Merged Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal

[Kestrel]

When did that happen? Before or after he was told to remove his cattle?

Cliven stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He was permanently banned from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment in 1998 and told to remove his cattle.

 

[halleyscomet]

It wasn't about the price or the fees originally. He paid the fees. When he stopped paying fees was when he was told to remove cattle.

Citation needed.

What has Bundy said to support your hypothesis?

Your argument seems to be that because you are incensed over holistic grazing that Bundy must be as well. Projection of your own angst is not evidence of the motivations of others.

 

[halleyscomet]

It is a strawman. I never said holistic management is related to it at all. In fact the exact opposite is what I said. It is BLMs LACK of providing Bundy with any options that would allow him to both graze and improve the habitat that is the problem. Holistic managed planned grazing or rest rotation grazing are just a couple options available that BLM DIDN'T offer Bundy.

You are dodging my question, not answering it. What evidence do you have that your pet grazing beliefs are relevant to Bundy's decision making process?

Why are you so invested in pretending this warlord-in-training shares your concerns in any way shape or form?

 

[Ladewig]

It wasn't about the price or the fees originally. He paid the fees. When he stopped paying fees was when he was told to remove cattle. Being told to reduce or remove his cattle was his "no-win situation". Giving him a no-win situation with no beneficial options for Bundy, then enforcing that decision with the full weight of the power of the government is what makes the BLM a bully. If they had given Bundy an option that Bundy could live with, and Bundy refused, then they could justify it without it being considered bullying. But so far no one has posted any evidence they did that. Also the BLM doesn't own that land. It is public land. BLM is to manage that land according to their mandate.

Could you again go over the part where having one's business placed in a no-win situation by the federal government justifies pointing firearms at federal employees?

 

[halleyscomet]

Could you again go over the part where having one's business placed in a no-win situation by the federal government justifies pointing firearms at federal employees?

Because BEEF!!!!!!

BEEF IS AT STEAK!!!!!!!

BEEEEEEEEFFFFF!!!!!!!!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Could you again go over the part where having one's business placed in a no-win situation by the federal government justifies pointing firearms at federal employees?

It doesn't justify it or make it right. What I said is that it is a common reaction that humans throughout history have displayed. In fact it is exceedingly rare that a non violent resistance is put up when faced with government bullying. I can only think of one. Gandhi and India. I am sure there are more though. I just can't think of any. But meeting force with force? That happens all the time everywhere. Part of human nature. Doesn't make it right. But you'd be very naive to think it is not part of the human condition.

 

[Alareth]

And now a few words from Cliven Bundy, Professor of History and Constitutional Law via Youtube.

...I'm free to tell the world what I think and I will. When we get to spiritual things, I have people ask me, "Well, how do you know the Constitution's an inspired document?"

How I know that is I know that those men that were on that committee that created the Constitution, they were God-fearing men and God-loving men and they did bow their head and get on their knees in the morning before they went to these sessions, and they did gain some inspiration. And when they went and created this document, that inspiration was included in these documents. That's how come it's an inspired document.

o where we are here today at this time is we're finding out that our government is become a central government. One similar to the one that our founding fathers fought at the revolutionary war. They're very similar.

We have a central government with unlimited power. A central government that wants to dictate to us and wants to start telling us what to think and how to live. What religion. And you know what religion we can't.

They become, our government is become just sort of the opposite what our founding fathers wanted they created three branches of government. Our executive… uh... uh, our legislature, and... our... adjudical. And they warned and warned that they didn't to be able want these three governments to be able to make these kinds of rules and regulations.

And when we get down to talking, like, with the BLM and the Forest Service and the Park Service and all of the bureaus that we seem to have to deal with, whether it's FBI or Homeland Security, I mean there's all kinds of 'em, and you find out that what they're doing is they're making they're own laws administrating their own laws and policing their own laws and judging their own laws and they have their own jails.

That's an absolutely not constitutional, any of those things, and that's what happening across America right now. And that's why someone like me sorta says no and not only says no, I say hell no, I'm not gonna live under that kind of government.

We go back over 400 years ago and our forefathers were pilgrims and they had come from other countries. And why would they risk their life, and you know, back then, transportation was in a sailboat. They figured wasn't very far out there, the ocean was flat out and would fall off, that was how much education, how much we knew about the ocean…

They did not have the free agency to exercise their conscience...

They had a central government which was Europe, with the strongest army in the world, and they ruled with unlimited power...

The individual is the power here. We didn't have the state government, we didn't have the national government, those things didn't exist, they had the thirteen colonies, but we the people formed a constitution. And so one thing we didn't want was a central government. We didn't want a big central government, we didn't want a big state government, we was even leery about having even a local government. So one thing we didn't create is a big central government. And that's sorta what we have now is a big central government. And we the people didn't create that.

All of our government problems can be solved by just following the Constitution of the United States. It's that great a document.

And not only that, all of the problems of this world, other countries, and their domestic and their religious and their government problems and their battles between each other and all of that, can be really solved by following our Constitution.

Our Constitution is based on ten things, and it's based on the Ten Commandments, most everything that was done in the Constitution follows that law, which would be our founding fathers' law, the Ten Commandments. And when we vary from that, then our Constitution becomes sort of worthless. And we as a nation have varied a long ways in our moral standards as far as upholding and sustaining not only the Ten Commandments but upholding and sustaining our Constitution.

ETA: He appears to be a student of the W. Cleon Skousen school of history

 

[BenBurch]

His cattle could even be the best thing that ever happened to the Tortoise and I would want them removed and him arrested because he is in violation of the law.

The whole thing about the impact of the cattle is a non-issue here, and is only being used as a red herring.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

His cattle could even be the best thing that ever happened to the Tortoise and I would want them removed and him arrested because he is in violation of the law.

The whole thing about the impact of the cattle is a non-issue here, and is only being used as a red herring.

What's your opinion on what to do when faced with a bad law? In the 1800's when a slave broke the law and fled North, and it was the law that anyone in the North, even if slavery was illegal there, could not offer refuge and had to return the slave or face jail time. What do you do? Enforce the law? Or fight a civil war to finish the issue once and for all? From the Southerners viewpoint at that time, they would say enforce the law and throw anyone who breaks the law and helps a slave in jail. Luckily often that didn't happen, but it certainly could happen. A person with your narrow POV would probably say the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, that it was about States' Rights. (a purely legal issue) I saw textbooks with that "States' Rights" argument in them when I was a child. I didn't believe it then, and I still don't. The root of the issue was slavery.

In much the same way you seem to be arguing it doesn't matter about the use of that land, Bundy broke the court order and that's that.

But the root of the issue is and always was about grazing cattle on public land and how that can be done in an ecologically sound manner. Without that root ecological issue, there would be no court order.

 

[Alareth]

But the root of the issue is and always was about grazing cattle on public land and how that can be done in an ecologically sound manner. Without that root ecological issue, there would be no court order.

No, it isn't and you are the only person that is incapable of seeing that.

Sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it's not because you are a misunderstood underdog, it's because you are simply wrong.

 

[Alareth]

The Bundy's have released a statement:

Bundy Family Statement

It has been several weeks since the BLM's special forces came into the valley with guns raised, barricading our lands, stealing and destroying our property, and terrorizing the community. Their original plan was to occupy the land for seven weeks.

They would still be in the valley today if the people did not stand and demand departure. We can only imagine what would have happen if they were allowed to remain.

In the six days they were present on the land, people from the community were threatened and interrogated for simply being on there public lands, others were beat to the ground, boot on head, hauled off while their families watched in desperation with guns to their faces.

Others were violently thrown to the pavement, gang tackled to the rocks, tasered, threatened by guard dogs, and ultimately hundreds of lives balanced on the triggers of the BLM's special army. The people took the right action by standing up to these trained mercenaries.

If allowed to remain for the seven planned weeks, lives most assuredly would have been taken and the freedom we enjoy on this land would have been forever lost.
The Bundy family has been approached many times by well known, highly effective lawyers from all over the country offering their services free of charge. This case, they say; "has the makings of greatness".

The crimes and civil rights violations committed by the BLM are a lawyers playground.

We have chosen not to engage in legal action up to this point for two reasons. First, is simply because we have not felt impressed to do so. We understand that as humans we are limited to knowledge and understanding. We believe that the creator of this world possesses all knowledge and understanding.

We also know that if we seek this knowledge he will share it with us. Until recently, legal action has shown no benefit to this cause. The second, is time based, the people expected Sheriff Gillespie and Governor Sandoval to take action.

We felt it was important to give them ample time to do what is right, time enough to start investigating the crimes that were committed upon their constituents. The primary purpose of both their positions is to protect the lives & liberties of the people they serve, and be a buffer against outside threats.

It is disheartening to see them betray and run with open arms to the very entities that mock the constitution and threatened the peoples lives. Our governor and sheriff should have been our heroes, but yet they remain corrupted.

It is first and foremost the responsibility of the PEOPLE of the State of Nevada and Clark County to correct Governor Sandoval and Sheriff Gillespie, they work for us, not the federal government.

With a sense of sadness and duty we announce that we are assembling a team of legal advisers and will be seeking the wisest action in assisting the PEOPLE in re-establishing individual protection through government.

Our action will not be for the benefit of person or family. Any action taken will be an effort to protect individual rights and to restore the principles of the Constitution. As always; we will continue to seek the Lord's guidance in these matters.

We need Your Help!
Call to Action: Two Fridays ago around 30 people went to the Sheriff precinct and filed CRIME REPORTS on the action of the BLM agents, many others since then have done the same. The Sheriffs has taken no action in investigating these crimes.

We need everyone to contact the County Commissioners and insist that they put pressure on the Sheriff to protect the people. This fight will be won by the people.

Your voice is the difference.

 

[12AX7]

His cattle could even be the best thing that ever happened to the Tortoise and I would want them removed and him arrested because he is in violation of the law.

The whole thing about the impact of the cattle is a non-issue here, and is only being used as a red herring.

Agree; especially the hilited part.

You're ignoring the fact that the dude hasn't paid the fees in 20 years.

What evidence do you have that holistic grazing has ANYTHING to do with his motivations?

Please note, speculation, wishing really hard and clicking your heels together are not evidence.

RBF, this.^^^^

 

[gabeygoat]

Hmmm, the Bundy family statement forgot to mention holistic grazing as an ecological option for the land that belongs to us and not them.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, it isn't and you are the only person that is incapable of seeing that.

Sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it's not because you are a misunderstood underdog, it's because you are simply wrong.

I don't see myself as a misunderstood underdog at all. I think that the majority of people reading the thread understand very well that the root issue is grazing rights on public land. I also think they understand the whole reason Bundy was ordered to remove cattle was an ecological reason. Far from a red herring, it actually is the only relevant issue to me.

I personally think that rather than me being the so called "misunderstood underdog" that actually many here do understand and are purposely obfuscating because they have no decent counter argument, so they prefer to argue the purely legal issue instead. (where their argument is much stronger)

Hmmm, the Bundy family statement forgot to mention holistic grazing as an ecological option for the land that belongs to us and not them.

I doubt that very much. Rather than forgetting, they likely hadn't even heard of it before. If they had, or if they had heard of rest rotation, or any similar system, they'd probably already be using it.

The one who "forgot" was the BLM.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with...

You realize that if that call to action fails to produce the desired results, the next step for the Bundys will be to call for . . . CITIZEN GRAND JURIES!!!!

 

[halleyscomet]

Hmmm, the Bundy family statement forgot to mention holistic grazing as an ecological option for the land that belongs to us and not them.

I'd like to point out that complaints about, and disagreements with, the fed land management program would be the perfect thing to include in a statement like that. It would, if it were something he cared about at any point, be another example of government overreach. If he even thought it sounded like a vaguely plausible talking point it would have been smart to include it.

No, the only explanation is that the holistic land management tall tale being spun in this thread is one he not only doesn't care about but a philosophical battle he doesn't even KNOW about.

 

[halleyscomet]

I don't see myself as a misunderstood underdog at all. I think that the majority of people reading the thread understand very well that the root issue is grazing rights on public land. I also think they understand the whole reason Bundy was ordered to remove cattle was an ecological reason. Far from a red herring, it actually is the only relevant issue to me.

No, it's because he didn't pay the buck a head fee for 20 years. Bundy himself has blasted your holistic land management theory to atoms. I don't know why you can't admit you were wrong and move on. Having been wrong isn't shameful. Anyone can be wrong. Refusing to accept reality and clinging to a debunked, shattered theory like the one you've been espousing is what's shameful.

 

[rustypouch]

What's your opinion on what to do when faced with a bad law? In the 1800's when a slave broke the law and fled North, and it was the law that anyone in the North, even if slavery was illegal there, could not offer refuge and had to return the slave or face jail time. What do you do? Enforce the law? Or fight a civil war to finish the issue once and for all? From the Southerners viewpoint at that time, they would say enforce the law and throw anyone who breaks the law and helps a slave in jail. Luckily often that didn't happen, but it certainly could happen. A person with your narrow POV would probably say the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, that it was about States' Rights. (a purely legal issue) I saw textbooks with that "States' Rights" argument in them when I was a child. I didn't believe it then, and I still don't. The root of the issue was slavery.

In much the same way you seem to be arguing it doesn't matter about the use of that land, Bundy broke the court order and that's that.

But the root of the issue is and always was about grazing cattle on public land and how that can be done in an ecologically sound manner. Without that root ecological issue, there would be no court order.

Of course. Expecting a renter to pay the landowner for the use of the land is tantamount to slavery.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could you again go over the part where having one's business placed in a no-win situation by the federal government justifies pointing firearms at federal employees?

More people need to try that when OSHA shows up.

 

[halleyscomet]

Of course. Expecting a renter to pay the landowner for the use of the land is tantamount to slavery.

Well, it is if random hippies on the internet thing the landlord is being a poppie-head about how they're using the land. That's how it works, right? If you're renting and the apartment manager plants flowers you think will attract aphids, you can stop paying rent but keep living there until the plants are removed, right? Right?