Skip to comments.Help with Bundy issues(thnx in advance)
Posted on 04/27/2014 8:39:20 AM PDT by Vendome
Could someone help me understand the issues of Bunny.
Sorry, been sick all week and haven't really been doing more than sleep all I can.
What are the issues regarding Issues regarding graze fees, when were they instituted, why is Bundy saying he'll pay NV but, not ELM.
What's this racism thing I had to hear about ad-naseum yesterday.
Just bumper sticker details would be fine along with a few links.
I don't need Beck crap or anyone else like him.
Just need a bottom line rejoinder so I can Ed Joo Muh Kate my friends on the side of this issue.
Yes, I understand they have conceded their position with the Jim Crow claims.
Thnx again.(might fall asleep soon. If you don't see me responding then I feel asleep.
I should post something on the "Unghh!!!" thread.
News Media Ambush Cliven Bundy
Capitalism Magazine ^ | April 24, 2014 | Edward Cline
Bundy is a well meaning ignorant cowboy who has spent too much time in front of a microphone. He tried to express empathy for blacks and became a accused racist because of bad choice of words and referring to slavery. He did a much better job expressing pro amnesty empathy for Mexicans.
some interesting background:
It’s basically about unconstitutional state land ‘ownership’ tyranny by the federal government and the BLM which has been taken over by environmentalist fascists in particular, and corruption by Harry Reid who has installed one of his corrupt flunkies as the new chief of the BLM to help him in his illicit real estate graft business. The racism charge is trumped up by the media which is desperate to destroy Bundy.
Bundy is being railroaded.
Our entire nation is spinning into sillyspeak.
He expressed himself somewhat less than optimally, but I believe he’s not a racist, yet he is being pilloried by both the left and the right.
I wonder whether the attacks on the sports owner, are an effort to distract from him, in fact.
(the sports owner is allegedly a bigtime democrat)
Bundy has my support. Period.
NYT did an ambush piece on Bundy by using the ol’ Alinsky model and spliced tape to make him appear racist. Beck, Hannity, Ron Paul, etc. ran with original story w/o verification and condemned Bundy. None have apologized.
I think his comments about Blacks being better off as family and productive under slavery than their situation today was right on!
It is really sad to see a Freeper call this man ignorant. What a shame.
My understanding is...
He’s been paying the locals for right to use local land. When the feds simply took over the land, he said screw you, I’ve got a contract already with the locals. The other point is that the law says you can graze free within a certain distance of water sources you create on these lands. He has created many and therefore, by law, does not have to pay.
Democrats have decided they need to ratchet up the War on Whitey to energize the Blacks to get out and vote multiple times in the upcoming Midterms.
There’ll be many more Bundys and Sterlings highlighted in the news before November gets here.
It is really sad to see a Freeper call this man ignorant. What a shame.
If I called him stupid that would be insulting. Ignorant is a state of education/or being informed. Bundy is Ignorant of the PC ways and the traps the media lay. He is not stupid.
For sure your not stupid either. Perhaps your Ignorant of the meaning of Ignorant? (no insult intended)
ig·no·rant [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
1.lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
4.due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
I don’t care one tiny whit about Sterling (I’m assuming he’s the democrat sports-team owner?)
But I strongly support Bundy.
Bigtime. Our entire news media is wrong, and I reject them all.
FR seems to be standing pretty much alone at the moment.
I am going to stand up, and use this moment to contribute to the FReepathon.
I strongly encourage everyone to take a moment and consider, what we have in this site.
Support it. Strongly.
Bundy, is a very poor spokesperson, however, He included, in his remarks, abortion, and yes, slavery is odious, but plucking a baby from a mother’s womb, and taking it to the medical waste incinerator, is worse.
For starters, he has a black bodyguard that emphasizes Bundy is NOT a racist.
“Issues of Bunny?”
Well, to begin with... Easter was LAST Sunday.
Hop you.... err I mean Hope you feel better soon.
It is a shame you persist.
I had the same first reaction to your comment, but since I didn’t stop reading at the word “ignorant” I kinda knew where you were coming from.
Actually, during slavery Black families were often split up and sold off.
That was one of the major issues with slavery and was the reason Christians in the North took interest and one of the reasons for the Civil War.
RE: “Battle Cry Of Freedom” James M. McPherson.
I didn’t stop at ignorant either, I know where the poster is coming from. And it is a shame that we would do this. We can find better ways to express his lack of savvy when it comes to the games the media plays.
The Federal Government, Harry and Rory Reid vs. Cliven Bundy & Family, and the USA, Cliff Notes:
The Bundys have been ranching this land for at least three generations, so Bundy asserts some grandfathered rights to use it, while trying not to tread on some terrapins.
The feds in recent years have recognized the need to protect some turtles on the land and have demanded grazing fees for his use of this desolate, cactus/mesquite scrub desert land while providing nothing in return but increasing demands.
Venal, greedy, perpetually scowling and probably certifiably insane Speaker of the House Harry Reid and his lawyer son cast their eyes on this public land and saw a way to make a buck (quite a few bucks actually, and forgiveness in part of debt owed by his day job employer to the PRC might be a part of this sordid affair; in fact, public service has turned out to be very lucrative for Old Harry) so, like the voracious locusts they are, heavily armed BLM `regulators’ were sent to `muscle’ him off the land, break some thumbs, make him an offer, etc.—the Bundys’ `crop’ is beef, without their stock they are out of business and off the land—and the federales, whose only redeeming feature seemed to be that they were not wearing masks, rustled and even shot and buried some of his stock.
Oh, and they ran over and destroyed a `nest’ of turtles (but federal laws don’t apply to feds and David “Howdy Doody” Gregory).
While all this was happening, and then close to the denouement—once the villains looked around, saw they were on TV and realized they were about as welcome as turds in a punchbowl—well, some of us wondered why they seemed to be taking so much time getting the hell out, and it turned out they were digging graves for cattle they shot.
And waiting for local LEOs to escort them safely from the area.
With a little help from his friends, Bundy ran them off and now they lick their wounds, plotting their next move while the MSM, Democrats, GOP—and even some (self-styled) conservatives—try to demonize him, softening the Bundy ranch up for a second strike possibly, by comparing Bundy to Bull Connor and his fellow patriots to stinking `Occupy’ freaks, even though this is Bundy’s land and guests stay with his permission.
You didn’t get very good answers - here goes:
Bundy’s family established grazing rights on open range back in the 1800s. At some point the federal government took ownership of the land (there is some question as to the constitutionality of that ownership) and the BLM managed the land. Bundy was charged, and paid, the management fees for years. About 20 years ago, the BLM decided to run all the ranchers off the land by reducing their grazing allotment by 90%. Of the nearly 50 ranchers that grazed the land in the area, only Bundy is left. All of the ranchers were given a paper to sign, acknowledging the 90% “temporary” reduction. Bundy refused, because he owned the rights from before the time the feds owned the land. The BLM refused to accept payment from Bundy because he didn’t sign the paper. Bundy paid the county and state portions of that fee.
That’s pretty much the issue - so the BLM came in with guns and men and rounded up Bundy’s cattle, killing several and separating mother cows from their calves. People flocked to the Bundy ranch with guns to face off the BLM. The BLM backed down, for now.
Harry Reid has an interest in the fight, because the land is needed as tortoise habitat in order for a solar power project to move forward on some land 50 miles away - that was sold to the Chinese at about 25% of appraised value. The deal was handled by Reid’s son. The ChiCom the deal was made with is a friend of Reid’s.
Harry Reid called the folks supporting Bundy domestic terrorists and says the fight is not over.
Bundy unfortunately chose to go “off topic” and make a comparison between the plight of the “Negroes” (his word) in the welfare system and the slaves on the southern plantations. He also used poor phrasing in his statement. His words were twisted to appear grossly racist.
Look at this clip from Fox News Judge Jeanine - she does a pretty good job of telling the Harry Reid part of the whole deal.
during slavery Black families were often split up ....Sorta like now ‘cptin’n ain’t got no black families except in a few instances.
I never said you stopped there, that’s why I didn’t ping you to my comment.
Sorry if you got that immpression.
Latest update from Bundy’s son.
Some historical background.
The land in question is part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Lake Mead is man made lake formed behind Hoover dam. The ownership of the land, prior to the US Government taking control, belonged to Mexico. In the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (US Constitution Article II section 2 Treaty clause) at the end of the US Mexico war, the lands transferred to the United States in 1948. Nevada was only a territory at the time.
In 1849 (1 year later) Congress establish the Department of the Interior
In 1864 Nevada became a state. As part of the requirement set by Congress for Nevada to become a state, control of those lands were ceded to the US Government (Ordinance section of the State of Nevada constitution) http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html
This raised some legal questions with regard to Congress power to require states to cede the land. Further, some additional issues were raised about these Federal Enclaves with regards to Congress enumerated power under Article I Section 8.
Article I Section 8
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
These questions were settled in 1885 (Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264 (1885)). In that ruling, SCOTUS ruled that there were two additional ways in which the United States could acquire federal enclaves: (1) the states could cede legislative jurisdiction to the United States, and (2) the United States could reserve legislative jurisdiction at the time of statehood. The Supreme Court added that these cessions and reservations were not limited to Enclave Clause (needful building) purposes.
So as of 1886, the US Government has owned the lands and has had exclusive jurisdiction of those lands. These are the facts in evidence and not in question.
1903 President Theodore Roosevelt establishes the first National Wildlife Refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. The Census Bureau is transferred to the Department of Commerce.
1910 The Bureau of Mines (Dept of Interior) is created to promote mine safety and minerals technology.
1920 The Mineral Leasing Act establishes the government’s right to rental payments and royalties on oil, gas, and minerals production.
1934 The Taylor Grazing Act is enacted to regulate economic uses of public lands.
In the west, “ranches” are composed of up to three types of lands. There are private lands that the land owner owns called deeded acres, state lands that are rented (state leased acres) and federal lands that are rented (federal leased acres). The leasing of federal lands for grazing cattle first started with the Taylor Grazing Act.
1935 The Bureau of Reclamation completes construction of Hoover Dam. The area surrounding Lake Mead was established as the Boulder Dam Recreation Area in 1936. Later this was renamed to what is now the area known as the Lake Meade National Recreation Area and contains the 600,000 acres that Bundy was grazing his cattle on. The area in question is at it’s closes point, about 5 miles from Lake Meade.
1946 Interior’s General Land Office and Grazing Service are merged into the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
1947 (about) Clive Bundy is born. He is reported as being 67 years old so I did a straight subtraction to find this date.
Up until 1993, Bundy was paying his grazing fees. These leases expire every 10 years but can be renewed. In 1993, BLM wanted to reduce the land that Bundy was allowed to lease to only support 150 head (down from 500 or so). The stated reason was for the protection of the habitat of the desert tortoise. Bundy refused the terms of the agreement and stopped paying his lease fees to BLM.
In 1994, when Bundy did not make his payments, BLM leased the grazing rights to another organization. I believe it was some environmental group, I dont have their name at the moment.
Bundy attempted to pay the old fees to the State of Nevada. However, Nevada does not own the lands in question and it would have been illegal (fraud) for them to accept payment so they refused.
Bundy continued to graze his cows on US lands without permission (permits) and without paying the required grazing fees. This is no different that a landlord renewing a lease agreement with new terms (say only 4 residents) and the renter not wanting to sign the new contract but continues to occupy the apartment.
BLM then followed a course of legal actions of the next 20 years in an attempt to 1) remove the cows and 2) recover the grazing fees. Bundy and the BLM met in court twice and both times, Bundy lost his case as he was unable to show that he had a right to use US Government land without the BLM’s permits. The court issued and injunction to Bundy and told him to remove his cattle. When he refused to do so, the BLM went to court and asked for permission to remove the cows themselves and it was granted.
The reason stated by the BLM for such a heavy LEO presence was Bundy’s own words in which he threatened a range war should the BLM attempt to remove cattle from “his ranch”.
Again, those are the facts in evidence and that brings us up to the stand off at the ranch. What I have not covered are the allegations of corruption by Reid, the Chinese and solar plants. As those are opinions and not facts, I will not discuss them here and will allow others to cover that topic.
Correction - the lands transferred to the US Government in 1848 not 1948.
Feel like crap.
Have had to lay low for 5 days now.
Hate taking anti-cough meds.
Burn stomach and give so much gas the EPA might start remediation procedures on me.
* * *THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HELP* * *
Bright, beautiful, could tear my head off if I pissed her off.. What’s not to love? Up there with Sarah.
give so much gas the EPA might start remediation procedures on me....Oh, Lord. They might frac you!! don’t let it HAPPEN, HAVE A GUSHER! QUICK!
The Lake Mead National Recreation Area, owned by the National Park Service, is part of what the feds call the "New Trespass Areas" in the most recent legal action. These are the BLM Gold Butte and NPS Lake Mead areas outside the Bunkerton allotment where Mr. Bundy is currently grazing cattle.
It is quite different from the renter/landlord scenario you described - unless the renter has an easement to live in the property.
The Bundy’s have grazing rights that predate the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In that treaty, it establishes that all rights and claims in effect prior to the transfer of government administration, will remain in effect after said transfer. So according to this treaty, Bundy owns the right to graze the land without paying “rent” for it.
Actually, according to Bundy’s family (namely his sister), they did not occupy those lands until the 1870s. Well AFTER the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. Prima facia evidence of this is the fact that they payed grazing fees at all. No one pays grazing fees for land that they already own.
It is not Federal control of the land that's the core of the argument, but whether or not any promise was made to attract settlers to that land. If such a contract was written or implied, it should still stand. That agreement would have been an enticement to settle that land and I see know reason why, at the time, the government intended it any other way than permanent. Even if fees were involved, the government should not unilaterally alter the original understanding without compensation.
The acreage is almost inconceivable to an Easterner like me, but this is dessert and if I recall correctly what I read, 150 acres are needed to sustain one beef. This guy is hardly what you'd call a Barron. A severe reduction in the herd would make ranching untenable and demanding such a thing is unreasonable.
Of course this understanding came from remarks by Bundy's daughter, admittedly one-sided.
Aaah - thanks for the clarification. They never owned the land, but they own the grazing rights - by Nevada law. I know my brother doesn’t pay “grazing fees”, he pays “management fees” - because he owns the grazing rights.
“Bundy is a well meaning ignorant cowboy”
Thanks for showing us all where you stand on this incident.
I have supported Cliven Bundy since long before this issue ever made the public news and I will continue to support him and his family until I die.
The most complete data is from the Beaver Dam Mountains. Woodbury and Hardy reported a tortoise population density of 150 per square mile in 1948. BLM reduced cattle grazing a few years later and eliminated cattle in 1970. Coombs reported a tortoise density of 39 per square mile in 1974. In these 26 years cattle use was reduced 100 percent and tortoise numbers were reduced 74 percent.
These tortoises were doing so poorly a veterinarian, Dr. Jarchow, was consulted. He reported all six specimens were suffering from osteoporosis caused by a protein deficiency in their diet. Dr. Jarchow examined five specimens from the same mountains that shared their range with cattle. He reported these specimens were all healthy and well nourished.
The historical record proves conclusively that tortoise thrive when cattle are on the range with them and without cattle grazing they are always malnourished and unhealthy and their numbers plummet.
I was going to leave well alone on the subject, having had a fair hearing here. I just happened to have on CTV (Canada). There was a gentleman by the name of Butch Carter, a former coach of the Toronto Raptors. He came off most statesmanlike and the voice of reason on the subject of Sterling. He would be described as black.
Then the usual suspect, the female interviewer asked him this. Did he ever experienced racism in the Toronto organization?. I wonder if she expected a pious accolade? He launched into a bitter denunciation of the then owner, a Richard Peddie. Turns out he was fired in the year 2000. Yes, implied it was racist.
The weapon used to attempt to crush Sterling is one of the most effective of our times. The only possibility is that the left may wear out it's use. I observe that ordinarily the destruction of an individual happens, then all is quiet. Then it is paraded again. This time it has come quickly on the heels of Bundy.
I wonder if it will ever become blunted with over use?.
Let's hope so. I think it will. I think most Americans lean to the right and that guys like Reid are in office ONLY because of systemic, organized vote fraud that pushed just enough over the line to put him in. So the whole controversy revolves around a politician who, in actual on-the-ground terms, was rejected by most of "the people."
I looked back through your posting history and couldn’t find anything where you wrote that you stood with Bundy on his fight for property rights. Did I miss it or haven’t you written anything on it?
I had not commented here on the BLM/Bundy episode buy I am lock and stock on his side with respect to the USG vs the Individual and Federal vs states control of in boundary state property. The Feds should own or lease military facilities beyond that they should not own or control one square inch of land in CONUS. I dont even support national parks.
I am also for the dissolution of the BLM, EPA, Education department, IRS, Commerce,and Homeland security departments.
I detest the Democrats and their moderate wing, the GOP.
Having said this I do not comment on everything and occasionally I comment on too many things.
Geeze, she’s a babe...
This might interest you.
Records: Bundy ancestors were farmers, not full-time ranchers