of Western lands:
Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Colorado: 36.6 percent
Washington: 30.3 percent
Montana: 29.9 percent

The Founders are 'rolling' in their graves over this--The Federal part of govt-acting like the old "royals" of Europe-

Z said...

AOW, of course we are, but just because a guy's a 'good ol' boy' doesn't make him right on this.

As I said in my comments above, I hope he wins, but I hope the laws change, not let him win against our laws.

CS...are the states selling land to the $$$ for cash which make these large numbers of percentage owned, or wasn't it mostly federal from the beginning?

christian soldier said...

I am glad that our Founders disobeyed tyrannous 'laws'-
The militia was made up of citizens - who left their farms - coalesced- to fight marauders & bandits -AND - tyrannous govt officials--
Since all citizens who believe in freedom are automatically part of the militia- I guess I am too-
I will be mounted on an Horse- though- not a motorcycle- and - believe me- I will be dressed quite well--

Your German stepson's comment brought a smile--

RE: the land grab- by the Feds-
It started a little at a time - thus- the Eastern states are not so "federalized" -
and- our "royals' like Reid- and some RINOs are selling ("leasing"?) our US land to the "royals" of other countries for Power and Money--


christian soldier said...

From our Friends in Canada-
Riding in Cliven Bundy's Saddle- Agreat take and there is a Mark Levin show byte on the link-

My NZ and Canadian friends are worried about us in the US -
home link to CFP
C-CS-For Freedom!!

christian soldier said...

Priceless Birthright-Squandered (NZ)
From Australia-End of the Road

Z said...

CS, I don't look at the NV situation like a King George situation of our forefathers.

The only thing good about what Bundy's doing is it's making people sit up and notice; I'm so hoping that this resolves in, like I said above, some kind of arbitration where the BLM gets a clue and stops the infringing on good ranchers.
But he's breaking the law...there's no way else to look at this, law-wise.

Kid said...

Carol-CS, that's a great blog. Too bad he quit, but a lot went dark after the 2012 libtard brain vomit expose'

Duckys here said...

Any comment on the fact that the Nevada constitution grants authority over that land to the Federal government?

Doesn't sound real King George to me.

Thersites said...

Anybody remember the story of Robin Hood... how the people weren't allowed to hunt the King's deer or live in his forest?

When settlers first came to America, William Penn was granted land by King Tammany on which to build his colony. Shortly thereafter, in 1732, King Tammany granted the Schuylkill Fishing Company and all Americans the right to hunt in his forests and fish in his streams, in perpetuity.

And as far as I can tell, he granted the same rights to all the cattle he might bring along with him.

Kawanio che Keeteru!

Such is my right. I will defend it!

Thersites said...

Chief Tammany's mythic importance among the people of Philadelphia crystallized when a group of Quakers established the Schuylkill Fishing Company in 1732. Claiming that their fishing rights in the Schuylkill River had been given to them by the Delaware Chief and friend to William Penn, Tammany, the company adopted him as its patron saint. The saints day was designated May 1, the traditional beginning of the fishing season. At this time, Chief Tammany was viewed by many Philadelphians as a nature spirit whose ritual day was celebrated to ensure a bountiful fishing season, but he also seems to have been associated with a resolve to protect the fishing rights (and by proxy, the political rights) of its' members.

Within a decade, the Schuylkill Fishing Company began to fictionalize Tammany by creating mottoes attributed to him. In 1747, the company gave a cannon to the Association Battery of Philadelphia, stamped "Kwanio Che Keeteru ["This is my right, and I will defend it"], a phrase attributed to Tammany. The phrase was ripe with implications for the increasingly restless colonists. By the time of the Stamp Act crisis eighteen years later, images of the American Indian, often as Tammany, were being used widely as a symbol of resistance to British authority. The colonists were beginning to forge a new identity, calling themselves "Americans," a word used in place of their former European nationalities. The colonists were surprisingly conscious of the composite European-American identity they were creating.
- Encyclopedia of American Indian History

e pluribus unum!

Z said...

Ducky, what's to 'comment?'. Some think that's wrong.
My feeling is if it's wrong, you get that changed.

Theresites...sounds like Tammany HALL to me!
So, you think that every acre of land across this country should go by what King Tammany decreed in 1732? Who gets Central Park?
You can have Yosemite if I can have Hawaii :-)

Thersites said...

Tammany Hall was a NY organization founded by the enlisted troops of George Washington after the Revolutionary War, and was established to enroll "unpropertied" white men on the voters rolls... by listing buildings in ALL of their names.

White men in many states in America didn't get the vote (universal suffrage) until the 1820's/30's.

Thersites said...

from the Smithsonian:

Founded in 1788 as a political club, and named after Tamanend, a legendary chief of the Delaware Indian tribe (2, p. 1149), Tammany enlarged its political base by helping immigrants adjust to their new country and become voting citizens. Tammany supported what were then progressive causes, such as universal white male suffrage

Duckys here said...

@z --- Ducky, what's to 'comment?'. Some think that's wrong.

So because "some" disagree with the Nevada constitution it's fine for this guy to break the law and not pay his legally accessed fees?
By the way, what ever happened to states rights?

Those only count when you agree with them?

More insight into how the right is guided by emotion, not reason.

Joe Conservative said...

You mean, why not pay the "legally"-levied "tea" taxes, ducky?

Joe Conservative said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Conservative said...

Better get used to drinking tea, duckman, cuz the tea party is going global! :)

Z said...

Ducky, you read my comments and you attack ME?
I"M the one saying he's BROKEN THE LAW...
man, I can't recomment every time you don't read before you respond.

Always On Watch said...

I see no way for Bundy to win in court. He's made those efforts before. See this timeline. Snippet:

April 5, 2014: After decades of trepidation, federal officials and cowboys start rounding up what they think are Cliven Bundy's hundreds of cows. The operation was going to cost $1 million, and reportedly last until May. BLM contends that Bundy owes $1 million in fees, and will also have to pay the round-up expenses. Bundy — who retorts that he only owes $300,000 in fees — says the city folk are only hurting themselves by taking his cows. He told a reporter from the Las Vegas Review Journal that there would be 500,000 fewer hamburgers per year after his cows were towed away; “But nobody is thinking about that. Why would they? They’re all thinking about the desert tortoise. Hey, the tortoise is a fine creature. I like him. I have no problem with him. But taking another man’s cattle? It just doesn’t seem right.”

He also thinks the co-habitating cows and tortoises could have a beautiful, symbiotic relationship if the government would let them. “The tortoises eat the cow manure, too. It’s filled with protein.”

What I read in another article: the federal government owns 87% of the land in Nevada. What's up with that? Smacks too much of collectivizing the farms. Stalin-esque!

BTW, the only reason that I won the battle with my own local government is because of the ADA. Wouldn't look good for my local government to take us to court -- with a wheelchair ramp in front of our house and with Decorate A Vet on our side.

Always On Watch said...

Exclusive Video: Bundy Ranch

Worth watching.

Baysider said...

One more reminder of what President Obama called for in his first election:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Looks like one promise he's been working on.

Z said...

AOW: But that's my point.
THERE IS NO WAY HE'll WIN and he SHOULD NOT WIN. He's breaking the law.

What I think HE HOPES is this law is changed.. I admire him FULLY, and even he says this is more about the POINT than his ranch. God bless him!

Always On Watch said...

But I think that he should be able to win in court.

It could be that it will take several acts of resistance to federal regulations to get certain laws rescinded. I'm not talking about firing shots to wound or kill federal agents. Passive resistance, instead.

Of course, it could also be that acts of resistance -- passive resistance or otherwise -- will serve as excuses for the imposition of martial law.

PS: If no resistance is offered, will the feds continue to grab more land and bring "fundamental change" to America?

PPS: Philadelphia Artist James Dupree’s Studio Seized Via Eminent Domain To Make High-End Shopping Area. Yes, yes, I see the source of the article. But is the story TRUE?

Z said...

AOW, He should not. he has been breaking the law.
And, yes...I've said above that the laws MUST change and it'll probably take MANY cases like this before it does, sadly

Z said...

I'm wondering how long Americans will take before they realize this Obama bunch is brutal?
It goes against everything the peace/love/dove lib dopes believe in, I THOUGHT.

Remember GIBSON GUITARS? Coming in with rifles, flack jackets, etc......over WOOD? (was totally baseless, of course!)

I mean, this DoJ is BRUTAL....

I wish they'd use some of their thugs in NYC where the folks are now pretty defenseless because no cops can infiltrate and get to know muslims and get their trust to let the government know an attack is imminent.
Good job, NYC..DeBlasio, etc...what IDIOTS>
The ex POlice Chief says NOBODY EVER SPIED...it wasn't EVER that.
But....they're done!

Scary times....but let someone bring a wrong wood in (supposedly) and RIFLES ARE BLARING FROM THE FEDS!

Always On Watch said...

I'm wondering how long Americans will take before they realize this Obama bunch is brutal?

That's a good question.

Of course, many Americans don't know the stories that we know.

Have you noticed how the mainstream media have been avoiding the Bundy story.

I think there's a reason, and that reason has to do with the outrage that would ensue. All those acres owned by the federal government, SWAT teams (instead of the usual tax lien against the ranch), Harry Reid's involvement, and all the various scandals that we discuss every day in the blogosphere -- ignored entirely or glossed over.

News blackouts or the equivalent results in an ignorant population of sheeple.

Z said...

My GOSH, AOW...you are right!
They barely covered the Bundy story at ALL.
And, of course, you watch five minutes of CNN and they're back to the Malaysian jetliner; that's almost pathetic by now. I'll bet the newscasters want to kill the producers!

Always On Watch said...

CNN is a laughingstock because of the saturation coverage of the Malaysian jetliner. Breaking speculation 24/7!

It is quite interesting the way that the mainstream media have avoided coverage of the situation at the Bundy Ranch.

From this blogger:

Last, if anyone was on twitter as this incident grew and grew and grew and was hooked into some of the feeds, you can see the kind of impact this had even though the MSM except for Fox (only at the end) ignored it completely. The twitters were mostly NOT republicans, mostly were libertarians, but there were progressives worried what some right wing executive might take in their head to do next time(surround the Center for American Progress with DHS IED proof vehicles, and shut off all cell towers, jamming all HF, because they thought another Snowden was in there, or some equally noxious but no longer paranoid fantasy?)
And that of course, is the real import of what was going on in Nevada no matter what the cause.
The federal govt was uncoiling itself in all its power, and was seen to be ready to exert it against plain old people who thought they were doing right (right or wrong) ..rendering all those former kooks, and paranoid delusional extremists with their tri cornered hats suddenly to be objective realists.
Which, of course is PRECISELY why the major networks would not put this on TV as it developed. People might get an idea.

Read the entire essay at the above link.

Food for thought, IMO.

Z said...

AOW...yes, CNN is a joke by now.

I have had that very thought; why else would the networks not cover this? They did not cover the Gibson Guitar raids, either.

They don't want people to know what the Feds are capable of because it would wake America up.
Holder is so beyond the pale by now that it's getting those of us who are aware angry.
WHy the heck else would the government have bought so much ammo and why they're so eager to get guns out of our hands?

Always On Watch said...

FYI: Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch. Probably dead in the water, though.

Always On Watch said...