FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Nev. Homeowners near Bundy terrorized by militias
Goto page 1, 2  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The Bundy crisis in Nevada
04/14/14 05:11 PM—UPDATED 04/14/14 06:55 PM
facebook twitter like save share group discuss
By Steve Benen
The Maddow Blog

It’s not uncommon for conservative media to put a very different spin on current events than major news organizations. For example, news consumers who surround themselves with nothing but conservative media might believe right now that the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral, the IRS “scandal” is heating up; the nation is facing a debt crisis; the Benghazi conspiracy will soon rock the White House; etc.

But once in a while, conservative media doesn’t just put a unique spin on the news, it also identifies stories that exist largely below the radar. Over the last week, for example, far-right news consumers have been captivated with coverage of Cliven Bundy, while for much of the American mainstream, that name probably doesn’t even sound familiar.

If you don’t know the story, it’s time to get up to speed.
U.S. officials ended a stand-off with hundreds of armed protesters in the Nevada desert on Saturday, calling off the government’s roundup of cattle it said were illegally grazing on federal land and giving about 300 animals back to the rancher who owned them.

The dispute less than 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas between rancher Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had simmered for days. Bundy had stopped paying fees for grazing his cattle on the government land and officials said he had ignored court orders.

Anti-government groups, right-wing politicians and gun-rights activists camped around Bundy’s ranch to support him.
By any fair definition, this was an intense standoff with a very real possibility of significant casualties.

But to understand how and why the crisis unfolded as it did over the weekend, we have to start with how it started in the first place.

Ian Millhiser did a nice job summarizing the backstory.
This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order.

Last October, the federal government returned to court and obtained a new order, providing that “Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.” A third federal court order issued the same year explains that Bundy did not simply refuse to stop trespassing on federal lands – he actually expanded the range of his trespassing. According to the third order, “Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.” The third order also authorizes the federal government to “impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass.”
So, on the one hand we have Bundy, who’s said, “I don’t recognize [the] United States government as even existing.” It led him to repeatedly ignore federal law, repeatedly blow federal court rulings, and refuse to pay federal fines for his transgressions. On the other hand we have the United States government – which does, in fact, exist – showing considerable restraint in trying to resolve the problem.

All of this started to come to a head last week, with federal officials going to the area late last week to enforce the law and seize the cattle Bundy has been illegally grazing. Except this proved to be problematic – Bundy’s heavily-armed allies, egged on by conservative media, showed up from a variety of Western states to confront U.S. officials.

Facing the very real possibility that the anti-government forces might open fire, U.S. officials backed off in the interest of maintaining public safety.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” U.S. Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze, said in a statement.

Bundy’s cattle, which had been rounded up, were released. The Bundy supporters and assorted militia members were pleased, the crowds dispersed, and no one was shot.

But you probably see the problem: it’s unsustainable to think a group of well-armed extremists can simply block the enforcement of American laws in the United States. It’s perfectly understandable that the Bureau of Land Management saw a crisis unfolding and pulled back to prevent bloodshed, but there’s an obvious problem with establishing a radical precedent: you, too, can ignore the law and disregard court rulings you don’t like, just so long as you have well-armed friends pointing guns at Americans.

To put it mildly, that’s not how the American system works. Indeed, that’s not how any system of government can ever work.

Tensions eased over the weekend, but it seems likely that this story isn’t over yet.


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 am; edited 4 times in total
Post Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:46 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

TH ATLANTIC
Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand
By Matt Ford


The Irony of Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand
The Nevada rancher isn't just resisting the Bureau of Land Management—he's also fighting against his state's unusual constitutional history.
MATT FORDAPR 14 2014, 1:00 PM ET



Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees.

Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.

But after footage of a BLM agent using a stun gun on Bundy's adult son went viral in far-right circles, hundreds of armed militia supporters from neighboring states flocked to Bundy's ranch to defend him from the BLM agents enforcing the court order. The states'-rights groups, in echoes of Ruby Ridge and Waco, came armed and prepared for violence. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," one of the anti-government activists told Reuters. Not eager to spill blood over cattle, the BLM backed down Sunday and started returning the livestock it had confiscated. The agency says it won't drop the matter and will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."

Federalism—genuine states' rights—is perhaps more familiar to Nevadans than to any other state's denizens. To boost the state's ailing economy in the early 20th century, Nevada exploited the federal architecture of American law to create uniquely permissive laws on divorce, gambling, and prostitution, bringing in much-needed tourism revenue and giving the state a distinctive libertarian character. Just this weekend, the state Republican Party dropped statements opposing abortion and same-sex marriage from its platform at their convention, bucking the party's national stance.

But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):

Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want.
Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy told his supporters, according to The Guardian.

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.

Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today don't share Nevada's explicit openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.
Nevada isn't the only state with a paramount-allegiance clause. Republicans added similar clauses to Reconstruction-era state constitutions throughout the South, although few survived subsequent revisions after federal troops departed. Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today, like North Carolina and Mississippi, don't share Nevada's explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.

That pro-federal sentiment also guided Nevada's first congressional delegation when it arrived in the nation's capital in early 1865. William Stewart, the Silver State's first senator, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December 1865 that would've enshrined a weaker form of the paramount allegiance clause at the federal level:

First—The Union of the States, under this constitution, is indissoluble, and no State can absolve its citizens from the obligation of paramount allegiance to the United States.

Second—No engagement made, or obligation incurred by any State, or by any number of States, or by any county, city, or any other municipal corporation to subvert, impair, or resist the authority of the United States, or to support or aid any legislative convention or body in hostility to such authority, shall ever be held, voted, or be assumed or sustained, in whole or part, by any State or by the United States.
This proposed amendment—which would have resolved secession's constitutionality for all time—did not succeed. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that secession had been unconstitutional and that "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states." Stewart nevertheless left his mark on the Constitution the same year as White, when he wrote what would become the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing black suffrage.

Two decades after Nevada's founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy's family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It's doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:51 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

WILDLIFE NEWS



Right wing disinformation: Bundy’s Land Is NOT Solar Farm for Harry Reid
by RALPH MAUGHAN on APRIL 13, 2014 · 68 COMMENTS · in B.L.M., CATTLE, GRAZING AND LIVESTOCK, NEVADA, POLITICS
Right wing seizes on Bundy trespass to go after Harry Reid-

When a local issue goes national, it is often warped into other political agendas. We see that clearly with Cliven Bundy’s 20 years of public land cattle trespass coming to a head.

A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada’s senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy’s land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son. Since Reid is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the radical right has every incentive to harm him by making this false claim. Such a blatant lie needs to be exposed.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy’s actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

The Wildlife News has been critical of many solar farms in the desert because of the massive destruction of wildlife habitat, but this farm under construction is not one of the dangerous mirror farms like Ivanpah near Primm, Nevada/California. It is a photovoltaic farm and it is being built to allow decommissioning of the Reid Gardner coal generation station nearby. Reid Gardner is one of the dirtiest coal plants in the nation. In addition, the new solar plant will also help the tribe which has been badly abused in the past, being left with only a 1000 acre reservation. No, the plant is not on the reservation. See the local newspaper: Reid Helps Moapa Band Break Ground On Solar Project. Moapa Valley Progress. March 26, 2014.

It is amazing that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones would actually publish a map showing the location of the project. Anyone with the least geographic information can see it is not on the land where Bundy has been stealing the public’s grass for a generation.

There is also a solar farm proposal near Laughlin, Nevada, at the very southern tip of the state. Some of the right wing news outlets also confuses this with the trespass land near Mesquite. Here is an earlier story about the Laughlin project. The Chinese Try to Harness the Nevada Sun. Regarding this plant, back on April 5, Bloomberg Businessweek tried to work a negative Chinese angle. Now it too has been morphed onto the public land where Bundy has no right to graze and where he has threatened violence if not allowed to continue his illegal activity.

The only thing that has been proposed for the public land where Bundy’s cows continue to trespass is some kind of protective classification like a scenic area, recreation area, national monument.

The right wing media is using the unfortunate ignorance of Nevada geography to make the attack by the armed mob on the BLM into a political point against Senator Reid. Though it is doubtful Bundy knew what would happen, his cause has already been picked up by the Koch Brothers who really do want our public land — all of it. Their Americans for Prosperity front group is trumpeting Bundy’s cause. The animosity between Senator Reid and the Koch brothers is well known. The Kochs have already spent perhaps 50-million dollars in attack ads trying to win a Republican senate majority this fall. Some Republicans worry these energy and chemical barons are trying to build a parallel political party.

Together the Kochs have 100-billion dollars to play with, the 5th and 6th richest men on the planet. They can now spend as much as they want on American elections, courtesy of the Supreme Court. They can, and probably will spend more in 2014 than was spent in the entire 2012 campaign. They could fund it many times over.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:00 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

THINK PROGRESS

Three Ways That Nevada Rancher And His Right-Wing Militia Supporters Could Wind Up Behind Bars
BY IAN MILLHISER ON APRIL 14, 2014 AT 9:00 AM

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy speaks like a man from another century. In an interview with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Bundy claims that “this is a sovereign state of Nevada.” Though he swears that he will “abide by all of Nevada state laws,” he adds that “I don’t recognize [the] United States Government as even existing.”
Last week, that idiosyncratic belief nearly triggered a violent conflict with federal officials. For two decades, those officials have tried and failed to keep Bundy from illegally grazing his cattle on federal land. They’ve obtained three court orders — one of them as long ago as 1998 — requiring Bundy to remove his cattle from federal land. The more recent orders, both from 2013, gave Bundy 45 days to comply or else “the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass.” Bundy did not comply, and government-hired wranglers began rounding up Bundy’s livestock last Saturday.
Egged on by media figures like Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Tea Party groups like the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, Bundy quickly became a conservative celebrity — including among right-wing fringe groups. By Wednesday, right-wing militia members began to arrive in Nevada to “provide armed response” to federal officials seeking to enforce the court order.
As the potential for violence escalated, the feds decided to back down. This Saturday, the Bureau of Land Management stopped rounding up Bundy’s cattle and returned hundreds of animals they had already rounded up to the open range. “Due to escalating tensions,” the BLM explained in a statement, “the cattle have been released from the enclosures in order to avoid violence and help restore order.”
Given Bundy’s rather unusual understanding of the law (at one point, he demanded that the local sheriff disarm all National Park Service employees and bring their firearms to him), the presence of his armed supporters, and the willingness of major conservative outlets to serve as his public relations agents, BLM’s decision to avoid a violent conflict is understandable. Nevertheless, there is an obvious danger to allowing Bundy to get away with two decades of illegal action merely because he was able to muster armed supporters to his cause. If Bundy escapes from this incident without consequence, that sends a pretty clear message that federal law is optional so long as you have enough people with guns backing you up.
Here are three ways that the federal government might ensure that Bundy and at least some of his armed supporters are brought to justice:

1) Contempt of Court:

The normal sanction when a person subject to a court order refuses to comply with it is contempt of court. Contempt, according to a manual provided to federal prosecutors, is “an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch of the government, or an interference with its orderly process.” By law, federal courts may “punish by fine or imprisonment, or both” when someone engages in “[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
As a general rule, courts must “exercise the least possible power to obtain the desired result,” meaning that a federal judge should not issue a sweeping contempt sanction when lesser sanction will suffice to ensure that the person subject to contempt proceedings complies with the court’s order. Nevertheless, the fact that Bundy was willing to defy a court order for 20 years — and that he could rally supporters willing to put up armed resistance to federal law enforcement to his cause — suggests that he would simply ignore any fines that a court imposed on him. A judge may decide that the best way to convince Bundy that the federal government exists is to jail him until he agrees to comply with the court’s order.

2) Criminal Charges for Threats To Federal Officers

Federal law provides that anyone who “threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge [or] a Federal law enforcement officer . . . with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties” may be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years (although a threat to assault carries a maximum sentence of only 6 years). So, if Bundy or his supporters threatened federal officials or law enforcement officers who were enforcing the court order against him, they could have committed a serious crime.
There is one big caveat to this approach, however. Although the First Amendment permits some laws banning threatening language, under the “True Threat” Doctrine, these bans are only permitted when they target “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Moreover, at least one older Supreme Court case suggests that threatening language is not a “true threat” when it is made using conditional language. Thus, for example, if Bundy said something like “if you Feds don’t get off this land in two days, I will kill every last one of you,” that may not constitute a true threat because he placed a condition on what the federal officials would have to do before he killed them.
Among legal scholars, the current state of the True Threat Doctrine is widely viewed as incoherent, so there is some uncertainty about which kinds of threatening statements could form the basis of a prosecution against Bundy and his supporters.

3) Criminal Charges Against Militia Members Who Brought Guns To Nevada

Another federal law provides that “[w]hoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder” may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. This statute could potentially form the basis for criminal charges against some of the militia members who traveled to Nevada with their guns in order to support Bundy. In order to convict someone charged under this law, federal prosecutors would need to prove that the militia member transported their gun with reason to know that it would be used “unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder,” so this statute could not be used against someone who had no reason to suspect that they were traveling towards anything other than a peaceful protest. A civil disorder is defined as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.”
At least some of Bundy’s supporters made statements to the press suggesting that they fully intended to use their weapons to further such a disorder. One militia member, for example, said that he was at the ranch to provide “armed response,” adding that “[w]e need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.” Similarly, a message purporting to be from one militia organization that was published on several right-wing websites announced that “[w]e have made the decision to mobilize to Nevada” and concluded with a fairly explicit statement suggesting that the purpose of this mobilization was to spark a deadly conflict: “All men are mortal, most pass simply because it is their time, a few however are blessed with the opportunity to chose their time in performance of duty.”
Tags: GunsMilitias
Close
Like ThinkProgress on Facebook
Post Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:11 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
twotap
F L I N T O I D

So tell us just what will the feds do with all that grass if Bundys cattle cant graze it?? Nice attempt to cover and isn't it convenient the feds pulled out the minute the connection to Reid was exposed. Rolling Eyes

_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:17 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

I suppose you wanted another Ruby Ridge?
Post Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:11 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Allies Of Lawless Rancher Planned To Put Women ‘Up At The Front’ If Showdown With Feds Turned Violent
BY NICOLE FLATOW ON APRIL 15, 2014 AT 10:09 AM

Former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack talks to Fox News Monday about plans for a militia uprising against federal officials
CREDIT: SCREENSHOT FROM FOX NEWS

An uprising of militia members who were planning an “armed response” to federal enforcement of trespassing law ended peacefully Saturday after the Bureau of Land Management stopped rounding up cattle that a federal judge found have been illegally grazed on federal land for years.

But some allies of rancher Cliven Bundy were prepared to make as much of a media spectacle as possible if violence were to erupt, saying they would put women on the front lines in the event federal officials turned to deadly force. Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Monday, as reported by the Blaze:

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.

Mack, a self-professed Tea Partier, is one of a host of right-wing figures who stood behind Bundy and made him a conservative celebrity after he refused to pay grazing fees based on his claim that the federal government is not entitled to own land.

Mack served as sheriff for Graham County between 1988 and 1997, and is part of a group known as the “Oath Keepers” that denies the supremacy of federal law and has been deemed part of a wave of new militia groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the federal government that challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Court orders going back to 1998 have required Bundy to pay fees to graze his livestock on federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment. After Bundy refused to obey that order for 15 years, the Bureau of Land Management obtained a new order last October mandating that Bundy remove his cattle within 45 days or face seizure by the federal government. Bundy declined to comply with the order, and ranchers had wrangled some 352 cattle by last Wednesday.

But after Tea Party public figures including Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity celebrated Bundy’s defiance, supporters that included several militia groups pledged to provide an “armed response,” culminating in a showdown Wednesday in which federal rangers deployed stun guns and police dogs.

Officials released all the cattle Saturday to avert escalated violence, but both Bureau of Land Management officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have assured Nevadans that other legal action will be pursued. There are a number of legal avenues available to officials, including criminal charges. But Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that his family has no plans to pay fees now estimated at around $1 million, and that if arrests are made, “it will cause an uproar and it will be 10 times bigger than this.”
Tags: ConstitutionGunsMilitias
Post Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:49 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The Wildlife News

Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing

By Ken Cole On April 14, 2014 · · In Cattle, Grazing and Livestock, Public Lands
... .


By Ralph Maughan and Ken Cole

In the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands.

Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLM over the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution states:


“Third. 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; …..”

If Bundy “owns the land then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes?

It’s not his land.

Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.


So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and found:


The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit” creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include “stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,” but they also include “stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” and “provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development” of the public range.

He has no “right” to graze it.

The federal courts have struck down every challenge Bundy has made about his claims, and has issued not one, but two, court orders to remove his trespass cattle. It’s not his land and he has no right to graze it.

The simple truth of the matter is that Bundy is a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement. It also appears that he and his supporters’ use of threats and intimidation likely violated several federal laws. Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection.

What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government.

Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called “the public domain.” They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators.

Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits. Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax.

In 1948 the Bureau of Land Management was created by executive order of President Truman to replace the Grazing Service. The Service had been defunded in a dispute between the House and the U.S. Senate. The BLM has since been affirmed by law rather than a mere executive order. It is supposed to manage the public lands for multiple uses and for sustained production (“yield”) of renewable resources such as grass. As before, you need a grazing permit for cattle, sheep, goats, or horses to legally graze. It is a privilege, not a right, and this has been firmly stated by the U.S. courts.

Hopefully, this explains why Bundy’s assertions are wrong. It is too bad that few citizens are taught public land law or history in high school or college. We think it is vital for everyone to know these things because these are in a real sense your lands, held in trust by the government. Yes we know the government often does a poor job. They did in Bundy’s case by letting this go for 20 years. He should have been gone before the year 2000.

End of story.

- – - – -

A note to those who are new to commenting at The Wildlife News. We require a real, working email address. If you don’t have one, you can’t comment.
Webmaster.
Post Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:11 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

MOTHER JONES



Cliven Bundy Exposes the Cravenness of the Modern Right

—By Kevin Drum

| Tue Apr. 15, 2014 8:12 AM PDT



Like a lot of people, Ed Kilgore is distressed at the outpouring of support on the right for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy:


Call it "individualism" or "libertarianism" or whatever you want, but those who declare themselves a Republic of One and raise their own flags are in a very literal sense being unpatriotic.

That's why I'm alarmed by the support in many conservative precincts for the Nevada scofflaws who have been exploiting public lands for private purposes and refuse to pay for the privilege because they choose not to "recognize" the authority of the United States. Totally aside from the double standards involved in expecting kid-glove treatment of one set of lawbreakers as opposed to poorer and perhaps darker criminal suspects, fans of the Bundys are encouraging those who claim a right to wage armed revolutionary war towards their obligations as Americans. It makes me really crazy when such people are described as "superpatriots." Nothing could be more contrary to the truth.

The details of the Bundy case have gotten a lot of attention at conservative sites, but the details really don't matter. Bundy has a baroque claim that the United States has no legal right to grazing land in Nevada; for over a decade, every court has summarily disagreed. It's federal land whether Bundy likes it or not, and Bundy has refused for years to pay standard grazing fees—so a couple of weeks ago the feds finally decided to enforce the latest court order allowing them to confiscate Bundy's cattle if he didn't leave. The rest is just fluff, a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorizing that led to last week's armed standoff between federal agents and the vigilante army created by movement conservatives.

The fact that so many on the right are valorizing Bundy—or, at minimum, tiptoeing around his obvious nutbaggery—is a testament to the enduring power of Waco and Ruby Ridge among conservatives. The rest of us may barely remember them, but they're totemic events on the right, fueling Glenn-Beckian fantasies of black helicopters and jackbooted federal thugs for more than two decades now. Mainstream conservatives have pandered to this stuff for years because it was convenient, and that's brought them to where they are today: too scared to stand up to the vigilantes they created and speak the simple truth. They complain endlessly about President Obama's "lawlessness," but this is lawlessness. It's appalling that so many of them aren't merely afraid to plainly say so, but actively seem to be egging it on.
.
Post Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:46 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Adam
F L I N T O I D

The Feds are broke. The states should do us all a favor and reclaim their land. The Feds just murdered some of the endangered turtles because they are broke.

http://www.infowars.com/before-nevada-cattle-rancher-dispute-blm-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/

_________________
Adam - Mysearchisover.com - FB - Jobs
Post Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:19 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog


‘They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists’
04/18/14 08:41 AM

By Steve Benen
It’s been nearly a week since the U.S. Bureau of Land Management tried to enforce federal court orders at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch, only to back off in order to deescalate a potentially dangerous situation with heavily armed protesters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who of course represents Nevada, said earlier this week, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

Yesterday, Reid went further.
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way.

“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal “Hashtags & Headlines” event at the Paris. “… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.”
The senator added that he’s been in communication with Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI leaders, and Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, as well as the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, ‘which has not backed Bundy’s personal battle but has expressed concerns about access to public land.”

There is, Reid said, a task force being set up to deal with the situation. “It is an issue that we cannot let go, just walk away from,” he added.

One assumes Bundy’s militia allies weren’t impressed with the senator’s comments, but Reid probably isn’t foremost on their minds. Rather, many on this far-right fringe are contemplating their next move, embracing what they see as a new precedent established six days ago at the Bundy ranch.

Reuters ran a striking piece yesterday, citing militia experts saying that armed Americans “using the threat of a gunfight to force federal officers to back down is virtually unparalleled in the modern era.” It’s left the radicals feeling emboldened.
Energized by their success, Bundy’s supporters are already talking about where else they can exercise armed defiance. They include groups deeply suspicious of what they see as a bloated, over-reaching government they fear wants to restrict their constitutional right to bear arms.

Alex Jones, a radio host and anti-government conspiracy theorist whose popular right-wing website, Infowars, helped popularize Bundy’s dispute, called it a watershed moment.

“Americans showed up with guns and said, ‘No, you’re not,” before confronting the armed BLM agents, Jones said in a telephone interview. “And they said, ‘Shoot us.’ And they did not. That’s epic. And it’s going to happen more.”
“More” is precisely what the American system cannot expect to tolerate.

As we’ve discussed, there’s an obvious problem with establishing a precedent that says Americans can disregard laws and court orders, whenever they feel justified in doing so, if they surround themselves with friends with guns. It’s a dynamic that invites and encourages lawlessness.

And it’s why this standoff isn’t over.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Harry Reid, Militias and Nevada
Post Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:30 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Brian Schweitzer: Cliven Bundy ‘a grifter’

By TAL KOPAN | 4/18/14 5:50 PM EDT



Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Friday that Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy doesn’t represent Western landowners or even cattlemen, labeling him a “grifter.”

The former rancher and Democratic politician said Bundy, who has become famous for his standoff with federal Bureau of Land Management officials over unpaid grazing fees for his cattle, doesn’t have the support of anyone in the business.

“You notice there’s no cattlemen that are standing beside Bundy. The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, the stock owner associations from across the West are not with this guy,” Schweitzer said on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” on Friday. “They support what the BLM does. This guy, Bundy, is, I mentioned before, I think he’s a grifter.”

While Bundy has attracted a number of supporters to his side, Schweitzer said they don’t have ranchers’ interests at heart.

“Apparently Bundy has organized a group of ne’er-do-wells from all across this country,” Schweitzer said. “These are not cattlemen; they’re not people of the land. They are just people that want to stir up trouble.”

While federal authorities last weekend ended an armed standoff with Bundy and his supporters and released back cattle they had confiscated on federal land, Schweitzer said the federal government will get its unpaid grazing fees through the courts and through liens on Bundy’s cattle, which he’ll eventually have to sell.

“That is the financial solution to this,” Schweitzer said. “The guy is still a law-breaker and he has thumbed his nose at law enforcement. … The sheriff is a law-abiding citizen and he is law enforcement. Of course he understands there’s a court order that has already been issued against Bundy and he’s going to support that.”

Bundy’s battle against federal officials has rallied supporters to his side, who say it’s an instance of federal overreach and brings up questions about federal land management. On the other hand, Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/brian-schweitzer-cliven-bundy-nevada-rancher-105833.html#ixzz2zNETw85l
Post Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:28 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

ThinkProgress


Meet The Militia Rushing To Cliven Bundy’s Defense

By Christie Thompson April 23, 2014 at 10:52 am Updated: April 23, 2014 at 11:19 am



James Yeager is calling from Cliven Bundy’s front yard, where he’s one of several (he won’t say how many) providing 24-hour security to the Bundy family. He and his friend packed up “a full medical kit and a camera” and drove 26 ½ hours from their home in Camden, Tennessee last week to document what he calls “a tremendous overreach of federal power.” He’s been posting daily videos to his YouTube site.

When asked if he also packed weapons, Yeager said, “of course. I’m always armed. This is not any different than any other day for me.”

Yeager is one of hundreds of supporters who journeyed to Bunkerville, Nevada in support of the rancher’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management. Though federal agents released Bundy’s cattle over a week ago, many have remained on the ranch to protest and protect the rancher’s family. They’ve hailed Bundy — who owes the federal government over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees — as an “American hero.” The Mormon father of 14 has even inspired futuristic fan fiction from his most ardent admirers: “Yes, it’s been a great half-century for America, and we owe much of our good fortune to the bravery of Cliven Bundy.”

They call themselves militia members, oath keepers, protesters and patriots. Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists.”

So which is it? In the background of the Bundy debate over federal land is a battle over image: protesters who want to paint themselves as American citizens defending the Constitution against a tyrannical government, versus groups worried about the extremist anti-government militia members among them, who may be more and more willing to take up arms in the fight for “freedom.”


Armed agents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seized Bundy’s cattle in early April, a move that brought protesters (and their guns) from all over the country to the ranch, demanding that his cows be released. The situation intensified when a video of BLM agents tasing Bundy’s son went viral. As more and more of Bundy’s armed defenders streamed into Bunkerville, the BLM released the cattle and said they were rethinking how to move forward.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report in 2009 on the resurgence of right-wing militia groups, like some of those that rushed to Bundy’s support. “This is the most significant growth we’ve seen in 10 to 12 years,” one law enforcement official told the Center. “All it’s lacking is a spark.”

Was the standoff in Bunkerville that spark the militias needed? Patriot groups are now claiming victory in their fight against the federal government. It’s unclear what that means for Bundy’s $1 million in unpaid fees, or for future dissenters that decide to flout federal law with a bevy of armed backers.

“The militia movement is back, it is here in force and they seem to be roving the country looking for opportunities like this to make themselves known,” said Ryan Lenz of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who traveled to Bunkerville to cover the Bundy standoff. “As more people with anti-government views streamed into the area, the issue became more about federal tyranny.” Lenz said tension mounted until “it was literally just one wrong step away from going south.”

The militia movement is back, it is here in force and they seem to be roving the country looking for opportunities like this to make themselves known.

The showdown in the Southwest drew supporters from many different camps, not just militia groups or the far-right: Western ranchers angry over federally owned land (Bundy’s not the first to spar with the BLM over this issue). Free speech advocates upset by the “first amendment zones” roped off for protesters. Avid fans of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who answered his call to “stand up against tyranny” by “standing with Bundy.” Far-right (and fully armed) militia members looking for a standoff with federal law enforcement. And state legislators from across the West who saw an opportunity to drum up support among Bundy’s biggest fans.

“For me, it really had not a lot to do with Bundy or the cattle. My interest in it was really the first amendment zone and that something like that could even be set up here in America,” said Robert Richardson, owner of Off Grid Survival. Richardson, who lives in Nevada, traveled to Bunkerville to cover the protest for his blog. “It’s not a left-right issue. It’s something that almost everybody should be pretty enraged about.”

Professor Jack Kay of Eastern Michigan University has studied militias and the “rhetoric of hate” for over 30 years. He said though many at the protest weren’t extremists, the far-right fringe could radicalize a bigger proportion of protesters. “There were far more people there than members of the militia — there were the cowboys, the neighbors, the women and children,” he said. “[But] these radical militia see this as an opportunity for confrontation, an opportunity to recruit, [and] an opportunity to get a lot of media attention. I see over the next few years for the number of radical militias to increase their enrollment.”

Many in Bundy’s brigade reject the notion that they’re anti-government. “If you set up a Facebook page, called yourself the “Greater Metro Citizens Militia”, and took a picture of yourself in Camo, Within six months, The SPLC will list you as an ‘anti-government patriot group,’” wrote Michael Lackomar of the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, in an email to ThinkProgress. Lackomar coordinated communication between different militias during the Bundy Ranch protest from his home in Michigan. “It’s unfair to call us ‘Anti Government’…We are against over-reaching, unconstitutional government.”

It’s unfair to call us ‘Anti Government’…We are against over-reaching, unconstitutional government.

Lackomar says his militia’s main focus is survival. “Our mission is to prepare ourselves and our families to help out at home and in our neighborhoods in times of emergency,” he said in an email. They’ve provided protection for other protests, including one over a Michigan teen’s arrest for carrying a rifle and one held by Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones.

Kay sees militia members who actually intend to use violence as a “very, very small minority,” he says. “Most of them are just weekend warriors who go out in the woods and do some paramilitary activity and some camouflage painting.”

Bundy’s supporters are also adamant that they love America — they just don’t agree with (or in many cases, even recognize as legitimate) its government or the laws it passes.

Writings by many militias discuss the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any of the Founding Fathers’ words with an almost religious reverence. At a recent “Patriot Party” hosted on the Bundy ranch, Bundy greeted his fans with a copy of the Constitution tucked in the breast pocket of his button-up. A George Washington impersonator, clad in a full white wig and navy coat with tails, showed up to eat barbecue beside Bundy and his wife.

“I am the furthest thing from an insurrectionist,” said Yeager from Bundy’s yard. Yeager owns a gun store and training center called Tactical Response which, as it says on his Facebook page, “trains good people to kill bad people.”

“I love this country. Love it. Top to bottom. When I say the pledge of allegiance, I mean it. It’s funny that the word patriot has been turned into this negative thing.”

I love this country. Love it. Top to bottom. When I say the pledge of allegiance, I mean it.

Yeager mentions he made the cover of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s quarterly intelligence report for being an anti-government threat, but says they’re not “a credible source.”

He drew the SPLC’s attention last year for calling on fellow “patriots” to rise up against gun control. “If that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do,” he said in a video posted on his personal YouTube page. “If this goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

He later apologized, saying he did not “advocate the overthrowing of the United States government, nor do I condone any violent actions towards any elected officials.”

Like many of Bundy’s fans, Yeager objects to being labeled as conservative or far-right. “I believe there is a slow train to the demise of this country and there’s a fast train to the demise of this country,” he said. “The slow train is the Republicans and the fast train is the Democrats. But they’re both wrong.”

As Christian Kerodin of the III Percent Patriots put it, “No existing political party represents genuine Liberty today.”

Harry Reid’s moniker of “domestic terrorist,” however, is a title many have ironically embraced. Photos of the “Patriot Party” showed many wearing “Hello my name is…” stickers with the line scribbled on. The group responded with cheers when Bundy asked, “Are you guys domestic terrorists?”

“Because my views are not popular with this administration, I had a US Senator, label me as a Dangerous radical and domestic terrorist,” Lackomar wrote to ThinkProgress. “If you don’t agree with him, like many oppressors of history, you need to be locked up, or… worse yet… Killed. Now, Has Harry said I need to die? No. But when you label people as criminal…then it’s not a real stretch.”

Though federal BLM agents released the cattle, many still fear a raid on the Bundy family’s home. “We are concerned that the domestic enemies of the Constitution that infest the federal government might try to take advantage of folks going home, and attempt to make a move on the Bundy family,” wrote Stuart Rhodes, founder of patriot group the Oath Keepers. The organization, made up of military and law enforcement members that pledge allegiance to the Constitution but not to the government, has been a leader among Bundy supporters. The Oath Keepers say they’re sending another team of people to the ranch later this week.

A meme showing a man in sniper position was shared amongst some Bundy supporters on Facebook.
A meme showing a man in sniper position was shared among some Bundy supporters on Facebook.

Kay monitored a 24-hour public phone line manned by Bundy’s militia backers and heard many express suspicions that the Obama administration had drones following protesters as they moved across the country. Others have repeated rumors that the BLM had paid mercenaries on the ground in Nevada. Fear over the National Security Agency spying on their communications was also frequently referenced.

Militia experts say furor over issues like gun control, NSA surveillance and the IRS’ treatment of Tea Party PACs has spurred more interest in militias and patriot groups.

Publicity over the Bundy Ranch may spark even more enthusiasm. Kerodin of the III Percent Patriots, which gets its name from the claim that three percent of Americans fought in the American Revolution, said interest had “dramatically increased” since the Bundy Ranch gained national attention. “The number of people finding us through Google keyword searches is stunning,” he said in an email.

The group’s Colorado chapter used the events to recruit new members. “I think it is time for all of you to Join the Militia!” they wrote in a Facebook post. “Look what is happening at The Bundy Ranch in NV. That could happen here next!” On April 15, the Arizona State Militia wrote they were flooded with new applications, receiving over 100 in 72 hours.

I think it is time for all of you to Join the Militia! Look what is happening at The Bundy Ranch in NV. That could happen here next!

“It is absolutely a recruitment strategy,” said Kay. “Now that the government stood down on this one i think they’re going to claim this as a huge victory. It really is to me the perfect storm for the militia to increase their attention and increase their recruitment and get ready for the next standoff.”

Lenz agrees. “We’re in a moment of critical mass. We have so anti-government groups who believe the federal government is working against them, who believe Obama is secretly a Muslim, a communist, or not even an American,” he said. “There are people who will stand up to the federal government and risk their lives to do so.”

Bundy’s supporters say they would not have pulled the trigger unless fired upon. Many assert they won the battle with protest and publicity, and not through force. But there’s no question that as tension rose, perceived threats on either heavily-armed side could have easily ended in bloodshed.

“Violence is only acceptable in self-defense and in defense of innocent people from tyranny,” Kerodin said. “There will be violent clashes in our future between those who mean to be Masters, and those who refuse to be ruled.”

As Yeager sees it, “if the BLM would have fired a shot, that would have been the second shot heard round the world.
Post Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:29 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

SamLoomis
Daily Kos member

Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:19 PM PDT.

Cliven Bundy: "want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro..."


by
SamLoomis


Rand Paul and Sean Hannity's friend Cliven Bundy took some time to whitesplain about the negro, welfare, porches and black men in jail.
And yes, it went as well as we would expect. Which is totally awesome. Check it out...
.

Well hoh lee shit.

Really, all you gotta do these days is give them enough rope and they will, uh, talk about hangings and stuff they seem to pine for back in the good ol days.

Conservative freedom hero Cliven Bundy has announced he will have daily press briefings, and if they go like this one did, then Sean Hannity might need to find a new outrage this week.


“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do"
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
There's no more freedom more essential than freedom of dumb speech, and we should hope this jagoff continues to show everyone his intolerance and extremist views. And it sounds like he is planning on doing just that:

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.
H/T to Chris Hayes on Twitter for teeing this up. Hopefully this gets as much attention as their freedom militias did when they stared down the Feds.
***SMALL THX UPDATE: Hey thanks for the recs! Been a long time since I diaried. Last time I was on the rec list was for posting a false flag Fitzmas a few years back. How time flies. But much appreciated and happy to spread the word on this loser!

.
Originally posted to SamLoomis on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:19 PM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community.
Post Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

SALON



Thursday, Apr 24, 2014 09:00 AM EDT

Roger Ailes owns Cliven Bundy now: How dumb opportunism became a right-wing nightmare

Sean Hannity has been the racist rancher’s top backer, and Fox and the GOP made him a cause. Now he's their problem
Joan Walsh

Topics: Sean Hannity, Fox News, cliven bundy, The Right, GOP, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Race, slavery, Racism, Editor's Picks, Media News, Politics News

Roger Ailes owns Cliven Bundy now: How dumb opportunism became a right-wing nightmare

Cliven Bundy, the infamous welfare rancher, was holding forth at his Nevada homestead Wednesday, and apparently he had a lot to say about “the Negro.” Who could have guessed?

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he told a small group of people gathered to see him, which included Adam Nagourney of the New York Times. Bundy told of driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he continued. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Where to begin? “They never learned how to pick cotton?” Or “are they better off as slaves?” Or…take your pick.

Surprise! Sean Hannity’s hero, whose cause has been embraced by Senators Dean Heller of Nevada and Rand Paul of Kentucky along with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, turns out to be an old-time Republican racist, the kind that even Jonathan Chait recognizes, and Fox News and the GOP have a problem.

Until now I’ve ignored Bundy because he’s an extremist and a freak, and even Glenn Beck has denounced him. I was reluctant to use him against the GOP. But as he’s gotten support from the likes of Paul and Perry, two respected 2016 candidates, plus regular backing from Hannity and Nevada Sen. Heller, he’s become a huge problem for the right.

The welfare rancher has grazed his cattle for free and owes the government more than a million dollars, but to his admirers he’s leading an American insurrection. “This is the beginning of taking America back,” Shawna Cox of Kanab, Utah, told the New York Times. From whom? Shawna doesn’t have to say.

Asked about Bundy’s virulently racist remarks by the Times, Rand Paul was “not available for immediate comment.” What courage. At least Dean Heller’s office immediately condemned the “appalling and racist statements.” Here’s a tip for Rand Paul: You’re a libertarian. Give your staff the liberty to tell the media you abhor racist comments, even if you’re not around.

It was only yesterday – literally – that National Journal was telling us that Paul was now the leading Republican tackling issues of poverty and race, after Paul Ryan stumbled, having pretended to care about the poor while his budget slashed programs that help them to give tax cuts to the rich. Unfortunately, as “Rand Paul’s Compassionate Conservatism” was being published, Paul was talking to Fox’s Megyn Kelly and blaming Chicago’s recent spate of violence on “thuggishness” and the inability of Chicago’s thugs to distinguish between “right and wrong.”

Let’s face it: Paul’s been a better ally to Cliven Bundy than to the inner city poor. I’m not saying he would endorse Bundy’s remarks about “Negroes;” he knows better than that. At least I think he does. But culturally and politically, he’s quicker to empathize with the lawbreaker in Nevada than those thugs in Chicago.

Then there’s Sean Hannity. As Jon Stewart said, his Bundy-boosting has made Glenn Beck “the voice of reason.” But Hannity has repeatedly rejected the criticism, claiming Stewart “is kind of obsessed with me,” while Bundy has called Hannity his “hero.”

Here’s hoping that Rand Paul denounces Bundy’s remarks early Thursday. It won’t change the sad fact that way too many people who think like Paul politically think like Bundy racially.

I don’t expect Hannity to say a word about Bundy’s predictable descent into the muck of racism, but I’d love to be surprised.

Joan Walsh
Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large and the author of "What's the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America."
Post Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:40 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >