Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

April 12, 2014 - 1:58 pm

The Bureau of Land Management announced that it would not enforce a court order to round up cows owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, effectively ending the siege at the southern Nevada ranch.

Associated Press:

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

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.

The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.

“It’s not about cows, it’s about freedom,” Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.

“People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power,” Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy’s property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.

A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.

“We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard,” said Cliven Bundy’s sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.

Victory for Bundy? Not exactly. Perhaps the government will now do what they should have done in the first place instead of descending on an American citizen’s property with 200 armed agents.

If the issue is monetary — Bundy not paying grazing fees — then there is absolutely no reason the government can’t sit down with Bundy’s lawyer at a neutral site and negotiate while not under threat of a gun. Even if the issue is that poor, picked upon Desert Tortoise, accommodations can be made as well. The turtles don’t need 600,000 acres to thrive — but neither does Bundy need 600,000 acres to feed his cows.

When government chooses to intimidate instead of negotiate in good faith, they should expect this kind of resistance. I’m not sure it’s necessarily a good thing for citizens to threaten government officials, but the situation would never have gotten to this point if the government had treated its people as citizens instead of subjects to be bullied and pushed around.

The BLM may wait for things to die down and then return to enforce the court order. If they try the same tactics, it’s likely they’ll meet the same resistance. “It’s about the freedom of America,” said another of Bundy’s sisters, Margaret Houston. “We have to stand up and fight.” If the only thing they accomplish in the end is put the government on notice that citizens won’t sit still for this kind of bullying, something positive will have come out of this mess.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Alright all you cows! I'm giving you to the count of ten and you had all better come out with your hands up! You are all trespassing on Harry Reid's land. He can't very well sell it to that nice big Chinese firm to build a giant American taxpayer subsidized bird frying solar array and get his 10% if you're still there.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Amazing we can send a couple of hundred agents, and spend millions doing so, to harass an elderly rancher but we can't secure the border.

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Victory? No, just a temporary setback for the forces of big government. This isn't over; the government cannot allow itself to be defeated in any small way, lest the people come to believe that victory over the government is possible in ANY way.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (137)
All Comments   (137)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I have heard that Bundy, rather than simply refusing to pay, has insisted he owes/paid state and county fees. Rather than living "rent free" he insists he simply doesn't owe the agency that is demanding payment, which I find a bit different. Is anyone familiar enough with the facts to clarify?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
All you need to know is the end game - state's rights vs federal government rights. Why should the feds have the ultimate say in what each state does with their land? In the end the states should be the caretaker of public lands within their own borders. Easterners carved up their public lands and few acres exist in many states that 'belong' to the feds.

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know why the Federal government owns so much of the west. I assume it is due to some arrangement made when that land became part of the United States. IT is mostly worthless anyway. As an Easterner, moved recently to the West, I am disgusted with many of the values of native westerners. Education and child care (social services for kids) is far down on their priorities. Some say, that since schools are not mentioned in the Constitution, they should not be funded. Many give tacit approval to immigration as long as they get that immigrant labor CHEAP! There is absolutely no need to be carrying a gun in a Walgreen store at noon. A man recently killed several dogs and a mentally disabled man while he was hiking. The shooter's wife had the nerve to request charity for her imprisoned husband. .....for court costs and their living expenses. Why is a gun needed on a hiking trail? The guy deserves to be in jail. If her husband felt he needed to be armed on that trail, he should be using an indoor hiking trail....guaranteed free from dangerous animals and humans.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why is a gun needed on a hiking trail?"

?! Are you serious? You really ARE new to the west. I am almost always armed on trails due to little pests like mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, bears, and other harmless critters that have a tendency to occasionally show up on the trail.

It is NOT due to agreements when the western states became states, but has to do with the fact that the east was well established with property rights when the government got so greedy with land grabs. Something like 89% of the surface area of NV was owned by some level of government (mostly BLM) when I was a kid, and considering that the goverment always buys and rarely sells land it's likely higher now. And it isn't worthless, it just takes more of it to graze on, making it worth something as cattle land, but not so much for farming. It IS rough country, but some of us are up to it.

And we do NOT de-prioritize education. Some politically reject the premise that the federal government should have control. As far as immigration, it's more a reality of life than something we support (I don't know many westerners that have landscapers or maids that they are worried about the cheap cost of labor). Most westerners I know are far more concerned with the violence and drugs that come with illegals than cheap labor. Maybe what you have mistaken for lack of care in education is actually disillusionment with the public school system overrun with illegal non-English speakers that mean their own kids have fewer resources. Why throw more money into a system that is broken and isn't likely to be fixed to benefit one's own children? Please listen a little more closely to your new neighbors before mis-characterizing them.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Initially I was very sympathetic toward the rancher but, he should pay for the grazing rights to that property somehow. If not the Feds, then to an agency operated by the state. Nothing is free these days...he would not give the slaughtered meat to some homeless persons. He is trying to live a cowboy-movie life in an entirely new century. John Wayne will not come galloping to his salvation. I am just glad no one was killed in all this brouhaha. I have a solution which most would not like if he continues his current insurrection.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
And if you read this 'story' you'd know he isn't looking for a free lunch - he is quite willing to pay - he just doesn't think its the federal government he should pay. This is more about states rights vs federal government rights than trying to get a free lunch.

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
What I find ironic and darkly amusing about the whole Bundy debate is this: If Cliven Bundy's dispute was with a bank, and not a branch of government, the two ideological sides would be reversed, although the arguments would be identical.
I believe that if right now, a bank bought the land and decided to evict the cows, and Bundy started to resist the bank, the Left and Right would nod, and politely exchange places like baseball players between innings, with Left and Right handing each other their talking points. Maybe even offering advice: "Emphasize the disparity in power, people sympathize with that!"
The next day, not a one would admit to having argued the reverse.

Gawd how I miss Fred Phelps. The one thing everyone agreed on.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, if Bundy's cows don't need 600,000 acres for grazing (they do by the way) why does the Fed Gov't need to OWN almost 90% of Nevada? Or close to 50% of everything West of the Mississippi?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've been asking that question for 50 years...
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
For decades ranchers like Bundy have been grazing public ground down to the dirt and not properly compensating the US taxpayers for the access. Now, Mr. Bundy wants to annex the public land into his own holdings, as though somehow a land angel wrote him a deed to it and stuffed it under his pillow. Clearly none of the commenters here have been to a piece of BLM land in the west. When you get past the leaseholder's landfill at the gate - complete with used appliances and tires - you see the bare dirt, the erosion, the personal ATV track, and likely a fetid fracwater pond or two. We are not debating private property rights here folks. We are debating the anarchistic actions of a cowboy that just wants a handout from you and me. Put him in line with all those statist BLM thugs across the fence. Everyone's a hero when exploiting the government.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'd say that's an arguement for private property rights, for someone is far more motivated to care for his own land than land that belongs to someone else that he is leasing.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The choice is between respect for the laws and courts or anarchy. We are a nation of laws and expect citizens to respect the decisions of the courts even when the citizens disagree with those decisions, in which case they can either accept the decision or appeal to a higher court. Choosing to defy the decision of the court is an act of anarchy. Is that the kind of nation in which you wish to live?
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Could you imagine explaining things to a hippie who just walked in after being frozen since 1969?

"Wait, you're telling me we have a black president, and you can show *** on TV, but now its groovy to pay taxes and only reactionary white squares resist the establishment? Oh, man!"
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sorry Ed, but we already live in that kind of nation, courtesy of Obama and Eric Holder. They have destroyed the rule of law in this nation by their own actions in ignoring the law, selectively enforcing only those laws they agree with, and illegally using the power of the government to intimidate and harass their political opponents. Citizens have no choice but to take action using armed force to exact justice. They have been driven to it by the Obama regime.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Last I heard, the courts were still active, the Supreme Court has four ultra conservatives and one moderate conservative (a majority). If the government takes an action that violates the law, the solution it to take the issue to the courts which are the final arbiter. The alternative is to vest the formulation and interpretation of the law in each individual and the weapons he owns (sounds like Russia and Ukraine).
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you think that Supreme Court decisions are the final say then perhaps you are not familiar with Dread Scott vs Sanford.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
And you think the Supreme Court is some kind of bulwark against the lawlessness of Obama, Harry Reid, and Eric Holder? Obama has usurped the prerogatives of Congress, Where is the Court on that?

Holder decides it's not his day to enforce immigration laws, or secure the Border, what does the Court have to say about that? You might still respect the Court, but the government doesn't, unless of course, it can extort an opinion that it agrees with.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Republicans in congress make no secret of their hate for the president. They have the power to bring suit against the president but have not done so. Why? The spent our tax dollars in attempting to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage act. Why would they not bring suit against Obama? The only reason which seems reasonable is that the constitution gives both congress and the president enough leeway that his actions do not constitute a violation. Given that the courts are the final arbiters, what I say is of little consequence. What the courts say is and they have not agreed with your position.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your regard for the sanctity of the courts is touching but sadly misplaced. I'm sure the Germans in the 1930's held their courts in the same high regard, and trusted them to stand against the tyranny of Hitler, but he simply co-opted them.

Without brave citizens to take direct action, a terrible injustice would have been perpetrated against the Bundy family, your courts notwithstanding. In case you've forgotten, The Founding Fathers anticipated just such a situation, and made provision for the people to act as the last resort.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am shy about making predictions. However, the courts have already spoken on this issue and the court orders are very likely to be enforced. The likelihood of an armed insurrection resulting from this case is vanishingly small and if it were to happen, the national guard would neutralize the militias very quickly as they did during the civil rights era in the 60's.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have a right to your opinions, Ed. government tries to enforce those court orders, it could lead to people getting killed, and that's just not worth it to guys like Harry Reid and his son. They still have to live in America, and that would be tough for somebody known to have murdered people so Chinese investors can buy land in Nevada for less than the assessed value.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
My understanding is that the land belongs to the Federal Government and the National Park service, the land is not for sale, and I was not able to find any thing on the wed that hinted at Chinese investors. Sounds like a rumor started by someone that hates Obama.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes - but what wonderful optics that would be for Reid & Son.

Not advocating anyone on either side gets hurt - but if it came to shooting...

27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the things I'm finding rather telling in all of this is that they are about the only functioning ranch in that area now.

All of the rest appear to have been driven out or driven into bankruptcy by the ever encroaching rules. The only survivor left is the one that told the government to pound sand.

Given that, I don't think there is a viable compromise. Everyone else who has is already gone. It just seems like it's getting harder and harder to make an honest living anymore.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are only three things that concern politicians in Washington: 1. Power 2: Money 3: Reelection. Nothing else matters to them. Nothing.
Read more at http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-americans-faced-tyranny-won/#xBuLzW4dYrI71Hq5.99
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only "freedom" Pyrrho, Patrick, Trad "conservative", Anaverageguy and the rest care about is the freedom from anxiety about the continued funding of their guaranteed magic government checks.

Just smell the stink of "public worker" wafting off of all of them. There's a direct check or subsidy or grant in there, rotting away, somewhere.

Notice the hysteria about collecting the grazing fees. Why, if more and more fees and taxes went uncollected, all those trolls I mentioned and others - those in favor of autocratic collectivism to fund their income stream and their worship at the altar of perfect income stream security guaranteed by government force - might be In danger of losing their precious gravy train.

Sleep light, little men. The money's been gone for a while now, those of us on the center/right figured it out almost ten years ago, and all you are doing now is fighting a delaying action, putting off the inevitable end result of you losing your magic checks and being forced - FORCED - to survive in the dreaded private sector, replete with its anxiety and metrics, and in all likelihood take a massive hit in your standard of living at best, or face oblivion at worst.

Couldn't happen to a worse set of oxygen wasters.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Add EdSilha to that list No mo.....
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All