Armed Fed Agents and Snipers in Nevada Battle with Local Rancher

reply to post by Caver78

I missed it, dang.

It'll be uploaded to I tunes an maybe somewhere else as well? Very good interviews, and information from some of the people who were there.

reply to post by Caver78


Our illustrious Senator responds to the "Bundy matter".
Reid on Bundy: This ain't over

Glenn Beck on Bundy.
Interview and commentary.

reply to post by rockflier


Thanks for both of those! I was tired last night, the interview was Mel Bundy & his wife after giving her thoughts. Neither of them were over the top, just factual and informative. I found it interesting the family did not support bad behavior perpetrated by some of the protesters. If fact they had been asked by Cliven Bundy not to comport themselves in that manner on his property.

This whole thing is going to unravel in nine kinds of weird ways as more information comes out about the real motives behind what we're just seeing the tip of. It's easy to make immediate judgements but I'd rather wait for the other shoe to drop.

rockflier
reply to post by Caver78

 

Our illustrious Senator responds to the "Bundy matter".
Reid on Bundy: This ain't over

edit on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:56:46 -050020142014-04-15T14:56:46-05:00kfTuesday56America/ChicagoTue, 15 Apr 2014 14:56:46 -0500 by rockflier because: Edited link

I assure you the Bundy crime syndicate would not surrender the cattle to Nevada authorities. A bodily orifice by any other name is a bodily orifice.

Foe the good of the nation, the Bundy crime syndicate needs to be terminated by all means necessary. Now that we know the Bundy family is a posse of jack booted thugs with outside supporters, the feds need to disarm the outside forces. Create a perimeter and tear gas them if needed. We need to limit bodily harm to the actual Bundy family members.

reply to post by gariac


Reid is the thug here. You are obviously not an American. Americans don't want violent government aggression towards its own people. The fed's totally blew this whole operation, that's because some of them have become a corrupt and trigger happy Gestapo. Go back under the communist rock you crawled out from.

reply to post by gariac


Good to see you back, Geriac. I asked a couple of questions of you yesterday.
1. The Bundy crime syndicate? Is that in reference to him being LDS?
2. Do you condone the use of deadly force in this situation?

What I find most disturbing about this whole thing is the decision to devote so much money and manpower against Bundy. At the same time TPTB choose to NOT enforce the laws regarding illegal border crossings on the southern border.

I do not think that 1 rancher poses near the danger that the more than 7,500 apprehended at the border from terrorist sponsored or suspect nations.

There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S.-Mexican border under control. That equals the number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations that federal officials label "state sponsors of terrorism" plus 10 "countries of interest.

Southern Border Welcomes Terrorists

This is the number of APPREHENSIONS. One wonders how many were not apprehended. Innocent or guilty, Bundy does not warrant the heavy handed response he received while we do very little on the southern border. POTUS chooses to ignore the southern threat and let his minions concentrate on 1 rancher. Justice?

rockflier
reply to post by gariac

 

Good to see you back, Geriac. I asked a couple of questions of you yesterday.
1. The Bundy crime syndicate? Is that in reference to him being LDS?
2. Do you condone the use of deadly force in this situation?

1) My reference has nothing to do with LDS. I used to live in SLC and don't have a problem with LDS. I have a problem with armed thugs on my land.
2) They can try non-lethal force, but hey, it somebody shoots at the feds, they will shoot back. I don't have an issue with that because I don't intend to participate in an armed insurrection against the US government. I am a patriot.

rockflier
What I find most disturbing about this whole thing is the decision to devote so much money and manpower against Bundy. At the same time TPTB choose to NOT enforce the laws regarding illegal border crossings on the southern border.

I do not think that 1 rancher poses near the danger that the more than 7,500 apprehended at the border from terrorist sponsored or suspect nations.

There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S.-Mexican border under control. That equals the number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations that federal officials label "state sponsors of terrorism" plus 10 "countries of interest.

Southern Border Welcomes Terrorists

This is the number of APPREHENSIONS. One wonders how many were not apprehended. Innocent or guilty, Bundy does not warrant the heavy handed response he received while we do very little on the southern border. POTUS chooses to ignore the southern threat and let his minions concentrate on 1 rancher. Justice?

Except that is a lie. Remember, newsmax is on par with beforeitisnew. Deportations are up. The border is more secure than ever, though not secure enough in my opinion.

The Bundy crime syndicate needs to be eliminated. Federal prison will do. Put them in a federal pen with Al Qaeda terrorists because they are just as deadly.

Deportations under Obama

SPLC on the Bundy crime syndicate

govmule
reply to post by gariac

 

Reid is the thug here. You are obviously not an American. Americans don't want violent government aggression towards its own people. The fed's totally blew this whole operation, that's because some of them have become a corrupt and trigger happy Gestapo. Go back under the communist rock you crawled out from.

Thanks for your kind words.

So those fees came from that crazy radical Ronald Reagan...

Reagan Executive Order

Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees February 14, 1986 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) ``Public rangelands'' has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 - 514);

(b) ``Forage Value Index'' means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

(c) ``Beef Cattle Price Index'' means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) ``Prices Paid Index'' means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0);

3. Autos and Trucks (4.5);

4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5);

5. Other Machinery (12.0);

6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5);

7. Interest (6.0);

8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0);

9. Farm Services (18.0). Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect. Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

Ronald Reagan The White House, February 14, 1986. [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., February 18, 1986]

From the Nevada constitution:

That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

Nevada constitution

Hence the land is legally owned by the federal government.

Not that this has anything to do with Bundy, but illustrates the new pushes by the BLM in land acquisition and thuggery.

BLM wants to seize 90,000 acres of Texas rancher's land

Since the Bundy clan seem to have such wide spread support, and they keep making claims that they have a legal right to graze the Gold Butte area, have any lawyers stepped up to take their case?

reply to post by gariac

It is good to hear that you do not condone deadly force, unless it is returning fire of course. I guess we will agree to disagree regarding this matter and the importance of it. Similar actions are being conducted in New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas. Good friends used to graze in the Yellowstone area until wolves were reintroduced into that area. Now, because of calf and heifer losses to wolves, they have not renewed leases.
I believe the facts regarding deportations are a bit skewed. Perhaps the L.A. Times meets your criteria for being trustworthy?

High Deportation fugures are misleading

reply to post by rockflier


I rather stick to grazing. Illegal immigrants is another topic. My opinion is if you crossed the border by whatever means, which includes over-staying a tourist visa, you need to be deported.

Regarding grazing, you take your chances with predators. If you don't like it, find a new occupation.

There is nothing "natural" about cattle grazing in the US. The cattle were brought here from Europe. Where appropriate, grazing is useful in controlling grass growth. Some counties in California have cattle grazing in their parks. It is managed grazing. The ranchers pay fees. The parks where there is no grazing, Marin County for instance, have a high fuel content and have had significant fires over the years.

The problem with Nevada grazing is the desert can't support much of it. The BLM, being very pro-rancher, allows this activity due to political pressure. Hence the horse round-ups. Of course the horses and burros are not native either.

Desert brush is such a poor source of fuel that most desert fires are not even treated. They may be observed, but the plan is to let them burn out naturally.

Desert grazing has lead to the creation of WSAs. Nothing mechanized can enter a WSAS, so keeping out the ranchers also keep me from driving an off road vehicle into these areas. So I have my own selfish reasons to not like desert grazing.

CLIVEN BUNDY: Listen, do you think they really have taken it over? I don’t think so. Now they might have took over our Clark County sheriff, but they never took over we, the people, the sovereign people of this nation. We’re standing. And we’re going to stand until we take the guns away from those bureaucracies, and then we’ll start making America great one more time.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, can you talk about Cliven Bundy and the wider significance of this standoff in Nevada?

MARK POTOK: Yeah. It was an incredible moment. I mean, look, the bottom line, first of all, is that Cliven Bundy is stealing from the government. He is stealing from you and me. This is a guy who simply refuses to pay over a million dollar in grazing fees that every other person who grazes cattle on public lands in this country must pay. So, you know, that’s the context. It’s hardly about defending the Constitution or anything like that. It is true that hundreds and hundreds of militiamen and others, members of the very groups you referenced at the very top of the show, have flocked to Bundy’s ranch. I have seen really terrifying pictures, photographs of some of these militia types sitting on a highway overpass with their sniper weapons trained on law enforcement officials. Really, it was a terrifying situation. We had a reporter out there. It seemed obvious that at any moment we could have seen gunfire and, really, blood in the desert. You know, this is the latest iteration, really, of the kinds of conflicts that we’ve seen perenially over the last 15, 20 years with the militia movement—the idea that somehow the government has no right to, you know, impose any kind of law on people, particularly in the West, where there is so much resentment directed at Washington.

Democracy Now


There you have it. The Bundy Crime Syndicate wants to disarm the government. They are anarchists.

reply to post by gariac


Agreed, border control is not in context here.

I come from a family of ranchers/farmers, so I am VERY cognizant of grazing and feeding of cattle. I return to the premise, though, that our tax dollars would be better spent on more serious issues, rather than spending, at last estimate, over $3 Million on this rancher. Those expenditures include "contract" employees (read Blackwater) to insure safety.

On the issue of the Nevada State Constitution, I agree with what you said BUT have issues when the U.S. Constitution is ignored or misinterpreted by precisely those who are "upholding" state guidelines. TPTB choose to pick and choose which laws and which Constitutional Amendments to enforce and/or ignore. I can certainly understand the restlessness of some, I am restless with the ignoring of laws, creation of laws by circumventing the Constitutional process, and amendment of laws by executive fiat.

It is my personal belief that the Bundy Fiasco is merely an excuse for some to bring the aforementioned issues to the forefront. As you said, you have personal reasons for wanting the BLM fiat enforced. Likewise, I have personal reasons for wanting the BLM powers challenged. Friends and family are suffering from BLM heavy handed and capricious interpretations of agreements in Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Bundy is merely the preeminent example of the day. Nonetheless, cooler heads must prevail here or the consequences could be VERY destructive to all concerned.

I do have to tip my hat to Sheriff Gillespie in brokering a non violent resolution this last weekend. This, by all means, is not the last of the issue unfortunately. I fear that there will be bloodshed administered by both sides of the fence. The "contract" employees are, by nature, trigger happy as are opposing "forces".

To add fuel to the fire, the BLM "cowboys" shot 2 prize bulls and destroyed facilities of Bundy's. Nowhere in the judicial orders was any of this permitted.

Bundy's friends say the BLM wranglers told them the bulls were shot because they were dangerous and could gore their horses. One bull was shot five times.

Feds accused of leaving trail of wreckage