And what the heck is up with the 'no first amendment rights zone'?
Supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy violated a “First Amendment Area” by staging a rally in support of Bundy, who earlier declared a “range war” against federal authorities in response to a land dispute that threatens to escalate into a Waco-style standoff.
Bundy is currently embroiled in a spat with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over his long standing refusal to acknowledge a 1993 modification to grazing rights on land that Bundy asserts has been in his family since 1870. On Saturday, hundreds of federal officials, aided by helicopters, low flying aircraft and hired cowboys, began rounding up Bundy’s cattle in northeastern Clark County. The feds say the move is about enforcing the law and protecting the endangered desert tortoise, but the Bundy family says the spat represents a showdown between big government and American farmers. “We’ve had enough, we’re going to take our land back, we’re done,” said Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy, adding that the rally was held “to show that we are not standing alone. People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power.” More than 100 supporters violated a crudely taped off “First Amendment Area” to rally in support of the Bundy family, erecting two flagpoles with the words “We the People” attached, above a flag which read, “Liberty Freedom For God We Stand”. The first amendment area stood empty, with one sign nearby declaring, “1st Amendment is not an area.” “I grew up on this ranch. This is what we knew,” said Margaret Houston, Cliven Bundy’s younger sister. “It’s got nothing to do with the cattle and the tortoises. It’s about taking our rights — power — and it’s wrong.” “Right now it looks like the movie Red Dawn, said, Ryan Bundy. “Right now we’ve got 200 plus federal agents up there in a military compound that they have put together and they’ve got snipers….everybody’s armed, and they’ve been monitoring our ranch with high-tech surveillance equipment….it was never about the grazing fees, it’s about control.” Ranch manager Derrel Spencer warned that a “revolution” was brewing unless a solution could be found to settle the dispute. As we reported yesterday in an article that has already garnered over 4300 comments, Bundy’s son Dave Bundy was arrested on Sunday by BLM officials after refusing to follow a dispersal order as he filmed cattle from a state highway. According to Dave’s brother Ryan Bundy, snipers had guns trained on them throughout the incident. Feds claimed Dave Bundy had violated the ludicrous “First Amendment Area,” outside of which free speech is banned. The Bundy family posted still images of snipers who trained guns on them in the video below.
After his son’s arrest, Cliven Bundy posted a statement on his website which read, “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.” The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department asserts that the actions against Bundy are a “federal operation,” while the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association told ABC News, “This has gotten way out of hand,” while refusing to become involved.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've been trying to follow the facts of this story. It sure sounds like a mishandled abuse of power, land grab gone wrong and the attempted government buttfucking of a private citizen rancher.
Seems to be a story developing beyond the Bureau of Land Management that revolves around the land grab, renewable energy, Chinese investors and conflicts of interest by elected officials.
Apparently the standoff is over for the time being, now let's see what develops with the inappropriate actions and abuse of power by government officials.
kuthoer wrote:This guy needs to pay his grazing fee like everyone else does. The guy is a freeloader.
The problem the guy has is that the land in question was originally his land and had been his family's land since the 1800s. The BLM tried to buy the land off of him and he refused so they came back with an excuse about this endangered tortoise to have legal ability to seize the land. Mr. Bundy was not amused.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
kuthoer wrote:This guy needs to pay his grazing fee like everyone else does. The guy is a freeloader.
The problem the guy has is that the land in question was originally his land and had been his family's land since the 1800s. The BLM tried to buy the land off of him and he refused so they came back with an excuse about this endangered tortoise to have legal ability to seize the land. Mr. Bundy was not amused.
How do you know the tortoise issue was just an excuse?
kuthoer wrote:This guy needs to pay his grazing fee like everyone else does. The guy is a freeloader.
The problem the guy has is that the land in question was originally his land and had been his family's land since the 1800s. The BLM tried to buy the land off of him and he refused so they came back with an excuse about this endangered tortoise to have legal ability to seize the land. Mr. Bundy was not amused.
He's grazing his cattle on Federal Lands aka taxpayer's public lands. Ever been out west? I have and they have to abide to Federal laws. This State right bullsh!t is just a way off freeloading off the taxpayer's dime.
To steal a line from someone I know: using wire cutters to "steal" animals from the government is terrorism. Using assault weapons to "steal" animals from the government is heroism.
Conclusion: If you want to "steal" animals, convince the public that you want to sell them, not help them.
Metsfanmax wrote:To steal a line from someone I know: using wire cutters to "steal" animals from the government is terrorism. Using assault weapons to "steal" animals from the government is heroism.
Conclusion: If you want to "steal" animals, convince the public that you want to sell them, not help them.
I'm sorry, but I must be having a acid flashback. Not understanding your post.
What would those great Republicans from history,Lincoln and T Roosevelt do? Squash this guy like a bug. Lincoln was not a states rights guy And T.R. had no problems going after a business if it threaten the federal government.
Metsfanmax wrote:To steal a line from someone I know: using wire cutters to "steal" animals from the government is terrorism. Using assault weapons to "steal" animals from the government is heroism.
Conclusion: If you want to "steal" animals, convince the public that you want to sell them, not help them.
I'm sorry, but I must be having a acid flashback. Not understanding your post.
I am referring to animal liberation groups that have illegally trespassed to free non-human animals from government labs, etc.
There is something I don't understand about the US. I believe the US is a republic now composed of 50 independent states. During the US civil war, some states wanted to secede from that union. Why did the federal government not simply let them go? If they wanted to leave the union, they should have been allowed to provided a democratic vote of the people was held and secession was passed by a majority of eligible voters within those states. Yet the opposite happened.
notyou2 wrote:There is something I don't understand about the US. I believe the US is a republic now composed of 50 independent states. During the US civil war, some states wanted to secede from that union. Why did the federal government not simply let them go? If they wanted to leave the union, they should have been allowed to provided a democratic vote of the people was held and secession was passed by a majority of eligible voters within those states. Yet the opposite happened.
It's... Complicated.
But in the end, the U.S. didnt fire the first shot in the Civil War. Lincoln wanted the high moral ground, so he waited until the Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter before he officially got a declaration of war. Everything after that was pretty much the natural conclusion.
The original model for the U.S. government was to be a confederacy. basically a country where state rights trumped national rights but it didn't take long to figure out that that presented significant problems (particularly in currency exchange and other issues that cross state lines). So the U.S. instead became a federation. Anyways, they decided that the Central government would create a set of rules that were to be upheld by all states and trump any state laws while any laws that were not specifically handed down by the federal government were decided by each individual state. At the time of the Civil War, there were a few major issues. Most of them in some way or another involved state rights vs federal rule. One of them centered around the abolitionist movement and in particular, the South would get upset about Northern states who would shelter escaped slaves. Another was the South being upset by the heavy tariffs set on foreign trade which they felt forced them to sell their goods to Northern states cheap and have to pay high rates to buy back.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
