This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Warns The Nevada Standoff Is A Symptom of Increasing Authoritarianism
Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,
The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government's use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in non-violent civil disobedience in support of the family.
The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.
In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.
Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.
By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.
It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.
A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.
History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.
»
- 20947 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
when i grow up i wanna be like Ron,
Effen brilliant!
Sorry Ron. You're talking riddles.
This is all about that fuck Harry Reid and his kickback for the solar farm that he wants built so he can collect MOAR cash off the taxpayers back.
Harry Reid has tried to do this through his son Rory Reid who is representing ENN (Chinese Solar Co) - so Rory talks to dad and here comes the kickback.
So Ron - let's call dogshit for what it is. Harry fuckwad Reid used federal gov resources to get his pet project - the one his son Rory is in charge of - implemented on land that is legally used by ranchers.
The only reason this is news is that Harry fuckwad Reid didn't share his kickback with the ranchers. Greedy fucking pig!!!!
So Ron, do us all a favor and get to the real point of what's going on and stop kissing the ass of your enemy.
So how long have you been off your meds?
Ummmm, let me think.....hmmm.
GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE!!!
There, that's my final answer!!!
Rising Sun - I think Ron was trying to make a broader point and not have the conversation derailed by Harry Reid's coverup and denials.
That being said the line about selling Federal Land back to the states is dangerous. All of that Federal land properly belongs to US citizens and not the government. They have no rights to ownership and legally cannot sell it. If they somehow could prove that their "management" takeover is legal then all of the states should demand usage fees above and beyond the fees they collect for drilling, logging, grazing, etc. I think they would get out of the land management business soon thereafter.
Harry Reid is a specific example of out of control government. Generalizing is another way to sweep it all under the rug.
This case should be pursued and Harry Reid and his dogshit son should hang for it.
Make an example of an example. Generalizing does fuck all. I like Ron, but he's doing the double talk as a precursor to more of the same.
And as far as ownership, your comment is correct. But effective control lies in the hands of a few as Harry Reid has demonstrated and almost got away with.
Building a fucking solar farm - and a US Senator confiscating assets and using lethal force to do it. The ability to do this needs to stop. This is the equivalent of the FBI and CIA getting involved with a shoplifting investigation at a 7-Eleven.
Point taken. I would like to see Harry Reid exposed to the fullest extent and tried via the RICO act. He should also be tried for terrorism and sent to GITMO (after stripping him of all of his assets.)
My point was that I was willing to cut Ron some slack since his son still has to dance with the devil in Congress.
^^^ voter mind in action.
((Harry Reid & spawn prime example of CONgress))
Authoritarian welfare warfare state.
Yeah. What he said.
Is there no end to this raging hatred of our government? It is like a social autoimmune disease, where our body politic tries to destroy its own nervous system. What is so hard to understand about the fact that corporations have NO OBLIGATION to support the public good. They HAVE NO MORALS. A corporation will pollute, injure, and even kill to improve its profitability, and the stockholders will punish managers who reduce profits to serve some social good. This is why governments grant charters to corporations and supervise their behavior, not vice-versa.
So rant away at the evil gummint. Try not to think about how a society run exculsively by billionaires would operate. A few more "conservative" Supreme Court decisions and you will get to see how much better you live in the United States of Wal-Mart.
Society is run by billionaires dipshit, until your Gub'ment is small enough to NOT impose"regulations" favoring the corporations over the individal you will be kept a SLAVE. Maybe you LIKE it?
And the day they can't "impose" regulations favoring the corporations, that'll be the day the corporations will pass it themselves. Create a power vacuum, and only the powerful will fill it.
It is pretty much run by billionaires now and their bought and paid for voters
and those billionaires know that those folks who need a hero to lean on will always be available for support.
The hatred of the Federal government grows as it expands beyond the bounds that the original founding fathers of the country intended. The idea back then was to distribute powers to the states and even to individuals so that stuff like this would not happen. The bureaucrats who ran federal programs were supposed to be temporary positions for common citizens to manage, as they had a personal stake in seeing that large public bodies did not step on the rights of the citizens they govern. Now we have career politicians whose goal is to maintain and increase their control and power in their position and in their political body. This was not meant to be.
So yes, there will be no end to this raging hatred until we re-learn the reason and purpose of a national government again.
lulz, like just lulz,
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My laughing broke the comment area.
Who'll stand up for the poor widdle guberment? Sniff, sniff...
Pretty funny the way Kuntbelieveit sits there pounding away on his keyboard about the selfless morality of government — ALL WHILE THE NSA SPIES ON EVERY FUCKING THING HE'S SAYING.
I really did laugh out loud on that one.
Corporations don't have power. Government is shear power.
Government uses big corporations not the other way around. If the big Coprs were really in power they wouldn't have to pay homage in the form of billions of dollars to gain the little goodies government dispenses to them.
Pretty sure they use each other - Corporatism.
You should research the term "inverted totalitarianism"...I believe it describes our current global political environment rather succinctly.
Is there no end to this raging government? It is like a parasite destroying the host, where our governing class tries to destroy its own nervous system. What is so hard to understand about the fact that the government corporation has NO OBLIGATION to support the public good. They HAVE NO MORALS. A government run by corporations will pollute, injure, and even kill to improve its profitability, and the stockholders will punish managers who reduce profits to serve some social good. This is why governments are bought and paid for by corporations to advance their behavior, not vice-versa.
So rant away at the evil landowner. Try understand how a society run exculsively by billionaires is operated. A few more "progressive" Supreme Court decisions and you will get to see how much better you live in the United States of socialism.
-fixed it for ya...fucking schmuck
YES!!!
Government sells favors to the billionaires, which allows them to control everything.
Without big Government, there are no more favors to sell.
Fuck .gov. It lost it's moral high ground and thus its legitimacy a long time ago. There is only liberty when government fears the people.
Simply put, the "government" is the people, and the people are now the corporation...
So the corporation is the fucking government asshat.
That kind of power and control is never willingly given up.
History is very clear on this. There will be blood, there is no other way.
deal with it.
Option A) Is to Amend the Constitution to abolish the 17th amendment. Then we would be a republic again and start down the path of healing our Country.
Option B) See comment above. History is VERY clear. Ignore option A at our own peril.
the federal government is overstepping its boundries. Big brother is getting increasingly invasive. I think most americans sense this and are starting to push back.
Consider what our founding fathers envisioned. If you read the federalist and anti federalist papers, the driving Ethos of the system those boys devised was to keep it local, in plain view of those that could readily correct the wayward actions of the few, before they threatened the many.
Now that pyramid has been inverted. the wayward actions of the few, out of sight of most, affect the many before it can be effectively stopped short. These same wayward few are furiously working to strip americans of their liberties, and do so by enacting laws that award our increasingly aggressive federal govt more and more powers. How are
we supposed to feel?
Edit- bryan gets it
Yes, and I have a copy and have read The Federalist Papers... as well as Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence, and of course the Bible. I am also reading a book now called Rebels & Redcoats, eye-witness accounts from diaries and letters of the people who lived through the Revolutionary War. These documents should be required reading for all people who aspire to be involved with governing others, at least in America.
One of my favorite quotes, by George Santayana, comes to mind for our current culture: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
"by accessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands."
i pay a fee to use a national park, so can bundy
It is not a national park asshat.
Let's make your analogy accurate: the feds unilaterally classify your lot as "federally protected land" and charge you a fee every time you enter or exit your front door. Pretty sweet, right?
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the national park fee is for upkeep and maintenance of the parks. It is basically a "use" tax. Is that not fairer to those people who don't go to the parks?
I'm not sure how that relates to the analogy, but the Department of the Interior receives funding from the federal budget, so you're paying for the national park system whether you visit or not. However, I agree that a pure user fee is fair.
The purpose of my correction to patb's asinine example was to highlight the "taking" aspect of the fed's actions here.
Feds: This land is "ours" now, because turtles. You owe us monies.
Any rational human being: Errr...what?
I'm sure the BLM was suuuuuper busy on grazing field maintenance and making sure its grass output was optimal.
I also agree a use tax is fair(er).
That's not an accurate analogy.
Did you post before you finished the comment? What's inaccurate? Help me correct it.
It's inaccurate because Bundy's rights, if any (and that's a great big "if"), are not the same as a normal homeowner with respect to the land in question. There is no fee simple recorded in county records with lien and security agreement, etc. Bundy is asserting some basis for his rights that I haven't fully understood yet. He seems to be saying that his family has been grazing that land since before there was any federal authority over it, which means they would have to have been there before about 1870, which is when Bundy says they got there. So, I just don't understand his claim.
Sure, the actual situation is complex. I wonder, though, why you don't have a similar criticism for patb's analogy. Or why you don't invest as much thought into what rights the BLM has to the property in question (i.e. none). That was the purpose of my analogy in the first place: to highlight the taking. Whether Bundy owes money or not, whether he has grazing rights or not, what legitimate role does the BLM have here to make any of those determinations, and how did it acquire that role?
At any rate, your criticism is well-taken. Fee simple property ownership is not the same as grazing rights.
It seems to me that the federal government won that land in the war. The Treaty ceded the land over to the United States, which was the sovereign combatant who won the war. The Treaty was duly ratified by the Senate, making it U.S. law that the federal government took de facto and de jure possession of the land. How could it be otherwise. Nothing else existed. The land became a federal territory, effectively "owned" by the federal government. Nobody else owned it--the federal government acquired sovereignty over that land by conquest. It seems to me the question of current federal power/sovereignty over that land comes down to what happened when it was incorporated into the State of Nevada. As I understand it, Nevada was actually incorporated before the land in question was added to the state. And, of course, Nevada was created by Congress, so any question of the legality of Congress changing the number of people required to make a state is moot. 1. Many here have said the federal government made a "contract" with Nevada settlers that they would "always" be able to graze on federal lands for free. It is ancient common law that there is no contract without an exchange of consideration, so without some consideration flowing from the settlers to the federal government, there was no contract. It is not clear whether the federal government made some representation or promise to the settlers. 2. Many have said here that the federal government did not have the power to retain "ownership" of the land once the State of Nevada was incorporated. I'm not sure why people think the federal government cannot own land, since the Constitution specifically contemplates the notion of federal property in Article IV. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may lease federal land (39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526 (1840)), may sell electricity from the TVA (297 U.S. 288 (1936)), and transfer federal lands to another person COMPLETELY free of state influence (80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92 (1871)). It should also be noted that in the case of Light v. U.S. (220 U.S. 523 (1911)), Fred Light asserted that the federal government had no power to stop him grazing his cattle on public lands of the United States in the State of Colorado. Light generally refused to comply with federal rules and regulations regarding the land. The Supreme Court held that an implied license existed so long as the public lands were not fenced, and so long as the federal government did not cancel its tacit consent. The failure to withdraw consent, however, did not "confer any vested right on the complainant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land had been used for private purposes." The Supreme Court held that the "nation is an owner", and that "Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of" (citing 196 U.S. 126). "'The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers,... for 'the government is charged with the duty and clothed with the power to protect the public domain from trespass and unlawful appropriation.' United States v. Beebe, 127 U.S. 342. So there appears to be ample Supreme Court precedent for the notion that the federal government can "own" property constitutionally.
Another thing I don't understand about this whole thing is why the BLM didn't take their federal court order to a county court and get a writ sent to the sheriff to remove the cattle. Seems like an easy way to end this whole thing.
sufferin cats,
----->Fantasy http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=park+ranger+yogi+bear&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=park+ranger+yogi+bear&sc=6-15&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=8989D924B55D513884A5E3F914EB47019F2F0D60&selectedIndex=10
----->Reality http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=blm+snipper&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=blm+snipper&sc=1-11&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=23ECD2BB2FF5F28E84743398579868C65749B7B5&selectedIndex=5
Can we move this http://www.jeffhead.com/bundy/bundy-10.jpg about one mile outside of Topeka for Michelle?
The "Land of the Free" - inside prescribed areas only. For your own safety of course.
It's the banksters and it's media against the masses.
It's government against us like it has always been since the dawn of government.
Dr. Paul you are a good man, but it needs to be pointed out that when the feds say it's about a turtle, it's never about a lousy turtle. It's about restricting resource rich land that the people in .gov and their crony capitalist friends hope to exploit later for profit.
and what do you want to bet that mob grazing by the cattle creates an environment conducive to the survival and thriving of the desert tortoise??? I mean what the fuck do these guys think, that the cattle go around stomping desert tortoises into the ground ??? Give me a fucking break...
Agree, how did the tortoise survive when MILLIONS of bison grazed there for centuries?
Agree, but I don't think this is bisons' habitat anyways
I'd love me some 100% tortoise stomping beef hamburger!
Ron Paul is like General Custard, he's surrounded.
"General Custard"?
Is that like with a cone?
A ConeHead?
"..., whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian,..."
lol, that made my day. thx ron. xD
Mine too. Have to laugh at Ron and his sheer display of ignorance.
That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.
If you do not know that America is a fascist, police state, you should be sniffing your glue in a more ventilated space:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks “destroy upon recognition” any communication provided by the NSA “that is either to or from an official of the US government.” It goes on to spell out that this includes “officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court).”
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html
Harry Reid, the top guy in the US Senate, sent his quasi-military troops in and prayed for a Waco to preserve his backdoor Communist solar turtle deal.
Reid is not a complicated man.
An incoherent rant should be differentiated from reasonable outrage.
Anybody who conflates the cow dude who thinks he should be able to graze his cattle wherever he wants, no matters whose land it's on, with "fighting fascism," needs to go back to the dictionary.
The "facists" are people who think they can use guns to bully law abiding citizens and ignore the law when it suits them. (See: Eastern Ukraine.)
Another sock puppet account who has been here over four years yet just started commenting in March. I'm fairly certain that the people of east Ukraine are resisting an illegitimate government who overthrew a democratically elected one.
Agreed Doc. After spending 4 years at ZH here myself, the puppets, trolls and bots are easy to spot. It doesn't take a lot of thought to see right through them and the flimsy logic and reasoning that always sticks out in their posts.
while I don't recognise/remember the poster either, I think you'll both acknowledge that I've been posting here longer than my account shows here.
I took a break from posting, and it would appear that archived posts remove our posting history after some time passes.
just sayin'.
He has grazed his cattle there for generations, and the Taylor Grazing Act left in place all accepted rights held before 1934, which the Bundy's had.
Ignore the law in E. Ukraine? How about ignoring the law with respect to elected governments and the right of self determination?
Prescription: review of Waco, Ruby Ridge, end of posse comitatus, a Russian History course, chamomile tea with a sprig of mint, and one 325mg aspirin (+bloodflow).
Actually, history shows that most regimes have been authoritarian. Also that nothing is as prone to dispute as private property, not only what lands belongs to who (or what country or people, but also what the limits to property claims are (Can you sell ancestral land? Do you own the minerals under the land, all the way to the centre of the earth, can you forbid other people to walk acros it, drink some water, breathe the oxygen. Do the land rights include polluting it and having the pollution seep out? Can you kill native species on your land? Do you own the space above it all the way clear to Pluto? Can you start your own little republic on your own land? Can you do your own private killings on your own private property?)
A paragraph that starts with "actually" is often a bad sign.
You sound like you feel secure when .gov tells you what to do.
WB7's classic of Obama with the Hitler mustache comes to mind.
You could put it on any President or Congress Critter except for a very select few.
William has a new site here with an easy way to scroll through a lot of his images: http://wb7.hk/
The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation.
...
Nope it was social media like facebook groups making sure the comm lines stayed open long enough buying the alt media enough time like natural news, freerepublic, infowars, etc to dig up the truth providing them cover that saved these guys from being massacred this time around.
Once truth is out following orders is not acceptable for people training the guns on US like the BLM and DHS and I firmly believe when they know exactly what they are shooting people for not what they are told by the order givers the majority won't do it.
I can't stress enough how important keeping the comm lines open saved those people's asses this time around. Those people were ready to die if necessary over that, they were ready to fight and die if the bullets started flying before backing down. The BLM and DHS tried to black out the comm lines, first they tried corralling people away from the Bundys like animals in 1st amendment animal corrals while trying to surround the Bundys using a sniper perimeter then they cut wireless service so people couldn't communicate out to the internet or on the phones if it wasn't for word of mouth of people getting in and out of the area along with things like ham radios then those words and info being rebroadcast starting in social media those people would have been massacred if they had managed to achieve a complete comm blackout and totally surround the place. Social media like facebook maybe compromised but it does have value and it bought these people the necessary time for the alt media cavalry to ride in and provide them the information cover they needed to back off the order givers.
"The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between..."
I beg to differ.
The majority of the "nation" either does not care, or it's Keeping Up with the Motherfucking Kraptrashians, engrossing in the pingingpalooza in the Malaise-ya jet dunking/sinking/blowing upping/hidey go seeking....
Not to mention Fuckabama and Blowden and Poooootie!
Few know of this standoff .....and that is sad...
Dancing with the Stars don't 'cha know!
The majority are human cattle; moo!
In monday's humor category.
http://gawker.com/income-inequality-institute-will-pay-paul-krugman-25-0...
Income Inequality Institute Will Pay Paul Krugman $25,000 Per Month
In late February, the City University of New York announced that it had tapped Princeton economist and New York Times blogger Paul Krugman for a distinguished professorship at CUNY’s Luxembourg Income Study Center, a research arm devoted to studying income patterns and their effect on inequality.
About that. According to a formal offer letter obtained under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, CUNY intends to pay Krugman $225,000, or $25,000 per month (over two semesters), to “play a modest role in our public events” and “contribute to the build-up” of a new “inequality initiative.” It is not clear, and neither CUNY nor Krugman was able to explain, what “contribute to the build-up” entails.
It’s certainly not teaching. “You will not be expected to teach or supervise students,” the letter informs Professor Krugman, who replies: “I admit that I had to read it several times to be clear ... it’s remarkably generous.” (After his first year, Krugman will be required to host a single seminar.)
I believe Ron Paul is off target on this one. He also appears to be a little short on facts. The federal officers were armed, as usual, but did not use live ammo against the obstructors. Some of the demonstrators were armed, as they boasted.
Thousands of ranchers are cooperating with the BLM in its efforts to manage the land sensibly, paying low grazing fees. Fees on state-owned land in Nevada are ten times higher than on federal land. Fees on privately owned land are probably higher still.
Bundy is a deadbeat squatter who refuses to pay fees to graze his cattle on land that does not belong to him. He is not any kind of legiimate rallying personality for anti-government ideologues.
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Silence thought criminal, just drink your floride like a good boy,
I'd rather not have to pay for my raw matrials also. It would be great, my profit margins would soar. Alas, there is no free ride. (pun intended)
Statistics state most of us will live in a house, and die in a hospital.
Does the fucking land belong to you..
Thought not, fuck off then.
All you want id some of his fucking money and my guess is you just another parasite on real peoples backs
Does Bundy recognize the rights of those who used the land for centuries before he got there?
Who?
Clever point 'yrb'.
I would guess, "Yes."
Down vote for this Horsefuck.
RMo assuming your facts are correct, "What difference at this point does it make." The gummint response still is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of whack for someone behind or not paying bills...
I don't believe anyone with knowledge of the situation is giving Bundy much slack about fees owed. The government could have simply put a lien on his property just like any other unpaid debtor. A simple piece of paper. But NO! The government showed up with a couple hundred armed rangers, paid cowboys to round up the cattle, helicopters, et al to not only get the cattle but to intimidate everyone with their supposed power. It didn't work this time because word got out and people showed up. BTW: Most of the hundreds of "Other Ranchers" who comply with the fees are doctors and laywer groups corporate ranches to get the benefits and tax deductions available with NV ranching. They obviously do not want anything to do with a conflict with the BLM. The government will pick off desentors one by one until they feel they can take on all of the remaining without resistance. Then, just name the "XXXism", but it won't be the same as Mayberry RFD.
I believe Ron and his group is anoying enough to .gov lately to draw the ire of the IRS.
Lien, yes. But there is also a sort of ongoing trespass that a lien would not address. The lien would have to be updated every time a new fee is due.
The purpose of swat teams is to take by surprise, to imtimidate and terrorize. Swat teams must terrorize the innocents to protect the innocents from the terrorists.
If Bundy is a deadbeat squatter, the state is a parasitical, megalomanical, violent deadbeat squatter who refuses to produce to survive.
Give us a source for the "fact" that the feds were armed but did not use live ammo, otherwise we will think you are making it up as you go along.
Grasing fees and protecting the desert turtle are the Feds bs legal sticks to beat Bundy with, there's got to be something more to it,.... perhaps it's just Bundy's defying stand against GovCo.?
"In the 19th century, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land." Does anybody know where I can find real documentation of this "promise"?
another perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/egan-deadbeat-on-the-range.htm...
BLM could bring their federal court order to a county court and get a writ sent to the sheriff. Then it would be the local sheriff collecting the cattle at the direction of a local court.
BLM could bring their federal court order to a county court and get a writ sent to the sheriff. Then it would be the local sheriff collecting the cattle at the direction of a local court.
Guess you missed the part at Bundy's where a HUNDRED Sherriff's/Deps and LE showed up with Ex Sherff Richard Mack eh?.
I doubt the Clark County Sherriff would ignore an order from the Clark County Court. The sherriffs were there to fight the feds.
Standing ovation for the arrogant narcissistic pahtological lying illegal alien indonesian kenyan muslim sociopath fudge packer in chief for making this all happen in an accelerating fashion in only 5 years....
you forgot his expensive wife.
The Romantic poets believed poetry would reunite the individual with their feelings and create a psychological revelution to counter the wars and industrialization going on around them.
Hey maybe we ought to all go out and read some fucking poetry tonight.
He had me until I read: "This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit." Then I hit the brakes.
Selling Federal lands? To whom? To you, me? To our Oligarchs or foreign ones? And sell the People's land to pay off a Debt-based fiat currency that's conjured out of thin air, and multiplied by FRB? Has he totally fu..g 'lost' it?
And none of the 'Zheeple' have caught this or question it? Wow.
You have a real point there. Wall Street would own it all or the Chi Coms, which may even be the same thing. I prefer the open range to the landscape being covered with McMansions and god knows what.
I did.
most likely because I like to actually read what "the good doctor" puts his name to (even if it isn't always truly authored by him ^^).
To me this entire topic is ridiculous.
Who ever bought the land would pay good money for it and then destroy it, right? That's what I would do: spend tons of money buying marginal land and then let it go to hell and make the land worthless.
Ted Turner (and I'm sure others) own millions of acres in the US and in South America and other countries. I'm sure they are out to destroy their investments also.
I begin to wonder if any of these bloggers know anything about free markets and liberty!
You must be from Canada...
The land would first go to the State where it rightfully belonged in the first place. Then it would be parcelled up and sold at auction to then be subdivided into whatever people wanted to put on THEIR land. Only collectivists are dense enough to think that a "public" commodity is not abused to the advantage of the ruling oligarchy.
A new Homestead Movement. This time we don't go 50/50 with the railroads.
Oh, what would we have ever done if the stunningly corrupt Grant administration hadn't rescued us from our ignorance by foisting our first national park on us, "for the people", thus giving the feds one more eminent domain club to beat private property owners over the head with?
For years I've been advocating auctions of ALL the federal lands within a given state to all the individual taxpayers of that state on a pro rata basis, with a taxpayer bidding whatever he or she could pay for any particular pro rata tract (access guaranteed; # of tracts = # of individual taxpayers) and both the tract and the taxpayer being removed from the pool after a successful bid. That way the best lands would get the highest bids, generating the most revenue from the individual taxpayers, but NOT corporations, and every taxpayer in the state would get a tract.
Well your the only one asking the right questions.
RP is controlled OPPOSITION, and sunny boy Rand is
a an AIPAC cunt. this is a known known.
RP say's KILL THE FED, to be replaced with what? Why the IMF SDR of course. (IMF is just another ROCKEFELLER
big-oil bitch, like Hillary Clinton )
Sell all PUBLIC land for penny's on the US-dollar to
foreigners, ... who could have guessed? The anglo-sax9son, empire out of house of Cecil Rhodes has planned this all along.
100 years of overgrazing and one might think ranchers are abusing their privepages. Has any one here actually been on land that is over grazed? Ranchers are now supersized and their "operations" are a bit too much. Ron Paul should know being a doctor and all that too much of any one thing is unhealty. Public land should be used by ranchers but they are subject to greed like the rest of us and just like in mining or fishing have to be throttled down or they will overwhelm what the land can sustain. Never listen to a politican from Texas when it comes to how to care for the land. They dont have a clue what they are talking about.
I completely agree on the overgrazing throughout the West -- somewhat caused by BLM in the first place. Their land management practices have been horrendous, including a history of planting invasive foreign species to make up for the native perennial grasses destroyed on a landscape level by overgrazing.
On the other hand, this particular feud seems to involve a high level criminal (Harry Reid) making deals with Chinese First Solar for yet another mega solar farm for which they need this "pubiic" land to be grabbed and leased out to themselves. In true Orwellian logic, the fascists are using the desert tortoise, which has coexisted with this guy's ranching, as the excuse for the utterly corrupt land grab.
These sprouting desert solar farms are FAR FAR worse for the desert tortoise, for desert wildlife in general and for millions of migrating birds as the area is an important summer/winter flyway. The recently constructed farm in Ivanpah, California is already proving to be a disaster for wildlife and it's on "gubmint" land. The solar concentrators create so much heat that it is literally frying birds flying over the thing.
This is all about Harry Reid.
case specific ok, but ranchers are using 100,000's of thousands of acres of land for the grazing. The solar instalations are what 20 acres each? Either side can you cry a tear for? they are both corrupted by greed. think of the poor old tortise? Just wants to nibble on some grass and eat a few bugs. Fuck him right?
Betcha there have historically been a few bison on that same rangeland until the feds decided to get all genocidal to the natives.
Bundy hasn't been accused of overgrazing. In fact he is the last rancher in the area! As far as "public land" goes, Paul has mentioned that the 'tragedy of the commons' comes into play here; if you have land that nobody owns (public land) you will always run into problems. If someone owned it it would be better taken care of.
I imagine Bundy has managed that land as if it were his. BLM are horrid land managers for the most part. Much has been learned by ranchers and range scientists after the mistakes of the last 150 years of western cattle ranching.
This is something like one cow per two acres... I think that grass will grow back.
And the chance of a cow stomping on a hapless turtle is several billion to one.
Whereas the chance of Harry Reid being criminally corrupt is precisely 100%.
Certainly right on Harry Reid. On the cows per acre, this is the arid west and cannot be compared at all to the midwest or east.
How do you know that the Bundy Ranch was overgrazing the allotment? A BLM statement? Are they a disinterested party in this? Could they also under political pressure to run him off the lease? Why would Bundy overgraze a lease that the ranch had relied on for a hundred years? How many acres was that grazing allotment that the ranch was using? How big was his herd?
Paul and his boy Rand are faux "constitutionalists" since they allowed the Usurpation of the Presidency by a foreign installed non natural born Citizen and domestic enemy of the United States whom was born British, and therefore could never be eligible. SHAME on Ron Paul--- he could have stopped it but he was a coward. Did he ever do anythiong but talk about the FED? Controlled opposition for sure.
Rand is one thing, but Ron is the real deal. Ron fought the good fight. He now realizes that working within gov't is not the way to go. He was the only voice in gov't I could trust..and being only one in the land of sociopathic DC is not good odds of getting anything done. He is for small to zero government, that qualifiys as a "guy on my side."
Allowed?
If he had made the public aware that Obama was not eligible then the domestic enemy Usurper would have never been allowed in the Oval Office. Or he could have made sure an objection was filed per 3 US Code 15 in the Joint session to count the electoral votes.
Barry O came out of nowhere to capture the presidency in a year when many were disaffected with the Republican neocons and Democrat Clinton bullshit. They ate up rainbows, unicorns, hope, change and all that jive. Had Ron cast aspersions on his pedigree he would have been marginalized as a "birther" by both the Ds and the Rs and would have had folks like Glen Beck beating up on him as a whacko just like he infamously did to Rachel Medina of Texas. It wasn't Ron's place to vet Barry O, it was the MSM's or the Republican Party's.
I cannot understand why no one that supports him can see that all he has done is talk, talk, talk and has done absolutely nothing.
How is it someone gets to be lionized simply for stating that the King wears no clothes?
He's made his rep as a Monday morning quarterback, able to discern all that is wrong with the way the game was and should be played but does nothing to change the outcome.
He has made his name and millions questioning authority? Nothing to see here just another bored politican
Never thought I'd say this, but I'm starting to think RP is controlled opposition.
Sorry Ron, but BLM rangers are not the enemy, The Fed is.
Half-wit 60 IQ Faux News-watching hillbillies with ARs are not a revolution, they're a distraction.
The US Armed Forces arresting the chair and the members of the Federal Reserve, TBTF's, Jamie Dimon, et al is a revolution.
Wake me when the latter occurs...
"The US Armed Forces arresting....." Wouldn't that be a military coup d'etat because they would also have to co-opt the executive branch? Who's in charge then? General Alexander?
It would have been different if JANNET RENO was in charge ROFLOL
"Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government"
Anyone who opposes the government policies, as dictated by various special interest groups, is labeled a terrorist.....the irony is that people like Harry Reid are the greatest danger to our country....far more damaging than any "terrorist".
If you were al quaeda and wanted to bring the U.S. down, you'd clone this guy and have the results running the government in D.C.
Webster makes a dictionary just in case
Empty the jails of non violent offenders and start a round up? I am sure this little segment of pop culture would not be missed!
"...authoritarian systems...inevitably fail"...
and those responsible HANG!
yep and typically 20 Million die in the process....
This chap here should be your first good warning that its a man bites dog narrative
Harry Reid is a screaming walking billboard for congressional term limits.
Sometimes I wonder if that would make any difference at all. Dirty Harry's sons would be his successors and his sons are without doubt worse than Harry, having been raised in Harry's decency-deficient world of political greed, parasitism, influence peddling and corruption -- to them it is their rightful place in life.
So why didn't the BLM file a lien on the cattle? And why are they afaid to go to court, presciptive rights.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescri...
Get out and vote... that will fix things.
/not
The federal government admits it has no idea how many agencies (just federal) that exist.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/the-government-has-no-idea-how-many-agencies-it-has/
Think of this as you pay your taxes.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
The truth comes out that Bundy is just racist bigot like most of his followers.
Republican politicians began backtracking on their support of Nevada anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy after the New York Times caught Bundy making racially-inflammatory remarks blaming African-Americans for willingly submiting to dependency on federal assistance.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy was quoted as saying to a group of supporters last Saturday. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”