Cliven Bundy: deadbeat rancher or media hero?

[kimmy]

I agree that was a stupid thing to say and do. But in a way the tactic would work. The agents would more likely fire on men compared to women or children. It's not smart, I will agree with that. It's actually cowardice in action.

Buddy's tactical acumen isn't really the point. The main point is that they weren't just there to "protest".

-k

[GostHacked]

Buddy's tactical acumen isn't really the point. The main point is that they weren't just there to "protest".

-k

This kind of thing is going to be more common over the next while. When all legal means to combat the encroaching government fail, then these scenarios will arise. As it stands BLM (Federal) has more control over most of the land, and not Nevada itself. That's an issue.

[Michael Hardner]

When all legal means to combat the encroaching government fail, then these scenarios will arise. As it stands BLM (Federal) has more control over most of the land, and not Nevada itself. That's an issue.

Why is that an issue ?

When legal means to combat the encroaching government fail, it doesn't mean that the system has failed. If the people want more government, then they will ask for it. Over time, the people have asked for more, then less, then more.

Anybody picking up arms because they don't like it is just a criminal. I'm not moralizing here, I'm just stating definitions. Disenfranchisement is a sad thing, and needs to be dealt with - but people have to do their part to realize that their identities aren't a right. Your factory job, your language, even your constitutional rights are not natural but given to you through a complex and ancient set of social and legal negotiations.

If you decide to take up arms, you had better realize that you're now "all in" and it isn't likely to end well for you.

[guyser]

Your factory job, your language, even your constitutional rights are not natural but given to you through a complex and ancient set of social and legal negotiations.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

[Michael Hardner]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Good catch. But I think that rights are indeed alienable.

[bleeding heart]

Sure. the authors of those fine words were themselves not too concerned about irritants such as "universality of principle"....less so than most of us here today, in fact.

[cybercoma]

So protesting is now considered sedition? Authority must love you.

LMFAO! You're a real character, Shady. So this is protest? Perhaps Occupy Wall St. should have brought firearms, eh?

[bleeding heart]

Also--not that we're discussing a real Thinker here, mind you--anyone who has even the faintest of praise for slavery is not one opposed to "authority." By definition.

Further to the same point, there is a profound authoritarian strain in right-wing libertarian tendencies anyway, though they tend not to recognize it. That's because when they think of "bad power" they think "government"...unwilling or unable to follow the critique of power to its logical conclusions. Governmental abuses and overreach is an effect of Power, not the cause.

Edited April 30, 2014 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

This kind of thing is going to be more common over the next while. When all legal means to combat the encroaching government fail, then these scenarios will arise. As it stands BLM (Federal) has more control over most of the land, and not Nevada itself. That's an issue.

Let's be clear who is encroaching. It is Bundy, the freeloader. It's not his land. It was never his land. He's a squatter.

Why is it an issue that the lands are owned by the US federal government as opposed to Nevada? Here in Canada we also have vast quantities of Crown Land. People are free to use crown land, but not without limit. I can go shoot my rifles on crown land when I feel like, and I often do. I can't operate a business or build a home on crown land just because I feel like it. If I want to hunt or prospect for minerals or cut down timber or whatever on Crown Land, I have to make appropriate arrangements with the proper authorities. For over 20 years, Bundy has declined to honor the

In Canada, Crown Land is owned by the Queen and administered by the provinces. In the US, it's administered by the federal government. Big deal. What difference does it make to the Bundy fiasco?

I am not without sympathy for Bundy's original complaint. Personally, my dream is to someday own land up in the hills here in Kim County. If I achieve my dream, and then sometime later some native guy declares that his ancestor took a crap there 150 years ago and lays claim to my land, I'm going to be hella upset. I'll exhaust every legal means before I give up my home. But I won't attempt to raise an army against the government. Also, I will be pro-active, in making sure that the land I buy is land that there's actually legal title to, to make sure I have a leg to stand on in the courts. Bundy didn't. What's his leg to stand on?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....In Canada, Crown Land is owned by the Queen and administered by the provinces. In the US, it's administered by the federal government. Big deal. What difference does it make to the Bundy fiasco?

It's not that simple....the U.S. has several types of public and trust land, with some western states being granted admission to the union based on such arrangements. There are many federal and state actors to administer such lands, and they do so differently.

U.S. federally "owned" land...note Nevada:

Edited May 1, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

And?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

And?

-k

Bundy can't call his Monarch for help.

[kimmy]

I was wondering if you felt that your colorful chart contains any information that justifies Bundy's position.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The Bundy story goes back years and involves federal expansion to protect "endangered" species, state rights, and politicians on the make (like Hary Reid). I lived in Nevada for ten years and having a lot of the state designated as a bombing range, nuclear test/waste storage site, or secret alien flying saucer base doesn't sit well with a population that has grown considerably in the past 25 years.

Edited May 1, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

This kind of thing is going to be more common over the next while. When all legal means to combat the encroaching government fail, then these scenarios will arise. As it stands BLM (Federal) has more control over most of the land, and not Nevada itself. That's an issue.

The Federal Government "encroaching" on land it owns where the tenant doesn't comply with the lease terms?

[GostHacked]

The Federal Government "encroaching" on land it owns where the tenant doesn't comply with the lease terms?

That was not the case about 20 years ago. It was not federally controlled. BLM manages more land in Nevada than the people who run the state. That is a problem.

[Wayward Son]

That was not the case about 20 years ago. It was not federally controlled.

Source? The 1998 court case indicated that the land has been under Federal title since 1848.

[GostHacked]

Source? The 1998 court case indicated that the land has been under Federal title since 1848.

I would contest that, but I am not sure. However I will make a slight correction in saying that the BLM has only existed for about 20 years. And they are the ones overseeing all this land in Nevada.

[Wayward Son]

I would contest that, but I am not sure. However I will make a slight correction in saying that the BLM has only existed for about 20 years. And they are the ones overseeing all this land in Nevada.

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was created by Congress in 1946, by the merger of the General Land Office, the Grazing Service, and the O&C Revested Lands Administration." (scroll to page 7)

http://www.publicland.org/35_archives/documents/doc_1400_hist_record.pdf#page=7

Edited May 4, 2014 by Wayward Son

[jbg]

That was not the case about 20 years ago. It was not federally controlled. BLM manages more land in Nevada than the people who run the state. That is a problem.

BLM or its predescessors have owned that land from before Nevada's admission as a state.

[GostHacked]

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was created by Congress in 1946, by the merger of the General Land Office, the Grazing Service, and the O&C Revested Lands Administration." (scroll to page 7)

http://www.publicland.org/35_archives/documents/doc_1400_hist_record.pdf#page=7

My mistake, the conflict with BLM and Bundy started 20 years ago.

So why does the federal government control abut 85% of the land in Nevada? All that money ends up going to the federal level instead of the state level where the money should be staying.

Watch out over the next year as you will see a huge boom in fracking operations. That's my suspicion. I don't really think this is just about Bundy anymore.

[Wayward Son]

My mistake, the conflict with BLM and Bundy started 20 years ago.

So why does the federal government control abut 85% of the land in Nevada? All that money ends up going to the federal level instead of the state level where the money should be staying.

Watch out over the next year as you will see a huge boom in fracking operations. That's my suspicion. I don't really think this is just about Bundy anymore.

That seems like an issue for state and federal voters to sort out. Not a justification to ignore the laws that everyone else follows.

And this fracking boom that you feel will happen would not happen if the Federal government either sold the land off to the state or into private hands?

[GostHacked]

BLM or its predescessors have owned that land from before Nevada's admission as a state.

Not by much if that is the case. Nevada became part of the Union in 1864.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada.

And no BLM does not own the land I would think, the BLM oversees federally controlled land. And if it is public land, then I fail to see the reason of charging a fee to access land that taxpayers pay into already. Strange that the BLM has their own swat teams to deal with people like Bundy, yet turned tail and ran when they were met a larger group from the opposition. They caved in. BLM was outnumbered and outsmarted in a sense.

A tax here, a fee here, a fine there. All money making schemes from the federal government.

Now I do have a friend that actually went to the standoff and I am waiting to hear back from her after this weekend as she was heading to the Bundy ranch area again. The only thing that she kept stressing is that some of the oathkeeper leadership is corrupt and kept calling it a psy-op within a psy-op. I'll ask if I can record the conversation next time. I came away with more questions from the conversation.

But from what I gathered, stupid things were done on both sides. And if the Oathkeeper leadership is corrupt in some fashion (like the guy claiming to put women and children up front) are more dangerous to the situation than the BLM agents. No one was biting or itching for conflict with weapons.

[GostHacked]

That seems like an issue for state and federal voters to sort out. Not a justification to ignore the laws that everyone else follows.

Then the law needs to be changed. Nevada needs to assert it's authority over the land within it's borders.

And this fracking boom that you feel will happen would not happen if the Federal government either sold the land off to the state or into private hands?

Nevada should control the land in Nevada, not Washington DC.

If Bundy wanted to purchase the land from the BLM, would that be acceptable? Would they sell it to Bundy for grazing purposes or would they sell the land to fracking companies? Which makes more money? Because that is what it really comes down to.

[Wayward Son]

Then the law needs to be changed. Nevada needs to assert it's authority over the land within it's borders.

Nevada should control the land in Nevada, not Washington DC.

If Bundy wanted to purchase the land from the BLM, would that be acceptable? Would they sell it to Bundy for grazing purposes or would they sell the land to fracking companies? Which makes more money? Because that is what it really comes down to.

I leave such questions up to the voters, the legal system and the constitution. I don't pretend to presume that my combination of limited knowledge, and belief system as to who should control what in my own country, let alone a foreign one, trumps those things.

As to whether it would acceptable for Bundy to purchase the land...well a purchase requires a willing buyer, willing seller, a price that is agreed upon by both parties, and a legal framework that is followed. So I can't say what would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable. On a personal level, I would require all the fines and back payments to be paid first. Even still, I see no obligation to agree to sell what currently belongs to the American people, to a deadbeat who holds the laws of the country in contempt, and appears to me to be a complete a-hole.