• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

He is his own worst enemy

Tam

Well-known member
Please one of you that support Bundy's cause call him and tell him to stay out of the media.

In one interview he says if the land is owned by the Federal Government then he is wrong. This after the Federal Courts told him more than once it is Federal land, as did his friend the Commissioner that is sitting on the committee trying to get the control of the land into the Nevada State government hands. :roll:

Then he takes to the media to demand the BLM officers be disarmed, in a Country with a Second Amendment that guarantees the right to Keep and bear arms, while his son is in plain site of the cameras wearing a gun. :roll:

Then you have one of the proclaimed organizers of the protest telling the media they were strategizing about putting women out front so they could use their possible deaths as a media grabbing tool. :shock:

And tonight I saw him standing with his family claiming he breaks federal laws everyday no matter what he does on his ranch he is breaking Federal laws, but he tries to obey all State laws. I'm sure there are more than a few sitting in FEDERAL PENS that could say the same thing. :roll:

I can see Harry Reid, his son, the Federal prosecutor smiling all the way to the court house with a video tape of Bundy admitting to the nation on cable TV that he breaks Federal Laws EVERYDAY. :roll:

Oh and let's not forget he told the federal court judge he was going to do what ever he had to to protect his cattle from the BLM which was probably why the BLM were heavily armed when they came to carry out the legal Court order to seize his cattle for back payment of fees. :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tam said:
Please one of you that support Bundy's cause call him and tell him to stay out of the media.

In one interview he says if the land is owned by the Federal Government then he is wrong. This after the Federal Courts told him more than once it is Federal land, as did his friend the Commissioner that is sitting on the committee trying to get the control of the land into the Nevada State government hands. :roll:

Then he takes to the media to demand the BLM officers be disarmed, in a Country with a Second Amendment that guarantees the right to Keep and bear arms, while his son is in plain site of the cameras wearing a gun. :roll:

Then you have one of the proclaimed organizers of the protest telling the media they were strategizing about putting women out front so they could use their possible deaths as a media grabbing tool. :shock:

And tonight I saw him standing with his family claiming he breaks federal laws everyday no matter what he does on his ranch he is breaking Federal laws, but he tries to obey all State laws. I'm sure there are more than a few sitting in FEDERAL PENS that could say the same thing. :roll:

I can see Harry Reid, his son, the Federal prosecutor smiling all the way to the court house with a video tape of Bundy admitting to the nation on cable TV that he breaks Federal Laws EVERYDAY. :roll:

Oh and let's not forget he told the federal court judge he was going to do what ever he had to to protect his cattle from the BLM which was probably why the BLM were heavily armed when they came to carry out the legal Court order to seize his cattle for back payment of fees. :roll:[/quote





Once again, you a correct and the " ranchers" are silent.


I can hear the crickets from here......................................................


He wants to put women out front of the battle lines. Sounds pretty chicken shite to me, kinda like these " terrorists" overseas ' cept he lives in Nevada.


Why hasn't it been mentioned that a quick drive to the local county court house will show what he owns and does not own.

He is what gives 'ranchers' a bad name and 90% of you all are supporting and helping him dig our collective grave amongst the general population.

Pitiful....just pitiful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep- he's killing his own cause and in my opinion is definitely not the horse to be riding in the battle about government oppression or states rights...

He, his son, and all the AR-15 packing patriots and militia in their camo are doing more harm to the right to bear arms and and hopes of keeping less restrictions on guns than Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer combined...
When normal folks see this camouflaged lot- many who look like they just came out of homeless camp down by the railroad tracks, all packing guns- most with what have been termed "Assault rifles"- screaming anti government rhetoric you've just fed a whole lot of ammo to those that want to ban that type of firearm...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
April 17, 2014, 06:00 am
Republican presidential hopefuls steer clear of Nevada ranch fight



By Timothy Cama


GOP presidential hopefuls are largely steering clear of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s fight with the federal government.

The showdown, which left armed militia members and feds staring each other down last week, has captivated talk radio and cable news shows, turning Bundy into a conservative cause célèbre.


Yet Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Arkansas Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee are the only big-name GOP stars to have spoken out on the dispute so far.
Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been silent, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also not commented on Bundy, who has been fighting the federal government in and out of court for more than 20 years over his refusal to pay grazing fees.

All three offices did not respond to calls for this story.

GOP strategists suggested that Bundy’s case is far too risky for most candidates eyeing the presidency, particularly given the possibility of armed conflict with federal police.

“The Republican Party’s very sympathetic to Cliven Bundy’s property rights, states’ rights argument,” said strategist Ford O’Connell, who worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “But many Republicans also prize the rule of law above all else. Right or wrong, Bundy had his day in court and lost.”


Matt Mackowiak, who has worked on various Capitol Hill campaigns and as a congressional press secretary, agreed that candidates have good reason to be cautious in the Bundy dispute.

“If you don’t know the person, and you haven’t followed the situation closely, all you do is you look at the situation and see risk,” Mackowiak said.

Still, Bundy’s arguments and the battle on his ranch feed into a strain of the GOP worried about what it sees as a growing incursion by an increasingly armed federal government.

The federal government is “treating this thing like it’s more serious than the Russian situation or Benghazi or other things,” Mackowiak said.

Paul seemed to be reaching out to this audience with his comments on the dispute, which centered on armed federal agencies.

Paul criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) accusation that Bundy is trying to get away with breaking the law.

“I think there’s an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that’s the federal government shouldn’t violate the law, nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” Paul said.

Huckabee, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, offered similar thoughts when he weighed in on the issue last week in comments in New Hampshire.

“I’m not here to jump in on the middle of whether Cliven Bundy ought to pay the state or pay anybody for the chance for his cows to eat some grass,” Huckabee said. “Here’s what I would suggest: that there is something incredibly wrong when a government believes that some blades of grass that a cow is eating is so an egregious affront to the government of the United States that we would literally put a gun in a citizen’s face and threaten to shoot him over it.”

Paul has a libertarian bent to his politics, and he’s repeatedly taken on issues that make the Bundy fight work better for him than others, O’Connell said.

Paul’s famous Senate filibuster, for example, was on U.S. drones, and centered on the question of the administration using drones to take out U.S. citizens overseas and in the country.

But side with Bundy too much, and a candidate risks turning off all those voters in the center that they’ll ultimately need to attract in a general election.

“It fits very nicely within the ethos that Rand Paul has,” O’Connell said of the Bundy ranch fight. “But the difficulty that Paul’s going to have in terms of winning the nomination is taking that libertarian, constitutional thinking, and showing how you can govern a nation with it.”

Radio show host Glenn Beck this week criticized the violent tone of the protesters.

“I don’t know who these people are. They all might be great. But here they are … they’re enraged,” Beck said Monday on his show. “We condemn those who use violence. Inciting violence doesn't solve anything.”

Mackowiak also agreed that Republicans don’t want to be seen as supporting someone who so blatantly disregards the law. “You can’t run for president and endorse lawlessness,”
he said.
.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/203730-gop-stars-steer-clear-of-nevada-ranch-fight#ixzz2z9Vk5hJH
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
Im not taking sides... My gut just feels for the guy cause whatever cause he is fighting for he has broken law while doing it so he now a frickin terrorist. While one can only imagine what and who has conspired, manipulated, and bribed for their own cause and because they are getting paid to make the rules and laws they can get away with it. I don't disagree with a lot of what you 3 are saying... I just wonder if this guy woulda had someone to represent him from the get go would this have gone different? I wish the other side of this was handed a microphone and they spoke from the heart like this guy is and shed some light on that side of the deal. But they are all polished up lawyers and politicians. My gut just tells me the other side of this would make whatever laws bundy broke look like nothing and the real terrorist on the other side... But that's just me and probably never know. Atleast with bundy making a scene out of it there's a chance of someone digging into the other side to.

Locally we started back up ou Maria's river livestock assoc and I try my best to be involved and help voice my opinion. We are fortunate to have folks that are able to dedicate their time to make it relatively easy for guys like me to do that. It's hard to even know what to do or where to look when you hear about stories like the wy deal you posted. Anyhow - we need more folks to share both sides.... Sorry about rambling but about half way calving and a solo job since forever and my emotional side comes out more when you can hardly see straight.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
I wonder why say he is a terrorist and treat him as such. OT and others condemn the use of guns to protect him when he is a US CITIZEN. But when illegals come sneaking in with guns and kill who every tries to stop them they are given a free ride. Why are these government armies not worrying about the US ranchers that fear for their lives from the illegal runners. Where has Harry had an concern on the illegals grazing illegal on the public trough? They are welcomed with welfare, food stamps, free Obama care and not sent back. If all these agencies showed up at the border they might get something done. :mad:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
I wonder why say he is a terrorist and treat him as such. OT and others condemn the use of guns to protect him when he is a US CITIZEN. But when illegals come sneaking in with guns and kill who every tries to stop them they are given a free ride. Why are these government armies not worrying about the US ranchers that fear for their lives from the illegal runners. Where has Harry had an concern on the illegals grazing illegal on the public trough? They are welcomed with welfare, food stamps, free Obama care and not sent back. If all these agencies showed up at the border they might get something done. :mad:



Bundy's plan of defense was to put women folks in front of the demonstration.


Does that sound like a brave man to you?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
First .'t Bundy who was advocating women to the front Please don't distort the facts.

Ok let's take it thaat Bundy's defense was flawed or wrong. Does that make it right for the BLM and cohorts to be jack booted thugs in their eforts to collect their fees. A smart person can see there are a lot better ways to collect their fees You can see that can't you. You arer smart enough to see that aren't you. And for a lot less expense to the taxpayers.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Larrry said:
First .'t Bundy who was advocating women to the front Please don't distort the facts.

Ok let's take it thaat Bundy's defense was flawed or wrong. Does that make it right for the BLM and cohorts to be jack booted thugs in their eforts to collect their fees. A smart person can see there are a lot better ways to collect their fees You can see that can't you. You arer smart enough to see that aren't you. And for a lot less expense to the taxpayers.

They need to do a reset. Both sides are in the wrong in my opinion for what it's worth. :?

They need to figure out if Bundy has the water rights like Hage and many other ranchers and what land he holds title to. He said he had a Grazing permit. Was that for a set time or into perpetuity? A grazing permit isn't any good to a rancher if his allotment is cut below the threshold of viability.
I also agree if the government is going to enforce the letter of the law on citizens then it need to enforce it on illegal aliens and congressmen and senators.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
At the moment it looks like Bundy had run out of options
The problem is we are getting information overload
I see now where there is a report out saying improvements to the property count against fees assed him ????
But I still say the government way overboard I trying to collect. If nothing more than expense they incurred when there were a lot cheaper and safer alternatives
 

Tam

Well-known member
Larrry said:
At the moment it looks like Bundy had run out of options
The problem is we are getting information overload
I see now where there is a report out saying improvements to the property count against fees assed him ????
But I still say the government way overboard I trying to collect. If nothing more than expense they incurred when there were a lot cheaper and safer alternatives


Yes there were safer ways to handle this I wish the BLM would have asked the local Sheriff to go to the Bundy home and arrested him on the Nevada Livestock Trespass charges and held him until his own family had dealt with getting their cattle off the lands they were illegal trespassing on. If the family refused then hold him in Contempt of a Federal Court order until they complied. No armed militant standoff no women's deaths being used to grab sympathy for the cause, no pipe bombs being set off in federal building, no snipers, no first amendment zones, no media hoopla and no destroying of his property by rouge BLM officers.

But that is not what happen so now the mess is bigger that life front page news and every environmentist wacko nutjob from the left in the country is looking at the Issue and claiming all ranchers are law breaking idiots that want a free ride on THEIR LAND. Which is totally wrong they only want to be treated fairly but that is not the what the press meaning well or not is putting out with the reports from the good sheriffs own mouth of women being used to take fire while they post their snipe behind a cement barricade with his rifle barrel stuck through a crack aiming at a Federal Law enforcement officer. ANd BTW just who was sitting in the protest ORGANIZING MEETING that was strategizing about the women, was it not a Bundy family Protest would they not be involved in the ORGANIZING MEETINGS. If they were not involved then why did they not take some time in one of their many media interviews and denounce the idea of using the women as a tool. He claimed he would do anything and after the women issue came up he stand silent not go on his part to grab sympathy for what could have been a worthy cause if it had not been for his own actions.

I doubt their is a rancher or Republican politician alive that would not have stood with him if it had not been for his ILLEGAL ACTIONS. He made this issue toxic with his own court defying actions.

But I do have to admit one thing he has come a long way in the last week as a week ago he was claiming the Federal Government did not exists and just a week later he is admitting on National broadcast news that he breaks Federal laws EVERYDAY. That is a step in the right direction now if he would sit down with his landlord and deal with this mess like he should have in the first place maybe there will be no needs for more gun play.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
ranch hand said:
I wonder why say he is a terrorist and treat him as such. OT and others condemn the use of guns to protect him when he is a US CITIZEN. But when illegals come sneaking in with guns and kill who every tries to stop them they are given a free ride. Why are these government armies not worrying about the US ranchers that fear for their lives from the illegal runners. Where has Harry had an concern on the illegals grazing illegal on the public trough? They are welcomed with welfare, food stamps, free Obama care and not sent back. If all these agencies showed up at the border they might get something done. :mad:



Bundy's plan of defense was to put women folks in front of the demonstration.


Does that sound like a brave man to you?

Please show proof that it is his.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
This guy may not be the brightest in the world, I agree. He is also not an attorney or professional BS'er as was pointed out already. That isn't the point and it doesn't make his cause wrong. He is standing up to an over reaching Federal Government. It is these simple people that need the most support. I don't need someone to be slicked tongued to understand their point. In addition, I bet you wouldn't fair as well as you think when thrown into the national spot light with camera's everywhere. I bet you would make a few statements that you would like to take back.

As has been pointed out several times, the Feds are not to own extensive amounts of state land. So he is actually correct. They may show a title, but that is not Constitutional.

Is any attorney going to touch a case that has been to court already and lost by self representation- No. That was likely his biggest mistake. That doesn't make his cause wrong.

When laws and regulations remove you and others from ranching, don't come griping about it here. You need to look past the fee's issue. It isn't about fee's. It is about removing a citizen from using the land that the feds want. Land that the feds shouldn't have title too in the first place, by the supreme law of the land- the US Constitution. It should be state land.

It is a turtle now that isn't even endangered, it has been an owl in the past and a kangaroo rat, among others. Californian farmers can't use water because of a made up cause about a minnow. However, I have yet to see a brown golf course or lawn out there.

If you own land and can't see the underlying issue here, don't bitch when they come for yours. Matter of fact, why not make it easier and just sign it over for your monthly hand out now.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
kolanuraven said:
ranch hand said:
I wonder why say he is a terrorist and treat him as such. OT and others condemn the use of guns to protect him when he is a US CITIZEN. But when illegals come sneaking in with guns and kill who every tries to stop them they are given a free ride. Why are these government armies not worrying about the US ranchers that fear for their lives from the illegal runners. Where has Harry had an concern on the illegals grazing illegal on the public trough? They are welcomed with welfare, food stamps, free Obama care and not sent back. If all these agencies showed up at the border they might get something done. :mad:



Bundy's plan of defense was to put women folks in front of the demonstration.


Does that sound like a brave man to you?

Please show proof that it is his.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/15/former-sheriff-willing-let-wife-daughter-die-front/

Former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack says he and other organizers at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada were contemplating using women and children as human shields in case “rogue federal officers” opened fire.

Appearing on Fox News’ “The Real Story” on Monday, former Sheriff Richard Mack said he and other protesters “were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

SEE ALSO: Obama administration’s ‘Culture of intimidation’ seen in Nevada ranch standoff

Federal contractors seized about 400 head of cattle from 68-year-old Mr. Bundy over his refusal to pay an estimated $1 million in grazing fees over 20 years.

The agency backed off Saturday and returned the cattle after hundreds of states’ rights protesters, some of them armed militia members, showed up at corrals outside Mesquite to demand the return of the animals, The Blaze reported. Mr. Bundy’s son Ammon was struck with a stun gun in the scuffle.

Mr. Mack told radio host Ben Swann on Monday that he believes women should be “the first ones shot” in order to send the most effective message.

“I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die,” he said. “I would’ve gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

“But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front,” he continued. “Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”

Mr. Mack was elected as Graham County sheriff in 1988, and he served two terms until 1997, The Blaze reported.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/15/former-sheriff-willing-let-wife-daughter-die-front/#ixzz2zAmsz6YR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
That is my point. I see Mack, Mack, Mack on everything involved with this. It is wrong to put women in harms way and the guy should have had his arse handed to him over even suggesting it. I have yet to see anyone else saying it was a good plan or Bundy's plan. I have yet to see evidence it was carried out.

If it is true that Bundy wanted this, then there should be evidence. It would remove public support for him.

However, it still would not change what this fight is about. That is something much deeper.

My next questions to Kola if she can't answer the first, why should it matter if they did put women in the front of a protest? Do you believe that the BLM would fire upon American citizens protesting?

Did you feel the same about the occupy movement? Do you feel that the government at any time was going to fire upon protestors being on LEGITIMATE federal ground? Did they pay a fee to be there? Did they break the law?

How many women do you think were rapped during this protest?

All citizens are treated equal right? Isn't that what the left claims to want?



My gosh people, look around at the differences. That is all you have to see. One group, one company, one cause is given not only financing support but regulatory support to control the competition. It is tyranny plain and simple.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
This guy may not be the brightest in the world, I agree. He is also not an attorney or professional BS'er as was pointed out already. That isn't the point and it doesn't make his cause wrong. He is standing up to an over reaching Federal Government. It is these simple people that need the most support. I don't need someone to be slicked tongued to understand their point. In addition, I bet you wouldn't fair as well as you think when thrown into the national spot light with camera's everywhere. I bet you would make a few statements that you would like to take back.

As has been pointed out several times, the Feds are not to own extensive amounts of state land. So he is actually correct. They may show a title, but that is not Constitutional.

Is any attorney going to touch a case that has been to court already and lost by self representation- No. That was likely his biggest mistake. That doesn't make his cause wrong.

When laws and regulations remove you and others from ranching, don't come griping about it here. You need to look past the fee's issue. It isn't about fee's. It is about removing a citizen from using the land that the feds want. Land that the feds shouldn't have title too in the first place, by the supreme law of the land- the US Constitution. It should be state land.

It is a turtle now that isn't even endangered, it has been an owl in the past and a kangaroo rat, among others. Californian farmers can't use water because of a made up cause about a minnow. However, I have yet to see a brown golf course or lawn out there.

If you own land and can't see the underlying issue here, don't bad word when they come for yours. Matter of fact, why not make it easier and just sign it over for your monthly hand out now.



This is why "wanna be" fits your to a " t".


They are NOT taking his deeded land, they are not "taking" any land from him at all to be honest.

He's been trespassing for over 20 yrs fact be known.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Larrry said:
But she made the wild azsed claim Bundy was doing this. She still hasnt verified her claim



"But...but.....but....but...she said!!!!" My god you are a whiney one aren't you!!!!



BMR beat me to it and gave you the links and info. Thanks BMR!
 
Top