Sen. Reid on Cattle Battle: "It's not over"

[Manatee]

It would seem that you are missing the point. The group is made up of people who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution who gathered together as a political pressure group to make sure that those following behind them who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution actually do so regardless of the person (i.e., any citizen, having so sworn or not) who is the target when they do not do so.

Intellectually, that might fly. In reality? I'm not defending someone who is a pedophile (for example) even though his land rights are the issue with the BLM. At a certain point, this intellectual fol de rol on the internet gets down to reality in the day to day world. If you are a butthead in the real world, I'm gonna have a hard time getting past that to begin to understand your constitutional problems. Life is too short to ride with ugly women.

On the other hand, if you are a lifelong friend, I may stand with you even if I know you are wrong. The bonds of the tribe are stronger than some law created by 18th Century landowners.

 

[jwh20]

What baffles me is why the voters in Nevada continue to reelect this man to the Senate. I keep hoping that he's going to take things just too far for even the most liberal citizens in that state will view him as the threat to our nation that he is and send him packing.

 

[rockhopper46038]

The Las Vegas service union vote overwhelms the entire rest of the state. Reid is the Democrat, therefore the union default vote. Hard to knock him off.

 

[drop45]

I'm so sick and tired of how large this federal gubment of OURS has gotten. Can they not just get the heck out of our lives? Have we fallen so far from grace that this is the best we can do for our country. I was too young for Nam, too fat for the Storm, and too old for Gulf II. But if our country's survival would have needed me even today I would serve. Just 'cause someone did not go to Nam, Mr. Manatee does not make him a coward. Perhaps his number was never called, or perhaps he was up in Canada protecting us from a Communist invasion from the North: sound familiar (think Clinton).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Intellectually, that might fly. In reality? I'm not defending someone who is a pedophile (for example) even though his land rights are the issue with the BLM. At a certain point, this intellectual fol de rol on the internet gets down to reality in the day to day world. If you are a butthead in the real world, I'm gonna have a hard time getting past that to begin to understand your constitutional problems. Life is too short to ride with ugly women.

On the other hand, if you are a lifelong friend, I may stand with you even if I know you are wrong. The bonds of the tribe are stronger than some law created by 18th Century landowners.

Again, you just plain don't get it. It has nothing to do with the person of Mr. Bundy or the specifics of the situation, bur rather that if they can send a de facto army after him, they can send one after you. I know that you will smugly reply that you don't do anything to attract unwanted .gov attention, but for how long. As Ayn Rand so nicely packaged it:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

How long will it be before you are boxed into that corner? When it happens, do you think you will be exempt from the same kind of treatment? Martin Niemoller has something to say about that:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is what it is all about. Not the specifics of a situation or the personality of the participant on the receiving end, but rather that we cannot allow it to become accepted practice to use this kind of force against citizens.

 

[Manatee]

You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I don't see Bundy being a hero in this matter. The government should have used less onerous methods: Liens, bank account freezing, etc. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I don't see Bundy being a hero in this matter. The government should have used less onerous methods: Liens, bank account freezing, etc. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Let me make sure I am understanding this right: You are arguing that we can allow the government to do things like this and not address it (again, remembering that the focus of Oath Keepers is keeping oath takers honest) because Bundy is not the most picturesque poster child, let the .gov do what it does best singling out people who are not picturesque poster children until a practice becomes acceptable because it is only directed at 'those people' and then try to argue that it is not acceptable when they start using it on 'us people' only to laugh and hear them say that it has been accepted practice for decades, "What the hell are you talking about?," as you get overrun.

Again, Niemoller took an approach very similar to that of believing that bit about dogs and fleas. You will find that if you tolerate abuses like this now, it will come back to haunt you later--or, if you are old enough to escape it, you have to ask yourself if a police state is really what you want your children and grandchildren to live in.

 

[jamil]

It took me a long time to make up my mind where I stand on all this, mostly because figuring out who's telling the truth is a difficult task. I eventually concluded Bundy is a bit nutty. But had he not gotten the story out, the things our government is willing to do would not have been exposed as it was. I don't think of Bundy as a hero. The people who went and stood with him because of principle regarding the heavy handed tactics of a land management bureaucracy of all things, yes, I think quite well of them.


and I'm sure partisan politics are involved to some extent but I am glad to see the western states discover their middle finger.

Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land - CSMonitor.com

 

[Mustang380gal]

Apparently, BLM is after another rancher, now.

Diamond Bar Ranch in NM Seized by US Forest Service! | Americas Freedom Fighters

They stole this guy's cattle, and smuggled them out of the state.


.gov has things backward--put hardworking Americans out of work, yet coddle illegal immigrants and welfare bums.

 

[indyblue]

I stole this from a comment on Breitbart. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but this sequence of events is plausible and probably accurate:

1- Bundy already owned the grazing fees, etc., already bought and paid for in perpetuity
2- BLM declares them null and void over the dessert tortoise. ( a ruse because cattle & tortoises get along)
3- BLM issues new paperwork, allowing grazing with a fee..(what happened to the cattle endangering the tortoise? Oh that was just a ruse to nullify their already existing grazing rights)
4- On the paperwork, each rancher has to sign includes a clause of willingly relinquishing already existing grazing rights
5- Bundy won’t sign away his grazing rights that he already has (if those rights were not true and indeed belonging to Bundy….why does BLM require he sign them away?)
6- BLM won’t allow Bundy to pay without the paperwork signing away his existing rights.

That’s the real issue….not paying the fee.
Bundy wouldn’t sign away his existing rights…and BLM doesn’t want people to know they are being imperialistic about requiring ranchers to sign away their grazing rights.
The BLM is not an elected body, which means the citizen has no representation with them. They are an agency in the gov’t acting imperialistically. we don’t believe in taxation, arbitrarily imposed gov’t fees and regulations! This is America!!
Our forefather fought and died to pass on these rights to us….if we just sit back and allow them to be taken away….we dishonor their deaths and bloodshed!
​

If this is indeed what happened, then Bundy is (IMHO) in the right.

 

[OneShotFOGE]

From what I have read, I think both sides are in the wrong.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

It has to do with Oathkeepers. If this guy is a draft dodger, than I think Oathkeepers might be defending the wrong "hero".

What is a Divide and Conquer Strategy? (with pictures)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

?I blame both sides,? Oklahoma militia members join fight with feds | KFOR.com