photo(4)

Those who have been anticipating a Boston Tea Party type event likely got what they were expecting last Saturday in Bunkerville, Nevada. The impasse between Rancher Cliven Bundy and federal Bureau of Land Management officials has been going on for a long time. After 20 years of Bundy defying edicts to remove his cattle from hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands, the BLM recently began impounding his herd. The impoundment operation involved bringing in hundreds of heavily armed agents to enforce the shutdown of nearly 6,000 square miles of public lands. They also provided security for the cowboys and helicopter pilots who were contracted to carry out the roundup and removal of Bundy’s cattle . . .

The heavy-handedness of the agents became an issue almost immediately. Bundy family members were threatened at gunpoint and Cliven’s son Dave was beaten and arrested after taking video outside of a “designated free speech zone.” Other clashes in the following days took place whenever protesters and BLM personnel met up.

Protestors and supporters began to arrive throughout the week, as did a number of militia groups. When I visited their ranch on Thursday, there were roughly 300 people on site. By Saturday morning, there were 500-600 protesters in attendance with dozens of uniformed militiamen providing security at Cliven’s home.

There is a serious question of whether this militia presence has helped or hurt the Bundys in the court of public opinion. That’s not surprising.

photo(6)

The very word ‘militia’ has been vilified ever since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Americans have been conditioned to view militia members as angry, disgruntled versions of Walter Mitty with a rifle.

The militia members I encountered on Saturday were polite, well disciplined, and down to earth. At the Bundy’s request, they were kept away from the main protest area and stayed around the ranch house. The reasoning here is pretty straightforward; the American public responds far more sympathetically to images of Cliven Bundy bottle feeding an emaciated calf separated from its mother than it would to camouflage-wearing men carrying rifles.

This wish was also reflected in a memo from the group Oath Keepers asking its members to avoid the camo and leave their long guns in their vehicles.

Prior to the rally on Saturday morning, I met with Ryan and Ammon Bundy and they both spoke in a surprisingly peaceful tone about how to approach the day’s events.

The tension had been growing all week in proportion to the number of protestors that were arriving from near and far. Both Bundy brothers acknowledged that belligerence was likely to cause more harm than a reasoned, humble approach.

Their rally began at 9am with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Ammon was the first speaker and, true to his word, he maintained a peaceful demeanor throughout his remarks. His uncle Steve spoke next and struck a similar tone.

Next, the crowd sang the Star Spangled Banner led by a Vegas entertainer. The mood of the crowd was positive and determined. That changed a few minutes later.

The first shift in mood was felt when Cliven arrived surrounded by a detail of militia. Only a couple of them carried long arms but the group walked Mr. Bundy through the crowd and up to the podium where they formed a protective line at the front of the stage.

Cliven spoke for a few moments and then introduced Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie. The sheriff had been noticeably absent for most of the past week and was highly unpopular with the crowd. Cliven asked for the crowd to be respectful and handed the microphone to Gillespie.

The sheriff announced that a deal had been struck with BLM officials where they would cease their impoundment of cattle, reopen the closed public lands, and withdraw their assets from the Bundy’s ranch. The crowd predictably went wild at this news and a great many of us breathed a sigh of relief that a peaceful solution had been found. But then things got tense.

Cliven took the mic back from the sheriff and began issuing a list of demands that included disarming and arresting all BLM and National Park Service personnel in the county, tearing down various NPS tollbooths and barricades within the county, and delivering his cows back to him within the hour. Bundy told the sheriff that he had an hour to get to work and that if the demands were not met that the gathered crowd would decide at that time what action to take. The formerly peaceful crowd was getting fired up.

What happened next was equal parts inspiring and surreal.

As the clearly unhappy sheriff left, dozens of Bundy family members came riding over the hill on horseback with flags. When the horsemen had lined up facing the crowd, a young cowboy rode his horse at a full gallop to the top of the hill with an American Flag and waved it proudly.

Just a few miles away, a large number of Las Vegas Metro officers and SWAT had been staged presumably as a back up in case the crowd got out of control.

At the end of Cliven’s hour deadline, the sheriff had not returned and the decision was made to take the protest to nearby I-15 where they would stop traffic and go directly to the BLM compound where the cattle were being held.

As roughly 250 protesters and mounted cowboys approached the gates for the BLM compound the agents inside pointed rifles at them and warned them over loudspeakers to get back or they would be shot. Meanwhile, militia members and other armed citizens took up positions opposite the BLM personnel with their rifles trained on the feds.

Now it was an honest to goodness standoff.

The tension was unbelievable. Hundreds of spectators and members of Las Vegas Metro and Nevada Highway Patrol lined the interstate above the wash where the Bundy family members and BLM agents were yelling back and forth at one another. Finally Ammon and a few protesters were able to approach the fence and speak to the agent in charge.

It took nearly two hours, but eventually the protesters gave the feds a chance to back off and open the gates and soon the cattle were on their way home.

Now comes the hard part. The end result seems pretty satisfactory with the BLM standing down and the Bundys recovering their property. Thankfully, both sides showed remarkable restraint. But could it have been accomplished without the armed confrontation? Or did the Second Amendment work as intended without a shot having to be fired?

A peaceful deal had already been reached. Upping the ante put a great many people at risk including innocent bystanders. It’s sobering to think that the spark that could ignite a national conflagration was a single trigger pull away.

If history is any indicator, the feds are not particularly good sports when they don’t get their way. Remember how FBI and ATF agents triumphantly planted an American flag on the ashes of the Branch Davidians? That was a vivid reminder that retribution is always a possibility.

At this writing, friends in local law enforcement are telling me that even more federal agents and even some military assets are being moved into nearby Mesquite. It’s a safe assumption that this modern equivalent of the Boston Tea Party could still end in a shot heard ‘round the world.

236 Responses to Bundy Ranch vs. BLM. The Fat Lady Hasn’t Sung

  1. Hundreds of reconditioned MRAPS and millions of new shiney bullets. We are from the govt and we are here to help (the turtles.)

      • The BLM does not have authority on anything other than BLM managed federal land. They can’t even legally affect Forrest Service land without approval of the Forest.

        BLM has no authority on state or private lands. There are literally thousands of pockets of private land (like Bundy’s 150 acre ranch) in the middle of the BLM land. BLM regs end at the property boundary.

        The BLM is more like the Forest Service than the EPA. Sure they regulate mining and ranching on BLM land, but that’s it. They have their own park Rangers and wildland firefighters (which often help with state and local wildfires across the nation).

        That video is at least misleading.

    • Personally I really wonder if that story about Reid trying to sell the land to the Chinese for a solar farm might actually be true. But it may very well be more about Reid being pissy because some ‘normal citizens’ defied the Federal government.

      • The Bundy land is needed as a “habitat offset” under BLM regs so that development of a green energy corridor can continue elsewhere.

        Cliven Bundy and other ranchers had their ability to sustain ranching changed unilaterally by the BLM in the 1990s, driving all but Cliven Bundy out of the area. Cliven Bundy refused to assist the BLM/Eco-whackos from driving him to extinction. He owns water rights, grazing rights, and other constructive use that constitutes possessory interest. His rights have been abrogated in a legal two-step.

        And ask yourself: Why isn’t the BLM just docketing a lien, like with every other judgment?

        At the end of the day, America needs — desperately needs — to hold a corrupt U.S. Senator to account. Harry Reid is the Lois Lerner of the U.S. Senate.

        INVESTIGATE HARRY REID.

      • Reid was part of a groundbreaking ceremony of the new solar farm (with his son who put the deal together) last march just 35 miles from Bundy’s house. Chinese counpany, billion dollar deal. The BLM SOLD OFF the “federal” land that they “manage” (supposedly) to the Chinese co. Reid’s former staffer did so as the new head of the BLM.
        When you can explain to me how it can possibly be legal for a manager to SELL OFF property he manages, you might get some clue that what you are saying makes no sense.

  2. This is OUR country. The feds just live here. The more the people put them in their place the better.

    • What a minute. Some Native American Indians just called. They want to talk about this “OUR” land that you mention.

      • Might want to re-read that. I never mentioned anything about land. Countries change borders all the time.

        • Plus the American Indians were not the first people to be conquered. Not the same thing.

    • Oh they called back. They said something about this being theirs before this was bordered and defined as a country. Damn semantics.

      • Which American Indians in what time period?The latest had pushed out the ones before them that pushed out the ones before them, ad infinitum. The most numerous or the ones best at fighting have always pushed out the weaker resident.

        We were just the latest in a long string of victors over who get’s to decide where a societal group gets to live.

        Whether it’s right or not? Well, that particular decision was made a long time ago.

        But in the end; if the court is rigged and the jury is paid off; historically; the only way to make sure you are not another violated and defeated subject is the willingness to risk your life for what is right and hope you have enough people and resources to support the struggle. Of course; whether you survive to win the fight; is just the risk everyone takes if they want to be free.

        • Speaking of American Indians, did we mention war, genocide and slavery among those “noble savages”? Human trafficking? Not to mention rape, kidnapping, torture, etc, etc? This is silly, we need to cut them loose and let them do their own thing, both in the US and in Guam, for example, where the “natives” are likewise so “protected” that they have no lives other than drugs.

        • I guess in your eyes two wrongs make a right?!?!?! This land belonged to Native Americans long before we got here. Possible their down fall was the fact all the tribes did not come together as a Nation, much the same as we are doing today.

          Being part Mohawk, I can say the US Government has always lied, like today, they say what the need to say to settle things down, then come at you with their weapons take what belongs to you, starve you, destroy your lands, kill your lively hood, give your land to illegal immigrants, then kill you and your family.Nothing new with this government, take a lesson from history, and ban together and stay strong. Or surely you will go the way of the Native Americans.

          Praying for this land to return to the Rightful People of North America.

        • Saying Bundy is just like Native Americans and the federal government today is the same as the Federal government of the 1800’s is ridiculous. I have yet to see a source (credible or otherwise) regarding the BLM offering the Bundy clan smallpox-infected blankets.

          Let’s not dredge up 200 year old wars and pretend like they’re relevant to a federal court case. That’s ludicrious.

      • Before the euro-conquest of the Americas over 400 languages were spoken. English and Spanish were not among them. English and Spanish are the languages of conquest. Genocide? The 500 years following first contact the indigenous population was reduced from an estimated 18 to 20 million to 250,000 in the 1920s. I have no intention to diminish the horror of any genocide but what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas makes others pale in comparison.

        • Wrong, you forget about Stalin’s killing of his own people on the lower volga both in the early nineteen twenties and then again in the late twenties and early thirties along with the people of the Ukraine. Estimates range from 20-25 million.
          Secondly and most assuredly even the native estimates don’t compare with the butchery that Mao made against his own people again through collectivization in the late fifties and early sixties, I have read estimates of up to 50 million people.

        • Eugene; please; 90 percent of those deaths were by disease.

          The other point is that one of the reasons that the white man was able to defeat the remaining tribes relatively easily was many tribes were busier fighting each other that is was easy to ally with one tribe to fight with us against the tribe they saw as an enemy. That’s one of the reasons we were able to defeat the Apaches; one Apache tribe would help track an “enemy” Apache tribe and help in the actual battle to defeat them.

          You do know that a name by one tribe for another tribe translated as “enemy”?

          Yeah, atrocities were done to the indigenous peoples; but a number of the indigenous people were savage, brutal and committed many atrocities themselves; especially by the tribes that lived by raiding; Apache, Yaqui, Comanche, ect.; they routinely committed rape, torture and trading in slaves was being done long before the white came on the scene.

          So to romanticize all the indigenous peoples as some type of “noble savage” that lived in peace and harmony that treated all woman and strangers with love and kindness before the arrival of the white man is the worst type of propaganda and re-writing of history.

        • The estimates I’ve seen for the pre-Europeans population of what is now the U.S. range between 3 and 4 million. Do you have a source for “18 million”? Leave out the natives south of the Rio Grande -we didn’t kill or infect those.

          I think romanticizing the pre-Europeans is almost funny. Many of the tribes were very violent, fond of torture, and misogynist beyond belief.

          I recommend the book “Empire of the Summer Moon” as an antidote to the romanticizing of the native population.

  3. And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

    ~~~Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

  4. I don’t know about round the world. However unless king oboma revokes the posse comatatis act, (or however it is spelled) the military would be in violation of federal law if they do anything. However I suspect some people want another “revolutionary war”. Ether way if shots are fired it will be very bloody.

      • Um I’m sorry to say your information is wrong. As of December 2009 quoted on http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/10-16/ch_12.asp
        Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Homeland Security

        Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

        -Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385

        • No need for the Army, he has the DHS, BLM, Post Office, IRS, ICE, TSA, etc etc…

        • Yep. Those are the National Police that BO warned us he wanted to form when he first took office.

        • Two years and a fine huh? Well, that’s one hell of a deterrent.

          That’s misdemeanor territory. But whoever breaks it would have to get convicted.

    • He can legally deploy the military to put down an insurrection. All he has to do is convince the supreme court to classify it as such…if the case even got that far. And the supreme court has never seen a government power that they didn’t approve of.

    • Yeah, about that federal law… Barry has a pen and a phone… And HE is responsible for enforcing those laws. Or not.

  5. Civil war isn’t a game, folks.

    I know it sounds well and righteous. But civil war is a nasty, nasty state of affairs more likely to fail then to succeed.

    Go ahead and call me a debbie downer if it makes you happy. But how would this whole Bundy incident have been viewed if someone had an ND and triggered a civil war? How positive would the “militia” or “the Feds” have been viewed if it resulted in a bomb going off in YOUR neighborhood?

    How much fun would ” revolution” be if it meant your wife ate a snipers bullet because of it?

    Lest we forget, those people in uniform are AMERICANS too! Those Federal agents are US citizens too. As are their families.

    I recognize the occasional need for armed intervention when the government goes haywire. But provoking a fight-or setting up matters so that one fool can cause a damn war- can have drastic consequences. Lets keep those consequences in mind, before running to raise the “Molon Laabe” flag.

    It’s all about “Vive la revolution” until your family gets blown up . Keep that in mind.

    • How would it feel for your wife and child to eat a bullet from a sniper and there *not* be a revolution or even any change in that government?

    • Well this is very true. And I agree that a lot of people seem to forgot just how nasty a civil war can be. The question is…. will we get a choice in the matter? As grim and ugly as it WILL be I don’t think we’re going to choice. Not unless we have a sseerriioouuss change in the way the federal government does ‘business’.

    • You are correct. So the Bundy supporters would fight for Freedom.

      And the Feds would fight for…a tortoise?

      This show of force is wildly disproportionate. Why?

      INVESTIGATE HARRY REID.

      • The Bundy supporters fight for…FREEDOM!?

        Sounds good on paper, but let’s be honest. He tried in the court system and failed. He doesn’t own the land.

        What sort of freedom are they fighting for? There’s a lot of propoganda out there, and I’m not really convinced with memes. In my view, neither side was fully correct.

        • Was he tried by a jury of his peers? My understanding is that he was not, the decision came down from two federal judges. Sounds like the fox watching the hen house. Until a jury of his peers hands down a decision I don’t recognize the decision of the courts as being legal and just.

          Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

        • All that federal power cost much more than they were supposedly collecting, probably by an order of magnitude. If it was really about a turtle, paying grazing fees helps exactly how? The whole thing stinks. I was tempted to ignore the Harry Reid concept as rumor until he stood up and announced to the world that “It’s not over!”, indicating he is in fact involved somehow. We need to find out how. That kind of freedom.

        • I’m not sure, but does that matter? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe every case is decided by a jury.

          The issue is that Bundy doesn’t recognize the federal gov’t, not that he wasn’t tried by a jury of his peers. You’re looking for conspiracy theories when a simpler explanation is probably the likely one.

        • Larry, I’m not sure what kind of freedom you’re talking about. I view the Reid issue seperate from the Bundy issue. In short, is Bundy’s confirmed lawbreaking OK because Reid might have broken the law? “Might have” because it hasn’t been proven…conjecture and facts aren’t the same thing.

          Two wrongs don’t make a right. Seems like the word Freedom is misused and overused a lot by Bundy and his supporters.

    • Good points. When the Sheriff announced a resolution, it would have been better to just to cheer and shake his hand than to make threats. After all the sh!t we’ve eaten from Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, all the way to today, I understand where Bundy was coming from. But still, better to keep the high ground and be magnanimous.

      The Feds will be back, anyway, when they think American isn’t watching.

    • I’m under no illusions about war. It’s a nasty business, but governments at all level in this country seem to be keen on pushing for it. In NY, in CT, and elsewhere.

      If it comes to it, would you rather fight or be a slave?

      • I’d rather be on the beach with a pina colada.

        War… been there, done that, don’t really want to visit it again.

        • JC, you obviously have never been there, so you have no standing to criticize those who were. And it ISN’T at all like COD.

        • If violent movies and video games produced realistic smells, no one would view or play them.

        • This does beg the question though, if our marines, soldiers, etc. are willing to go overseas and fight a war for ______ (fill in the blank: oil, bureaucrats, people that don’t give a shit about us, etc.) are they not willing to do it here?

          I don’t want a war. I have no doubt that it would be the most horrendous experience of my life. I also don’t see how it’s inevitable at some point in this country. It’s quite clear we’re no going to gain back the liberty we’ve lost by voting.

        • I find the war talk silly in the context of Bundy’s problems in southern Nevada. Yes, the 2nd amendment has a purpose as a ‘doomsday provision’ should government turn tyrannical. Yes, I think a citizen has a duty to make some provision in order that he or she might contribute should doomsday arrive.

          The problem today with government flows from consistently increasing urbanization. Dyspeptic nailed it when he pointed out that a grazing system that worked for many decades was, certainly in the western rancher’s mind, was subverted by a sea-change in federal goals, goals which are actually shared by a perhaps a majority of the U.S. population, ecology and environment as values. When the Federal Land Policy and Management Act introduced the “multi-species habitat preservation” as a goal, the world changed for those relying on public land for forestry or ranching. There is no question about that.

          In the east the change was barely noticed, because cattle are raised on private land, and there is ample water, forest, and forage. My state, Pennsylvania, grows more cattle than Nevada and Utah combined. That surprises most people. I suppose that’s because we have more Amish than cowboys.

          Nevada has approximately 2,700,000 residents. Nearly 2,000,000 of these live in the greater Las Vegas-Paradise MSA, in Clark County. Essentially none of those 2 million people are ranchers. The vast majority of them rely on tourism, mostly from California (55%) but from other areas as well, even…China. These people fancy themselves a freer, wilder version of LA, not some well-lighted Wyoming. Guns have more votaries in Vegas than do cows of the bovine sort. If a group of people have as a goal “keeping things the way they were” those people had better pick their place to set up shop very carefully, and had better raise the capital to pay for it. That’s reality, and the end of my rant.

      • Depends on the government and what it is doing and one’s definition of being a slave. If you mean a slave as in surrender or go to a gulag, then yeah, I’d rather fight. If you mean slave as in surrender your “assault weapons,” then I’d be more inclined just to surrender them and live my life and find other ways to protest then get into a shootout with the police that might hurt the cause by making gun people look like extremists and also get me killed or severely maimed and in prison.

        • So what’s the point in even owning them if you have no intention of using them?

          Either give them to someone who will, turn them in, or destroy them now. Because we’re rapidly approaching a point in time where a choice will have to be made. And if you’re so cowardly that you’d rather keep your Monday night football, color TV, and warm bed then you don’t deserve the freedoms that are being taken away from us.

        • Chris, did you not read what I wrote? I said that it depends on the definition of “slave.” Clearly the Jews in the 1930s were against the “gulag” type of slavery option. And JC762, don’t accuse me of being a "coward" because I don't want to be getting into a firefight with law enforcement over guns. That is a personal choice to be made. I don't hold it against anyone who would choose to resist by force but I also do not hold it against anyone who chooses not to.

          Gun rights are important, but there are other important things in life too, like one's family and so forth that can need taking care of, or one may just not consider the cost to be worth it. Like I said, it is a personal choice. And one can fight against unconstitutional laws via other means in our system.

          As for the point of having them, I am perfectly willing to use them, against the following:

          1) Criminals trying to harm me and/or my family

          2) Tyrannical government (the absolute kind, i.e. like an Assad regime that is slaughtering people for example).

        • Kyle, The system you hope to use to fight other ways doesn’t exist. Open your eyes. If the IRS persecution of conservative groups doesn’t prove that to you nothing will. Unaccountable judges (more correctly accountable only to the politicians that appointed them) and unaccountable government agencies (ditto) insure that you will lose if the system doesn’t like the change you want to make. You want to enjoy your family the system will let you do that. As long as you do what the system wants you to do. Teach your children the system’s values. Worship the system’s way. Give the system the money it “asks” for. On and on. Don’t try to not hook up to public water. Don’t try to not vaccinate your children. Don’t try to drink raw milk. Don’t try to think for youself. Things stop being fun in a hurry if you do. Remember at one time the SCOTUS ruled slavery was constitutional. We all know how that worked out.

        • The system exists. Yes, there is corruption, but such corruption has always existed. But the system to fight most definitely is there. If anything, it is less corrupted today in terms of the influence that business and labor unions can have over the government.

        • Kyle, the point is that any legitimate “law enforcement ” will never get into a fight with YOU over guns. Anyone who comes to your door for your guns, without provocation, needs to learn it is a bad idea.

        • Then surrender them coward. people wonder whats wrong with America. They do want to send you to the gulag and they will. The FEDs don’t care about laws. They are above the law and I challenge anybody to prove otherwise. We in fact have tyranny.

      • @JC762… the irony of you insinuating I’m a slave when I’ve served my country and you probably haven’t is rich. 😉

        I suggest you go visit a 3rd world country then come back with the internet tough-guy routine.

        The truth is, this BLM thing pisses me off. However, does it piss me off enough that I’m willing to watch my friends die (again) and see my neighborhood burn? No. Not yet. Hopefully not ever.

    • I’m not doing anything but minding my own business, day in, day out. Ones things for sure, snipers start sending bullets at my family, dropping bombs on FELLOW AMERICANS, the last thing I’ll be doing is sitting here readying TTAG. How can you not do something if the Feds start shooting people and dropping bombs? Oh no, it’s OK, because they’re in uniform with a little flag on they’re lapel or shoulder.

      • If that happens, then the government is most likely a tyranny at that point, to be taking it that far, and you could most definitely fight back in self-defense. But people should otherwise avoid trying to start a civil war is what is meant. If the government starts killing people, well then they’re the ones who started things.

        • Do you understand what happened at Waco? Do you understand that, when the facts finally came out, the excuse was enforcement of gun laws? Do you understand that the FBI used military tanks for protection while burning to death men, women and children for their religious beliefs? And the MOST that was done to stop them was the local police and state police refusing to assist, and the commanding general at Ft Hood refusing to supply ammo for the guns on the tanks, or crews?

    • I doubt this would have started a civil war. I agree that was should be avoided at all costs and only a very very very very last resort, if all other efforts fail. Have never seen war myself, but I am fully aware that it is not anything I would want occurring.

    • So these feds signed on to the wrong team in order to get that 6 figure check and RollsRoyce benefit/retirement plan. You take the kings shilling and sometimes doesn’t work out so well.

      Now what heck are big city cops and state patrol doing out there in the boondocks supporting these feds? There no longer crime in Harry’s town or anywhere else in Nv?

    • Let me be clear, I killed people for you. Men in suits sent me to KILL people for you. I’ve seen war and I carry my sky blue cord with me in my heart every day. I swore an oath to protect us from all enemies both foreign and domestic. I did my duty, I snatched the life from other human beings so that we can be free today. This is not freedom; this is the exact opposite. Am I saying that I want a war on our own turf, no, but I am saying that THEY serve US not the other way around. If you believe that this was just the Feds enforcing the law you’re out of your mind. They had other options, plenty of them and all the time in the world to use them. Leins and Levy’s work just as well as guns, hell maybe even better than considering they can permanently cripple your credit. THEY chose to respond with guns and force, we told them NO in the most ironclad of ways.

      “…..I am what my country expects me to be…the best trained soldier in the world. In the race for victory I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I betray my country’s trust…..”

      I will never betray my country’s trust, not my government’s trust. You my brother, you are my country. I will never betray your trust and when our government posses a threat to you and your way of life, your pursuit of happiness I will take my rifle and be what you expect me to be, even if it costs me my life. Keep that in mind before you tell us we have to stand down for what we believe in.

    • Yup.. something for federal officers to think about when they are drawing a bead on fellow Americans..
      Is your job worth your wife’s life?.. your kids life?.. while he is performing his job of shooting down Americans… Civil war is messy..

    • “Lest we forget, those people in uniform are AMERICANS too! Those Federal agents are US citizens too. As are their families. ”

      Then they should know better than to violate the Constitution.

  6. Damn right they’ll be back. In the middle of the night, a few weeks from now after the heat’s died down.

    No witnesses. Just a mysterious fire late at night at the Bundy home. Regrettably, no survivors.

  7. I was proud of the citizen response to what still seems like .gov overreach. Proud of the restraint and patriotism of Bundy’s supporters.

    But Bundy’s demand for the arrest of BLM and NFS personnel indicates he is overreaching himself and he has lost some credibility in my opinion.

    • Yeah things like that don’t help in general.

      I was reading comments about this situation all over the web today, and I am /AMAZED/ (although I shouldn’t be) on how polarized people’s reactions are on the matter.

      Pretty much people are drawing up on party lines and it really, really makes me sick. I know it could never happen in a million years, but I kind of wish the US could just split 50/50 so people wouldn’t fucking argue 24/7 anymore.

      The United States ain’t united.

  8. It would be nice if the Feds would have the same kind of armed presence on our southern border. Instead, they welcome illegal aliens with EBT cards, Obama-phones, section 8 housing, and all measure of government assistance. Sad.

    • Liberals are calling Bundy a deadbeat welfare queen in the comments section of other (left leaning) news sources and blogs.

      I have reached the conclusion that hard core progressives (most of whom are found on the coast of the country) just have a deep, dark hatred for blue collar, inland Americans. If said folks are successful, the hate is exponentially increased.

      Notice I didn’t say “liberal”. I know plenty of decent liberal folks, and they aren’t hate-spewing automatons. However, the far, far left are just as radical and violent as the far, far right guys who sit out in the woods all day fantasizing about civil war.

      ::shakes head::

      • He’s not a ‘welfare queen’ but he’s a self-entitled mooch. Potatoes, potatoes. Wait, that phrase doesn’t work as well in text…

        • An “entitled mooch” who’s family has been there since 1877. A “mooch” who paid taxes until 1993 when the Feds made his ranch unsustainable. A “welfare queen” who saw that the heart of the matter was power and nothing less. How many Americans has his family fed over the last 140 years? Such a terrible mooch.

  9. It looks or me like Bundy is using land that belongs to the citizens of this country for nothing. He sounds like a dead beat to me.

    • Yeth , I too would much rather have Chinese owned taxpayer funded barely functional Harry Reid kickback solar panels on that land than his cattle.

      • It apparently is worse than that. Ried is going set up the Chicom (that’s Chinese Communist) “solar energy” company on a multibillions $ projects to make solar panels (see as Obama’s Solyndra) and set them up in a HUGE solar power project. But that will be on some prime land. In order to appease the greenweenie envirowackos then take the land Bundy and his (now run out) neighbors own and use it to offset/”remediate” the enviro destruction of building this chicom factory/powerplant. TOTAL BS. Everything about environmental offset, solar power, enviro wackos. Harry Reid get rich quick.

        Thing stinks to high heaven had the fed apologists find faulty with the ONE guy to stand up to Reid and the progressive libtards.

        • “Harry Reid and family/friends get extremely rich over the decades.”

          FIFY. Textbook corruption, Western style.

    • Then you haven’t been keeping up on the background of the situation here. Bundy’s stance is states rights. He had been paying the county and state of Nevada all along to graze his cattle there. During that time, he maintained the land, established waterways and grazing areas, cattle enclosures, etc.

      Then the Feds stepped in in 1993, using the desert tortoise as an excuse, and decided that they felt that he should be paying them to graze his cattle there. He continued to attempt to pay the county and they were unable to accept the payments due to federal intervention.

      Doesn’t sound like a deadbeat to me at all.

      • Bundy hadn’t been paying the “county and state all along.” His father and/or Cliven had been paying the lease fees to the feds from 1972. When his lease needed renewing in early 1993, he decided, apparently, that he’d been making a mistake. He didn’t renew his lease. He tried paying Clark County a fee similar to his prior-year fed fee. Clark County mailed it back. Ironically it is Clark County that bought up all the grazing leases on Bunkerville Allotment in 1998, and ‘retired’ them, as part of its plan to provide the offsetting multi-species conservation that would let them issue development permits to tear up 145,000 acres of desert habitat. The deal from the early 90’s on has Clark County’s, and the Reids’, fingerprints all over it. Talk about forward-thinking politicians….

        • stop speaking logic and facts. it doesn’t fit within the current molon labe paradigm we’re pumping our chests within.

      • Bundy has no business waving the Stars and Stripes, he certainly is not a patriot. He is a domestic terrorist, racist and a coward , if he intended to use force then why were women and children brought in? as shields? He should be put in jail like any other tax evader, he is not special just another welfare case looking out for his own interests.

    • From what I’ve read, Bundy tried to give his grazing fees to the state of Nevada instead of the Feds and the state sent it back since they didn’t know what to do with it. That’s hardly freeloading.

      Regardless, does it make sense for .gov to spend (our money) in excess of 3X what is owed to seize some cattle? Easy to throw good money after bad when it’s not your money.

    • have you ever seen the grazing country in question?..it’s good for nothing but roaming cattle … Id gladly trade skyrocketing beef prices for some free grazing..

      • You could eliminate all the ranching in the state of Nevada without affecting beef prices in the U.S., not that I’m recommending such an action. There are nearly 88 million head of cattle on the hoof today in the U.S., approximately 400K of which are in Nevada. If the price started to rise then any two of the ten major cattle-raising states would pick up the slack in no time.

        I’ve got to say it: If you’ve got land and you haven’t managed to clear out every last rare animal the way NYC did long ago, you’re a fool. Remember, you can’t leave even one rare critter, because it would instantly qualify as endangered, at which point you are toast. Extinct? The law says that’s better from the landowner’s point of view.

        Whether Cliven is in the right or not has nothing to do with the price of beef. It has to do with law, custom, and politics. If he’d just opened up a combination sex ranch and steak house then Clark County would have stood right behind him. Not that that would feel very pleasant.

        • Well, let’s remember that “the way NYC did it long ago” was to PAVE all the land. That doesn’t work so well for a rancher.

  10. If this story is true and if Bundy made such demands after a settlement had been reached then I no longer support him. All he’s doing now is grasping for the limelight. He’s no better than any other rancher that has to pay grazing fees.

    • He’s no better than any other rancher that has to pay grazing fees.

      What other rancher that has to pay grazing fees? There used to be about 60 of them in Clark County, but now there is one — Bundy. All the rest have been driven out of business by the Feds.

      Do you really think that this is about grazing fees and tortoises?

      This is nothing but a Federal land grab. They want Bundy’s land.

      • “What other rancher that has to pay grazing fees?”

        Literally all of them that graze on public land. If the land belongs to everybody and he’s free to graze his cattle on it, then the cattle belong to everybody and I’m free to go grab me one.

        • Perhaps the beef you buy is a little cheaper when the fees aren’t added to the rancher’s overhead?

        • Literally all of them that graze on public land.

          In Clark County, that would be none. Every other rancher has been forced off the land.

          Nationally, there are thousand of ranchers that are refuseniks. There will be more.

        • You mean all the ranchers BLM ran out in the 90s? Those ranchers? Yeah I imagine they would pay your glorious fees except they’ve been driven out of business. Way to demonstrate undeniably that you don’t know the details on this story, and haven’t looked into it further than the sewage your television spews into your living room.

        • And PAY TO WHOM? Apparently the land belongs to the County and State but the feds decided they want to so, like much of the West, just claim it it theres (as in your’s and mine but not the locals) And Uncle fed (Obuma) decides .how is to be used/destroyed.

      • I find it difficult to believe that the 50 to 60 ranchers that gave up on the place, or were driven off, did so if ranching the land was anything but marginal. Why haven’t I heard a peep from these ranchers who were “driven off the land”? It seems odd. Did they all retire to Florida? (I’m not being snarky. I actually wonder why so few facts and narratives are out there.) I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more careful and accurate descriptions of Cliven’s and his father’s cattle numbers over the years since 1952. I’m sure someone in the neighborhood knows the numbers, approximately. I’d like to know the guidance BLM gave as to permissible grazing numbers from 1985 to 1993. I’d like it if Cliven would open up the herd records so we could see how many cows were going to market each year. Ranchers keep those forever.

    • Exactly what right did the people who call themselves government have when they decided by decree (not by actually settling the land by making productive use of it, i.e. homesteading, which is legitimate) that they own vast stretches of land?

      I’ll answer: none. No government “owned” land is legitimate. It was either grabbed by false decree or bought with stolen money. Completely illegitimate.

    • I never did support him, but I was ready to get in my car if the feds started shooting. To oppose government tyranny, not to support Bundy. I didn’t support Koresh, either, but realized years later that I should have been there, with a gun.

    • He is actually a domestic terrorist, a Teaparty radical, a dangerous criminal who must be wiped out to protect the land and the turtles. You have convinced me. Lets meet up at DailyKOS and bitch about this degenerate rancher together!

        • Well, that’s the first time I’ve heard someone call a Mormon a Jesus Freak. Now if only the evangelicals in the 2012 election could have thought of Mormons that way Cliven might not be in the situation he is.

      • Delbert you left out “right wing kook conspiracy theorist tin foil hat wearing thief” – did I miss any of your standard ad hominem insults Paul?

        Lol.

        • All the sarcasm’s going to force him to resort to saying “you can’t fix stupid,” doncha know.

          I find all this ‘thin cows on starving ground’ a bit tiresome. This is Clark County. The right thing to do would be to force Harry Reid and Cliven Bundy to do whiskey shots and some weed, then play Texas Holdem for the allotment land and solar farm rights, winner takes all. Frankly, Cliven has nothing to lose in this, since he’s starting without either. Come on, Harry, man up. Cliven gets to chose the casino. A neutral third party chooses the dealer. Ted Kennedy’s ghost gets to choose the wait-staff talent. Don King gets to do the promoting. This could pay much better than solar or cattle.

    • Agreed, Paul. Marching his supporters down to an armed standoff with the BLM after they had agreed to peaceful concessions doesn’t strike me as heroic, it strikes me as reckless.

      • Reckless yes. Probably driven by built up frustration and anger over the Feds ongoing actions to drive him out.

      • Perhaps, but who drew and pointed their weapons first? According to this article it was as they were approaching that the BLM announced over the loudspeaker that they’d be shot, and then drew their weapons. If a peaceful resolution had been made why do that?

        • Those feds should not be allowed to carry weapons. They’re LAND management, not the department of prisons or whatever. Nobody would have even gone there if they were not armed.

  11. Cliven knows how to work a sympathetic crowd full of believers. Horsemen with flags? Demands he knows can’t be met?

    If the conditions are right even the village idiot can spark an incident that spirals out of control.

    Personally, I don’t think the conditions are right. This has been going on for quite a while now and still less than a thousand supporters rallied there at the Bundy ranch. Out of a nation of 330+ million.

        • Yeah, you’re not exactly dealing with crack troops on either side of this deal.

          And on one side you have no centralized command and control and on the other side it’s probably fragmented among several agencies. There are a lot of ways for things to go wrong.

    • “If the conditions are right even the village idiot can spark an incident that spirals out of control.”

      Too true.

  12. I don’t think we’ll ever see Bundy’s mug on a patriotic T-shirt. As a folk hero, he sucks. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like the fellow much in a mundane, just-an-average-day kind of way, but the fact is, I dislike the sneaky, overreaching methods of the alphabet soup government groups even less. I find it easy to cheer for the patriotic supporters than I do Bundy himself. Bundy has become a prop in the backdrop, sort of like the desert tortoise itself. Weird situation.

  13. Does anybody honestly think the Bundys are all going to be alive next year? If the Feds are willing to murder a woman holding a baby in her arms and are willing to burn women and children alive they won’t hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child on that ranch. Odds are there are drones armed with hell fire missiles circling overhead as we speak. They have their procedures. The have their expected compliance. Deviation is not an acceptable outcome to them. Well for goodness sakes if those people in Bunkerville defy us what’s to stop people all over from defying us? What indeed. An example must be made. If they do its going to turn out differently than they expect.

  14. Bundy may not be a hero, but I think the issue that he is raising, federal ownership of large part of a state, is the right one. I know that there were treaties when the western states were formed, however one will expect that a sovereign state should have control over it’s territory. The fact that the Congress has not acted to release those lands to the states is the real problem. It will not end until this is done. Citizens better call into their reps to get that ball rolling.

    • If you honestly believe that the Molon Labe crowd will fight a war then you haven’t been paying attention.

      Gun owners in general disgust me. It’s all flag waving and bragging about how the war is coming until they’re actually standing there looking into the breach. Then its..

      Play stupid games win stupid prizes!
      We can fight this in court!
      Nobody better show up to a peaceful protest armed, or we’ll mock them!
      Mittens in a landslide!

      Or worse, when a true patriot actually does something they dog pile on them and excommunicate them from their “order”.

      Gun owners are truly, nothing but cowardly right wing blow hards that will go quietly into the night when the confiscations begin. and make no mistake. That day is coming, and it’s coming soon.

      • Your “mittens in a landslide!” line makes no sense in the context of the rest of your comment. The guns and militias people are one of the groups that refused to go to the polls and vote for Romney, despite his pledge on gun rights during the televised debates. It is exactly the people who most despise the current administration who stayed home on election day, 2012.

        Perhaps you’re one of those who stayed home? Big surprise, that.

        • ropingdown: “The guns and militias people are one of the groups that refused to go to the polls and vote for Romney, despite his pledge on gun rights during the televised debates.”

          Oh, well, if Romney pledged it then he surely must have meant it! We all know politicians never lie or say what they think they have to say in order to get elected. No, you’re right: I’m sure the same guy who signed an “assault weapons” ban as governor of Massachusetts would have been a stellar defender of 2nd Amendment rights. Yep.

          ropingdown, if you think the heavy-handed, tyrannical actions of the BLM would have been any different under a president Romney, I’ve got ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

        • I don’t know what Romney would have done, nor do you. But if the fact that Romney wouldn’t be perfect is a reason not to vote for him, letting each Obama vote count more powerfully, you do not understand the dynamic of presidential appointments over time. Just getting things a bit left or a bit right has a lasting effect.

          I would like it if people on the right were no more nor less principled than Franklin or Adams, which is to say I wish people on the right side of left would understand that if they can’t build coalitions with those less rightward in their thinking, they’ll keep losing. And, those of us who see things a bit less black-and-white will be stuck under the rule of the left. Thanks a lot for nothing.

        • Obama made the same promises about gun rights, and I didn’t believe him, either. And I can hold my nose and vote for many things, but a liar is not one of them.

        • Saying Romney was “a little less than perfect” is like describing a yard as a little less than a mile. That you and other Romney defenders keep parading around this “perfection” strawman just goes to show how dishonest you people are.

          Romney signed an “assault weapons” ban. He’s a pro-abortionist and proponent of same-sex “marriage.” His Romneycare legislation was the blueprint for Obamacare; Romney even admitted that he didn’t want to repeal Obamacare, at least not its entirety. He’s a Keynesian who believes more government and Federal Reserve involvement and less free markets is the answer to our fiscal woes. And on and on. From a conservative standpoint, does that sound like someone who’s just a “little less than perfect” to you?

          Other than perhaps John McCain, Mitt Romney was the most leftist presidential nominee in Republican history. The choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama (who in one debate actually agreed with each other far more than they disagreed) was one between a Republican leftist and Democratic leftist. It was the choice between one flavor of big government socialism and another. And yet you fault conservatives for not playing along with this ruse?

          We’ve been trying your fear-based, incrementalist, “lesser of two evils” strategy for decades, throwing principles aside every four years and voting for whatever the Republicans puke out at us in the name of defeating the other guy. And where has that gotten us? More government, less freedom. Consistently. If your thinking had any merit, the Bush years should have inched the country a little closer to liberty. Instead, all we got from six years of Republican control of the House, Senate and Oval Office was massive government growth. A Mitt Romney presidency would have been no different.

          There’s a word for trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result and it ain’t ‘wisdom.’

          Have fun voting for Jeb.

        • Joel, perhaps it’s different in your state, but in mine the primaries are where we, as a party, contend over issues and principles. My point is that once the primaries are over and a candidate chosen nationally, we get a binary choice, the (relatively speaking) left or right of center. You argue for “neither,” which in voting terms means “let the left of center win.” It doesn’t mean more. It doesn’t mean less. If you look at Romney versus Obama on the broad list of issues and would pick Obama, say so. Not voting for Romney once he is the Republican nominee is simply saying “I vote for the other guy.” To vote for a candidate is not the same as endorsing them. It is simply saying “of the two, I slightly prefer the one I voted for.” People over-value in their minds the significance of their opinion. They fancy voting for someone is equivalent to endorsing them. It isn’t.

          The same reality is at work at the level of state elections. Every vote counts. Rarely will you find a candidate the strongly favors your views. Very often, though, the small difference between them is worth casting a vote.

          I find this odd, that the non-voters so “principled” in November were nowhere to be seen during primary season or at local party meetings and debates. Where I live, at least, the “both candidates suck” non-voters never took any part in trying to find and promote better candidates. It is easy, and some say amusing, to live a live of absolute principle just so long as the risk those principles demand of one ends when the fingers leave the keyboard.

        • ropingdown: “My point is that once the primaries are over and a candidate chosen nationally, we get a binary choice, the (relatively speaking) left or right of center.”

          Relatively speaking is right. “Relatively” is the only way you can spin Mitt Romney as right of center. Objectively speaking, there’s nothing right of center about socialized medicine, gun control, and Keynesian economics. We didn’t even get a binary choice. We got a choice between a leftist giant douche and a leftist turd sandwich. Either way, you’re going to be eating sh*t.

          By the way, you are aware that the Republican primary process is rigged in favor of the establishment candidate, right? The Republicans and Democrats also collude through law to bar third parties from challenging them. This binary system you speak of is hardly natural. Playing a game you know is rigged against you is foolish, and yet that’s exactly what you think we should do.

          ropingdown: “Not voting for Romney once he is the Republican nominee is simply saying “I vote for the other guy.”

          Another fallacy, this time the fallacy of the false dilemma. No, refusing consent in one instance does not imply, let alone infer by logical necessity, consent to the other. This nonsense is nothing new to me. I saw this kind of irrationality used by Romney supporters again and again during the 2012 presidential race. It’s just as unconvincing now as it was then.

          ropingdown: “People over-value in their minds the significance of their opinion.”

          And other people greatly over-value the significance of their vote.

          ropingdown: “I find this odd, that the non-voters so “principled” in November were nowhere to be seen during primary season or at local party meetings and debates.”

          Total bunk. I guess you missed all the Ron Paul supporters who were so successful in the caucus process the GOP establishment had to rewrite the rules to squash similar dissent in the future.

          Have fun voting for Jeb.

      • I would appreciate it if everyone in this forum who has been caught in an L getting hammered with small arms, heavy guns and RPGs, watching and hearing their brothers dying all around them would raise their hand and and declare they are ready to go again over what is happening in Nevada. I would wager that those who have been initiated will be the last to take up that cause

  15. I knew that stuff was going on, just not exactly where. I just drove up I-15 last Friday and was wondering whey there was so many cop cars on the interstate.

  16. 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,

  17. I was pleased with Bundy defending his rights and giving a big f**k you to the Feds at first. My irritation with him grew in the middle, but I was still prepared to back him. Now he has completely lost all my respect. There was a peaceful solution, the BLM backed down, he got his way, but he wasn’t ready to give up his 15 minutes of fame. Demanding that list of demands to extend his time in the limelight was immature, and frankly I think that getting 250+ people to bang on the door of the Feds was a seriously fucked up idea.

  18. The Bureau of Land Management owns and supposedly manages many miles of land at the U.S. – Mexico border. Those areas are free range areas for all who wish to enter including drug pushers and runners, illegal invaders, and criminals. At no time did the BLM bring hired guns and snipers to their land at the border and point loaded M-16s at the drug pushers, illegal invaders, or criminals. But they did point M-16s at the Bundys and militias along with unarmed documentary movie producers and American citizens exercising their right to assemble. The armed militarized forces admitted their orders were to “shoot.”

    If America does not see something very wrong about the BLM, another government alphabet agency, and its hypocrisy of aiming M-16s at legal citizens because of a turtle or fees owed, and no BLM effort to defend their property at the border, then you are brain dead.

  19. “Thankfully, both sides showed remarkable restraint.”

    Yep, one itchy fed finger could’ve set off a battle. See Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge for what can happen when one side gets a bit too gung-ho . . . . and not infrequently it’s the “trained” side.

    “The impoundment operation involved bringing in hundreds of heavily armed agents to enforce the shutdown of nearly 6,000 sqm of public lands. They also provided security for the cowboys & helicopter pilots who were contracted to carry out the roundup & removal of Bundy’s cattle . . .”

    So, the feds can spend OUR money on an operation like this, yet can’t keep our border secure. I hope someone submits an FOI request to see how much taxpayer money was/is actually spent.

  20. They are observing, counting people, men, women & children. They will use aerial observation and strike!

    Alas, there will be no survivors, one at a time it will happen in NYS (Safe Act) and Conn. Raids in the night (they have NVG’s, etc).

    Many forget Attica, where all the shooting was done by NYS Police but they blamed the prisoners.

    There will be no autopsies. . . . . No need to determine if they were shot in the back or front.

    As far as law enforcement (any kind) being American citizens . . . . . . . .ask all the innocent people killed by cops. I don’t think the FBI or Justice Dept keeps track . . . .why would they want.

    More will die. We each have to make the decision when, where and possibly how.

  21. Why the man chose to press the matter further after the feds had already backed down… does not make sense to me at all.

    This does not sound like it is going to end well for the Bundy family.

  22. Here’s an adage so old it’s written in Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    Government apologists and statist suckups are conveniently skirting the obvious fact: the rancher didn’t show up in Washington with assault rifles, helicopters and MRAPs. The Feds came after him, armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight.

    Likewise, no Bundy supporter fired a shot, but they were prepared to defend themselves. That’s why the Battle of Bunkerville didn’t turn into a Waco Redux.

    • yeah but I heard he’s a deadbeat and stuff for wanting the government to honor their end of a land use rights contract without said government using the courts to circumvent the agreements in said contract. What a freeloader! Right?

    • I didn’t know the federales came after him. I thought they came to remove the trespassing cattle. I thought once they came to get the cattle, he and his supporters when towards them.

      • And you don’t realize what a wild-ass spin that is on the facts, do you? The feds came 2500 miles en masse, with aircraft and armored vehicles and machine guns, and he drove out to check on his cattle where they’ve grazed for 140 years.

        • So laws should be enforced only when convienent? What kind of sense does that make? Also, the length of time his family has used that land is irrelevant. Its illegal for the last 20 out of 140 years. There isn’t a grandfather clause when it comes to leases. Should I get to rent an apartment just because my grandfather rented that same apartment? Nope…that argument is silly and baseless.

  23. The Left vs Right response to this Bundy thing is like night and day…only there is no ‘magic’ hour……he’s either a a rich white 1%er domestic terrorist with his own army willing to kill innocent federal agents after his family or supporters ‘bully’ these agents, or he’s a hero standing up to a landlord that changed rental agreements overnight……..

    Make no mistake, if this thing goes Waco, the Left will parade and triumph the might, and hero’s of the Federal government……..and these strongmen of the government who are also ‘American citizens’ will simply be doing their jobs, and following orders. While that was no defense in the Nuremberg trials, or current active military, it is a working legal defense for Federal agents who are not restrained by any UN or Geneva accords, or Rules of War conduct.

  24. Neither side is happy with the way this turned out. The feds lost the narrative for the most part and Bundy didn’t get the conflict he seeks.

    So no, it’s not over.

  25. I’m not entirely certain where I stand on this. Obviously the BLM acted the wrong way with this, but what would have been the right way?

    I’m having a hard time seperating out the truth from propoganda on both sides. Obviously the whole environmentalist angle is B.S. It seems though that Bundy had his day in court several times over.

    Regardless, Bundy doesn’t own that land. Equating it to something I’m familiar with, it seems like he was basically leasing it. The terms of his lease expired and weren’t renewed. He didn’t have a right to use it anymore.

    Would he have had the same problem if it was state agencies confiscating the cattle? I think so, although I figure it wouldn’t have ended the same way….

        • Usually, me too. However, if you actually spend the eleven minutes to watch the video then you might see why I linked it. IMHO, it’s an unusual video. They track down their own sources and have a solid message.

        • Excellent piece. If it makes your sheeple tendancies happy pretend the reporter is Dan Rather back when he had a clue and was an actual news REPORTER.

        • Stormclouds gathering is a legit journalist (certainly moreso than the vapid douchenozzles on TV) and cites his sources. Disprove him if you’re up to it.

        • I viewed the video. The problem is the video takes a definite anarchist tilt. It fails to address that both Bundy and the Occupy folks broke the law. He focuses more on Reid’s involvement than Bundy’s angle. Fact is Bundy broke the law. Fact is that he presents circumstantial and not solid evidence about Reid. I agree Reid should be investigated and have absolutely no love for him (believe me) in any facet of politics but he’s not the issue. If Bundy hadn’t broken any laws then there wouldn’t be an issue. The fact is though, that he did. He had multiple days in court and he lost. I sympathize with the limiting of his herd due to the tortise, (and feel like that should’ve not been an issue) but he broke the law. Worse yet, he posted ridiculous demands.

          I’m for changing the government, not for eliminating it all together.

          Also, stormcloudsgathering is anything but respected journalism. I prefer to get the information and form opinions for myself, while that website seems to like to connect the dots for the viewer, and leave out other, very signifigant dots. If it was a true “news” website, it would report both sides of the issue. Their coverage in Crimea is laughable. Basically, they’re extremely biased against the government. If that matches your viewpoint that’s fine, but don’t pretend that they’re unbiased. Everyone has bias, and national media websites have far less than conspiracy theory sites.

        • ” Fact is Bundy broke the law. ”

          Which one? Was it authorized by one of the 18 Enumerated Powers? An unconstitutional law isn’t a law.

        • You are aware that there are other laws outside of the Constitution, correct? Besides, why would it matter? Bundy doesn’t believe in ANY federal government, regardless of Constitution?

          If what you say is true and the Fed is limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution, why hasn’t anyone used this in court yet?

          From Wikipedia:

          “Judicial interpretation

          The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”

          States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

          The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”

          Basically, Bundy followed the law, until he didn’t like it, then he stopped following it. I wish I could stop following federal law regarding taxes just as easily, but I doubt citizens with guns would flock to my aid, because thats, you know…stupid.

        • “You are aware that there are other laws outside of the Constitution, correct? ”

          No, that’s the definition of unconstitutional.

          “Besides, why would it matter?”

          Because the government is our employee, not our master.

          “Bundy doesn’t believe in ANY federal government, regardless of Constitution?”

          Nice mind reading.

          “If what you say is true and the Fed is limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution, why hasn’t anyone used this in court yet?”

          Now you’re just trolling.

        • Bundy has said he doesn’t recognize the federal government. See The Atlantic article I posted. That’s just a plain fact, no mind reading required. Bundy’s arguments also failed several times in a court of law. I’d suggest perhaps looking into the matter before commenting further. If you think I’m trolling by stating the facts of the matter there’s not much more I can do for you. If you define every law besides the constitution as unconstitutional then…well…that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

        • No problem John. Thank you for the respectful discussion….even if mine has been less than!

          I’m all about government accountability, but I feel like this is one of those cases where the enemy of my enemy isn’t exactly my friend, to kind of turn a phrase. I’ll fight the good fight, not EVERY fight.

          And by “fight” I mean “online discussion” 🙂

  26. Not over nope. Least not until there is some sort of agreement.
    We could fill volumes on the 21 years of court battles, and case law.
    Was Mr. Bundy a bit inflammatory, yup.
    Well given the history of the Fed, unless everyone sees the feds go away, then they just wait till everyone leaves to strike. I think this might have been preemptive, and a push to show them packing down.
    I try to look away from the little details and grasp the larger picture here.
    People are tired of MRAPS, shelter in place, over reactions. Everyone remember the Boston bombing? I think this is part of a bigger picture many are missing. I don’t like war. I do not wish for war. There is something simmering. It is right there under the surface. It is from millennials to OFWG’s and everywhere in between.
    The right situation could cause an even bigger conflict. I am not sure what that is, but I have my guesses. Imagine if the Occupy movement was backed up with hundreds of militia. Imagine if the people stood up and said no more, we won’t wait any longer for elections. We are tired of the spying, financial targeting, ridiculous laws, and fees, no wait taxes. The Reid connection to the Solar project, DiFi’s connections to the high speed rail and post office closures. Lists go no and on. This is much like in the Ukraine really. Political corruption. While not as quite overt in nature, it is pretty similar.
    I have seen pages and pages of Bundy land law discussions, and we could go on for days. What we are seeing is we the people headed to a Ukraine or Venezuela style stand off with government. It might take longer to get there, but at present course it is headed there. The how and when are almost irrelevant. The fact is that this scenario is coming into focus now.

  27. Mr. Bundy might have become unreasonable at some point, so I can no longer support him?!

    People, look at what the federal government is doing. Look at how they are armed, the attitudes they carry, and how little accountability they have. Look at what Obama, Holder, and Reid have “legally” done while in office. Multiple scandals we know about, and I bet plenty more still pending. Look at the context of this story, and how roughly 60 other ranchers have been pushed out by the Feds. Research the non-existent desert tortoise problem.

    Clive Bundy wasn’t perfect, but he’s got more balls than 90% of TTAG readers. How dare he demand the return of his seized property, right?

    I wonder what I fear more: overreaching Feds or cowardly gun owners.

  28. Bundy’s land? Oh…really.

    Ever hear of these guys:

    PAIUTE INDIANS

    I hope they don’t start deciding to start asserting their right to what was clearly their land.

    Bygones, huh?

    • Paul; that is such a tired response; and tied to some self-hating idea that only the white man has ever taken land by force. The Paiute was a very recent arrival in the 14th century when there has been human occupation of that same land for over twelve thousand years. So what about the people that lived there before the ancestors to the Paiutes arrived? I doubt those people just up and moved without a fight from their traditional hunting grounds.

      Most every people, over time, has displaced another people that wasn’t as strong a fighter or as populous. We Americans were just the most recent victors in an age long battle. Would I condone such an action now? Of course not. But what happened hundreds of years ago can’t be undone.

      But if you feel guilty about some Indigenous peoples land that you currently inhabit, especially if you own property instead of rent; why don’t you return that property to the “rightful owners”? Free of charge. of course.

        • Paul, hypocrisy? No. it was just the way things were done back before I was born. Just as I don’t feel guilty for the fact that some people were owned as slaves; by everybody; (even the indigenous peoples at that time owned and traded in slaves). I don’t feel guilty for the fact that, everybody, (including the indigenous people) would take over land from weaker inhabitants.

          Now the major group in the US taking peoples land by force is the government..

          So you didn’t answer my question; when are you giving your property that you believe is stolen, back to the former “owners” ?

  29. I doubt the Bundy situation ever had the potential to instigate a national conflict. Only a small number of people who’ve done any independent research even think he’s right. Many people don’t even know who this guy is or anything at all about the conflict. TTAG readers are people who are largely pro-gun, frequently in favor of very limited government, and at least somewhat Internet saavy. But this readership isn’t representative of the whole population of this country.

  30. Said previously. I would appreciate it if everyone in this forum who has been caught in an L getting hammered by small arms, heavy guns and RPGs watching and hearing their brothers dying all around them would raise their hand and declare they are ready to go again over what is happening in Nevada. I would wager that those who have been initiated would be among the last to take up that cause. It is easy to rattle sabres and talk a good game by those who are not among the initiated and more than likely never will be.

    • Just saying and no disrespect meant. Also I have never been in combat. If you find yourself in a position like you describe isn’t it likely you aren’t fighting on your terms? Something like never wanting to be in a fair fight. Waiting until there is no alternative but bloody no holds barred combat seems like what you are saying we should do. Or are you saying nothing is worth fighting for ever again? It’s obvious from the actions of the federal agents that they mean to have their way one way or the other. History has proven that. The only way to change that outcome, assuming you aren’t satisfied with it, is to be willing to make the price too great for them. And making them believe you mean to. So ya there’s some false bravado and saber rattling going on. And nobody that hasn’t been there knows what it’s really like but does that mean we avoid it at all cost?

  31. I’m amazed at all the soul-searching and hand wringing going on from a blog site that was so lately filled with blood-curdling vows of resistance. Looks like a lot of people – including the government – were sobered by this.

    Good, people should be aware of what a revolution involves and not kid themselves with romantic notions of glorious defiance. Just the same there are times when things do reach a boiling point and a change in basic government is in order. This can happen violently (France in 1789) or somewhat peacefully (France in 1848) – all depends.

    The government has dabbled in lawlessness and use of violence, but not quite enough to trigger a revolt – but it’s getting close. I’m sure this had much to do with “calling off” the dogs in this case.

    Nevertheless there is a fairly large (and growing) class of put upon citizens who really are fed up and only looking for a leader. If they find one things might get real interesting real fast. On the other hand I think our overlords have looked into the abyss and will ease off from our “Road to Euro Welfare and Semi-Socialism” for a while.

    In the meantime we are fortunate that our Founding Fathers provided a solution to this. Namely a Constitutional Convention. Form the beginnings of the Warren Court, through the social and political upheavals of the 60’s right up to the recent adjustments inspired by the “Millennials” I think we’re at a point where we can take a break and really decide how things should go – what should be preserved or changed. A good opportunity to nail down what some of the powers, duties and rights really mean.

    I understand that enough states have already voted such an arrangement but for some reason nothing has happened as of yet. I think we should get on with it. Since it’s run by the State Delegations, to the exclusion of both Congress and President, the more rural, conservative (and gun-friendly) ones can dominate.

    While we’re at it we can also take care of some other matters. My favorite (besides the 2nd A) would be to do away with the ill-considered Reynolds v Sims of 1964, which effectively abolished the existing State Upper Houses and permitted the urban machines to dominate state politics which have been largely responsible for some of the latest “bans”. Let’s Roll.

      • That, and when a corrupt government can twist and pervert something so plain as shall not be infringed, it tells me that: 1) the People need to forcefully yank government back in line sooner (by force of arms if necessary) and 2) any further verbiage will only provide greater wiggle room for a government that hasn’t often enough been kept in check by the People (see #1).

    • One minute everybody’s thrilled with Heller and McDonald. The next minute they’re dreaming of constitutional conventions that run an even chance of nullifying those precedents. I’m nonplussed as to what motivates such thinking.

    • Gratifying to see my missive so well read. Thanks for your comments and here’s a fill-in.

      Risky? Of coarse, but what ever achieved anything that wasn’t. Actually a state-initiated convention has many safeguards and is engineered to be dominated by the smaller, more conservative ones and the present time – with libertarianism riding high – is right for such an action. What’s really risky is doing nothing and watching our freedoms slip away.

      Heller and McDonald are both fine but Scalia’s crevice of “reasonable restrictions” has left a gap the lower courts can drive a truck through – and have. Individual right yes – but only with absurd restrictions, endless filings seeking official approval and massive fees. A grabbers playground ! Can you imagine a right to free speech – but only with a $450 permit and approval from the local authorities?

      I’m hoping for the best, of coarse, but the Supreme’s turning down the Kachalsky case – a cut and dried example of arbitrary restrictions in NY State – shows that maybe they’ve gone about as far as they want to for now and who knows how it will go in the future.

      Finally, a convention can settle many other matters as well – things not necessarily agreed upon by all gun-guys (and gals) – but very gratifying to many of us who are so minded. This process was set up by the framers to provide an alternative to outright rebellion – as of now I think the time has come.

  32. The entire Federal government structure is horribly broken and is the home of narcissistic shake down artists. You can’t honestly support the notion that the government is operating in a constitutional manner ( I believe I’m referring to original intent, not contemporary interpretation). In my humble opinion they have forfeited their authority. And citing endless regulations or even quoting the founding documents in support of these thieving bastards shows breathless naïveté. Who among you supports swat teams descending upon an otherwise law abiding and peaceful family, who at the beginning, attempted compliance? Our government displays only malevolent intent upon the citizenry, when we disagree with their edicts. The federal courts may have sided with the BLM, but I doubt that they officially authorized the use militarized police to settle this dispute. No, these agencies are probably acting autonomously, with the tacit approval of those higher in the food chain. After all, anyone who disagrees with “those in charge” is a domestic terrorist.

  33. I think this Bundy guy is mostly full of shit on this whole thing and using people’s passions to support his personal problems.

    Yeah there are some larger philosophical issues up for discussion, but like I said before this dispute seems to be pretty murky to me and I get a bad vibe. Like this dude is happy to use other people, no matter what might happen to them, in order to prop up his personal business agenda.

    It also seems to me like the “wish a m-f-er would” types crawled out of the woodwork are just hopping on the F the police bandwagon in all this. Everyone seems to be bending and shaping it to their liking as an excuse to act and talk full retard.

    Such as, what the hell was the point of that stunt with him getting up on stage and making dumb ass demands like that? He be power tripping yo.

    But that’s like my opinion man. I’m sure many will think I’m full of shit and full retard too for not “getting” where they are coming from.

  34. This is truly astounding. A group of armed militia stood up to agents of the federal government and succeeded in their goals and no one died. If this caught hold in CT and NY one could see a whiskey rebellion type taking of the court houses denying the ability to try anyone for disobeying the weapons ban.

    The die is cast, resist them in numbers and they will acquiesce to your demands. Does anyone want to take bets that the rules of engagement for the BLM agents were not to fire unless fired upon rather than the usual ‘shoot anyone who points a gun vaguely in your direction’? I’d also bet that the surrender was a local decision that is even now being raked over at higher levels.

    I don’t blame those BLM agents for not wanting to die there over something truly trivial at the federal level yet dramatically important at the individual level. Shots fired on either side was apt to produce at least a small insurrection (if what has already passed is not in fact an insurrection). The limit has been reached, the government has overstepped so far so many times that the people are lining up to resist and the government has shown it’s hand, it’s unwilling or unable to stand up to the people. We might yet reclaim our liberty without bloodshed.

  35. Why do these people insist on waving the federal flag and pledging allegiance to the banner of their oppressors? At a certain point, there comes a time to stop saying “God save King George!”

  36. The real story isn’t about Bundy. The real story is about the Reids, the Clark County Commission, and the administration of BLM and FWS that make it so very cheap to tear up the desert for profit by offering a pittance to BLM for, of all things, a bit of Tortoise protection.

    The real story is the rabid pursuit of the deal, and of Bundy, by Mary Jo Rugwell (former BLM SDN Director), The Center for Biological Diversity and others, with not a bit of concern or realization that they were simply ‘useful idiots’ for a far greater destruction of desert habitat than the slight improvement in tortoise conditions on the Bunkervile allotment justified.

    The real story is the stuffing of Harry Reid protégés into the BLM were they could make significant decisions directly promoting the wealth of the Reid family.

    That a county can let a family come to dominate its affairs is unfortunate but not uncommon. That such a family could effectively take control of a federal agency whose decisions are crucial to that county, and which decisions could well have their public interest obligation undermined by private alliance, is shameful if not criminal.

    Bundy is a sideshow. Harry and Rory Reid and their interaction with BLM/FWS are the story. The set of regulations which have the effect of making developers the lords over those who need cash to protect habitat…is another scandal. That the ecologists/biologists allow themselves to be put to such service is an embarrassment.

  37. Here’s the frustrating thing about it: Harry Reid sits at his air conditioned desk, ordering his gov’t minions to risk life and limb for his own monetary gain.

    On the other hand, of those who go to support Bundy’s cause, the young and zealous die first, while the older ones get to go back home and eat steak with their families.

    It’s like the jihadists: the young ones are strapping bombs to themselves and never ask the older ones who send them off, “Why do you send us to martydom, when you’re alive and well?”

    Get your own hands dirty, Reid, scumbag.

    • I think that theoretically the “revolution” could be relatively bloodless. I’m eager to see how the NY civil disobedience is going, and they haven’t cancelled the elections yet, and there are some politicians who aspire to sanity, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

      • No, I cite all my sources, detail from multiple videos the series of events as they happened, and present testimony given in interviews by the participants themselves in conjunction with what is codified in the Nevada Constitution. Fact is this was handled very poorly on both sides.

  38. This matter has long since been decided by the courts, in favor of BLM. Bundy is not a “patriot” – he is openly defying the law by insisting he has the “right” to feed and water his cattle on land that does not belong to him. That is more akin to Communism than the American right to exercise dominion over your land. I am grateful BLM exercised restraint by not turning this into a bloodbath, but I have real misgivings about the idea of allowing a militia led by a man who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the Federal government to prevent the government from enforcement of the law. I also think every man who leveled a gun at a federal officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    • “I also think every man who leveled a gun at a federal officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

      But, it’s okay for federal officers to point guns at citizens that are not breaking any law? Where is your call for them to be prosecuted?

      And, *IF* it turns out your ‘federal officers’ are violating the law themselves, those citizens not only have a RIGHT but a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to point their guns…a concept of American governance that I fear is lost on you.

  39. Remember the Founding Fathers were tax evaiders. The Revolutionary War started with a bunch of drunk guys in Lexington. The straw that broke the camel’s back was a “TEA TAX”. Put this in perspective people. Bundy’s Ranch could very well be in the history books. The question is who will be alive to write them? [History is written by its victors]

  40. A lot of people here dont know all the facts. I was there. The Feds surrounded the bundy ranch. There were snipers trained on their home.the town of bunkerville was under marshall law. If you tried to stop of the main road you got arrested. One of the bundy boys was arrested for trying to take pictures of snipers.they released him the next day without comment, but his face was bruised up.we have pictures. On Tuesday of last week one of the bundy boys pulled off the main road to check his bee colony and six bml suvs with armed federal agents in full military gear tried to arrest him. I was there when Margaret got thrown to the ground for trying to take a picture. I was there when the blm tazed ammon bundy for trying to come to Margarets aid. I was there when thier first amendment zone was 10 miles away from ranch. And the first amendment zone was a 25 by 25 foot box that only 20 people could fit in. I think the whole country is a first amendment zone. We finally set up the protest site on private property closer to the ranch. Because if you tried to protest on public property, you got arrested. Thats why the people came. They killed over 109 cows for no reason. Dozens of calves lost there thier moms. They ran the cows to death with helicopters. We had snipers watching us in the private protest site.thats why we came. Now you tell me, if your family was getting beat up, and you had federal snipers watching your home, and you could not get of highway 170 without getting arrested. What would you do. The cops Wouldn’t help.The militia guys came and I am quoting to protect the protesters from harm by the b.l.m. close quote.I was there from Monday to saturday. I want to say I was not armed. I held a sign. I went to the blm compound with the other protesters to send a message to the b.l.m . That we will not stand our rights being compromised. I could care less about Clive or his cows. But people can’t seem to understand that the b.l.m imposed marshall law in the town of bunkerville. We had snipers looking at us. Marshall law? Government snipers? In this country? Thats insane.there is also a no fly zone in effect. I would also like to add that I dont live in bunkerville. I live in Arizona. And I am not a gun loving tea party member.I am a registered democrat. So call me what you will. I did this for you , me, and America.

    • If you’re a land owner I wouldn’t yuk it up too much. The BLM has authority over your land too. If it isn’t the BLM it’s something just like them.

      • No, they don’t. Stop fear mongering on false flags so we can focus on real issues.

        The BLM does not have wide reaching authority like the EPA. They are more like the Forest Service, but for range land (land that doesn’t have trees).

  41. The ignorance of some, not all of the commenters on here totally amazes me.those are the types that sit on the couch eating cheetoes complaining about our government. To those I say why dont you come out to bunkerville and see for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *