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

Why the Feds Chickened Out on a Nevada Ranch

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,264
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Here is a good observation found on Facebook.

http://barracudabrigade.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-feds-chickened-out-on-nevada-ranch.html

Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada. Let me amplify a little bit of truth: They tucked tail and have returned home. And let me add a bit of clarity: they had no choice!

As the nation began to become familiar with the plight of the family of Cliven Bundy, many of us harkened back to another standoff in which the Federal government attempted to bully it's outcome: Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidian massacre.

It is telling that in the Nevada case the feds pulled out so quickly, given all they had indicated they were willing to do to resolve the matter to their satisfaction. They had set up a perimeter around the Bundy's family land, ranch, and home. They had brought in extra artillery, dogs, and snipers. They were beginning the process of stealing more than 300 head of cattle that did not belong to them.

They did so--or so we were told--for the reason of protecting the desert tortoise. But then it was revealed that the Bureau of Land Management had shot far more desert tortoises than the Bundy cattle had even possibly destroyed. We were told they did it because the Bundys had broken federal laws by not paying what amounted to retroactive grazing fees to the federal government. But the Governor of the state of Nevada told us that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been improving the property more than 100 years previous.

Finally we were allowed to know the connection between a communist Chinese wind/solar power plant and its connection to that senator named Harry Reid. Evidently a plan had been hatched to use the Bundy property for a solar farm and instead of paying the Bundys, someone, somewhere in the administration believed it was easier to just take what they wanted.

That approach is at least consistent with the readily documented abuse of imminent domain where the government for any number of reasons--few of them valid--have taken to taking what doesn't belong to them. Americans then watch as it gets handed over to some multi-national corporation for the "cause" of the "greater good."

There were a few specific reasons why the feds chickened out in the Nevada desert though.

1. Technology - As the Bundy family members were abused, cameras captured it. Not television network cameras, but dozens of cell phone video devices that gave witness to a Bundy aunt being shoved to the ground, and a Bundy son being tazed. All of this while threatening protestors with dogs, brandished weapons and vehicles was captured, uploaded and made viral to the watching world.

2. States' Rights - As the drama unfolded it became clear that the Governor of Nevada, and the Sheriff of Clark County knew that Cliven Bundy's family had not only not broken any state law regarding the land, but that they had gone to the enth degree to insure compliance with Nevada laws on the property. The Governor and the Sheriff, to their credit, did not favor the feds as a more powerful party in the conflict. Though there must have been pressure from Senator Reid's office, the administration via the Bureau of Land Management, and local officials who were bought and sold like the Clark County Commissioner who told those coming to support the Bundys to have "funeral plans in place."

3. Grassroots Response - As other incidents have transpired in the past, the amount of time it took honest information to reach the grassroots and thus the response to the action came to slow. In the massacre in Waco, most of the nation had been sold a single narrative from the limited media outlets covering the events. Similarly the events surrounding the abduction of Elian Gonzales from his family in Florida and deportation to Cuba took place in such a response vacuum that by the time Americans knew the real story, the damage was done. With the Bundy ranch, internet outlets by the dozen had competing information with the limited "official news" being released by the networks, and in most cases the alternative sources had it correct and usually a full day or so ahead of the news cycle. By the time afternoon drive hit, when the network news rooms in New York were preparing their first stories, talk radio audiences had already been dialing their elected officials in Washington demanding action.

The majority of Americans saw through the efforts to spin the story in Nevada. Couple that with the leadership failures that the American people view the administration responsible for, from Benghazi to the Affordable Care Act, all it took was the unedited video of federal agents tazing Bundy's son, followed by his pulling the wires from his chest and continuing to stand his ground for there to be comparisons made to the American revolution.

It's also important to note that merely pulling back from the Bundy property hasn't settled the matter for the American people either.

The feds have stolen 352 head of cattle, and will not confirm or deny if they euthanized some or all of them. Recompense must be made. And to be candid, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see if a few ambitious law firms don't try to convince the Bundy family of the validity of litigation.

Fortunately for the American people, the feds were not able to ultimately bully a simple rancher, not for a tortoise, a solar power plant, or a dirty Senator and his administration.

Posted by Elizabeth Hawkes
 
I repeat……...REAL story is how one old rancher demonstrates more intestinal fortitude than ALL elected representatives put together. One old rancher does more to stand up to government aggression than all the lawyers ever born.
 
Good information Soapweed, When one thinks about the Technology, cell phones, smart phones, and the Internet we have today playing such a big part in the Feds backing out of this, we now know why the President want's to give control of the Internet away don't we???? Thanks Soapweed 101
 
I wonder if some of the decision to back out was because some of those BLM men had a red dot on their brisket from the militia folks. :lol: Who really needs our second amendment?
 
redrobin said:
I wonder if some of the decision to back out was because some of those BLM men had a red dot on their brisket from the militia folks. :lol: Who really needs our second amendment?

Who really needs our second amendment?

ALL OF US !!
 
"Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada"

This is an example of my main 'irk' with the politics of this site. 'the Obama administration' 'the gop...." "the demos'

I doubt Obama gives much of a damn about this deal. Or had much to do with it. Anyhow--to me---it isn't one party or the other. They're both incompetent. It's the huge, all powerful, pretty much totally f'kd up fed govt. It keeps getting bigger. It keeps operating on borrowed money and getting deeper in dept. It keeps getting farther removed from 'we, the people' It keeps getting in wars we got no business in and can't afford. It's got no reason to own any land, other that cemetaries, national monuments, some parks and wilderness. And we go enough wilderness. The less fed govt, the better. The less state govt, the better. The more things can be decided on a local level---by the people it directly effects and who know what its about, the better.
 
littlejoe said:
"Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada"

This is an example of my main 'irk' with the politics of this site. 'the Obama administration' 'the gop...." "the demos'

I doubt Obama gives much of a damn about this deal. Or had much to do with it. Anyhow--to me---it isn't one party or the other. They're both incompetent. It's the huge, all powerful, pretty much totally f'kd up fed govt. It keeps getting bigger. It keeps operating on borrowed money and getting deeper in dept. It keeps getting farther removed from 'we, the people' It keeps getting in wars we got no business in and can't afford. It's got no reason to own any land, other that cemetaries, national monuments, some parks and wilderness. And we go enough wilderness. The less fed govt, the better. The less state govt, the better. The more things can be decided on a local level---by the people it directly effects and who know what its about, the better.[/quote?]

:clap: :clap: :clap: This has to be the truest statement made recently!!!!!!
 
littlejoe said:
"Let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: the Obama administration attempted to go to war with a rancher in Nevada"

This is an example of my main 'irk' with the politics of this site. 'the Obama administration' 'the gop...." "the demos'

I doubt Obama gives much of a damn about this deal. Or had much to do with it. Anyhow--to me---it isn't one party or the other. They're both incompetent. It's the huge, all powerful, pretty much totally f'kd up fed govt. It keeps getting bigger. It keeps operating on borrowed money and getting deeper in dept. It keeps getting farther removed from 'we, the people' It keeps getting in wars we got no business in and can't afford. It's got no reason to own any land, other that cemetaries, national monuments, some parks and wilderness. And we go enough wilderness. The less fed govt, the better. The less state govt, the better. The more things can be decided on a local level---by the people it directly effects and who know what its about, the better.


AMEN- and the thing I hated to see most was kids watching the news with the armed militias - and the folks refusing to follow the Sworn officers orders-- learning that its alright to take up guns against law enforcement and oppose Court Orders and Federal Judges... Are we further teaching kids to disrespect all authority.. :???:

When I grew up I was taught to seek out a policeman when I needed help- now it appears a generation is teaching their kids to fear, disrespect, and disobey authority or law enforcement....


 
Respect is earned my friend.

You only need to watch folks needlessly beaten while already subdued or doors knocked in to confiscate legally owned property days after the crisis was averted to realize there is a dangerous culture within our authorities.

The law enforcement community needs to reel in its rouges and get back to earning the respect you claim they deserve.
 
per said:
Respect is earned my friend.

You only need to watch folks needlessly beaten while already subdued or doors knocked in to confiscate legally owned property days after the crisis was averted to realize there is a dangerous culture within our authorities.

The law enforcement community needs to reel in its rouges and get back to earning the respect you claim they deserve.

That is true- but like you say they are the "rogues" and the ones this new form of shock news media likes to focus on... Lots of good ones out there doing there job everyday you never hear about because it isn't exciting enough for the news...
As far as kicking in doors to confiscate legally owned property- I saw your post about your floods... During our flood when I moved out for a month- the local Sheriff and a Police Sgt came in by boat several times ( a couple of times bringing in the wife or family) to check on things which included a gunlocker plumb full of guns (which I had told them how to get into so they could check on everything)....

But I still have a problem in glorifying someone that is breaking the law... While I agree we need far less laws- when we are no longer a nation of laws we have anarchy... And no matter how big and tough some of the chestbeaters want to talk- I really don't think we want to see that....
 
Then explain why you so virtuously defend your Dear Leader & AG Holder who seem to break, circumvent, and ignore the laws of the land on a daily basis?

If that's OK, then why should anybody else follow the rule of law?
 
loomixguy said:
Then explain why you so virtuously defend your Dear Leader & AG Holder who seem to break, circumvent, and ignore the laws of the land on a daily basis?

If that's OK, then why should anybody else follow the rule of law?

I didn't think I was... If I remember right- I warned back during GW's days that once precedent was set- it would be in the Presidential toolbox for all future Presidents to use... But Congress refused to do nothing....If I remember right I also warned that there may not always be a Republican in the White House...
You reap what you sow....

Congressional Republicans have sought to tamp down on presidential authority in various ways.

Gowdy's ENFORCE Act, for example, would allow the House or Senate to authorize legal action against the administration's willful neglect of the law.

The Faithful Execution of the Law Act, offered by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), would require the government to report to Congress whenever a decision has been made not to enforce the law and explain why that decision was made.

Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) is pressing for a resolution leading to a federal lawsuit challenging President Obama's use of executive power.

But there is no clear path forward for any the legislation and, unless the courts intervene more forcefully, the executive branch will continue to have the upper hand, Turley said.

"What concerns me is that our system is changing in a fundamental way," he said. "Future presidents will not willingly part with the powers created by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/court-battles/203388-is-obama-enforcing-the-law#ixzz2yshLTOj8
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

And I agree with Turley- for years we have had a dysfunctional Congress so in their refusal/inability to function has allowed the Presidents to grab more power...
 
loomixguy said:
And what political party has had the majorities for the majority of Bush's & Obama's tenure?
Hint: you march in lock step with them...

Like littlejoe said- it really doesn't matter-- they are dysfunctional whatever letter they have by their name....
 
per said:
Respect is earned my friend.

You only need to watch folks needlessly beaten while already subdued or doors knocked in to confiscate legally owned property days after the crisis was averted to realize there is a dangerous culture within our authorities.

The law enforcement community needs to reel in its rouges and get back to earning the respect you claim they deserve.

Exactly Respect is earned! And a lot more then a few Sworn officers don't show their community much respect they feel like they are above everyone,and think they are above the law.I had no problem watching the armed militias standing up for what was right,and to send them sworn officers packing.Those sworn officiers stepped way over their boundarys and some of them should be charged,like that will ever happen :roll: .Sorry your not going to find respect for a cop from me,unless they first prove they deserve it!
 
loomixguy said:
Then explain why you so virtuously defend your Dear Leader & AG Holder who seem to break, circumvent, and ignore the laws of the land on a daily basis?

If that's OK, then why should anybody else follow the rule of law?

Do you really want to live in a nation of THEY ALL DO IT is a defense for every illegal action, you seem to have a big problem when Oldtimer uses that defense of his hero Obama's actions?

This is what I don't get in this whole mess, the right (including myself) do nothing but complain about the laws broken by this Government, but there seems to have been Federal laws being broken for over 20 years (three Administration both Democrat and Republican) by someone in the ranching community and everyone seems to be rallying behind the law breaker with their guns drawn. :?

Do I like what happen to the Bundy family NO I DON"T it should not have happened and the BLM could have handled this whole mess without all the public hoopla if they had any common sense but then so could have the Bundy family. But if you are demanding law breakers in this Government are to pay for their misdeeds of trespassing on your privacy by snooping or targeting you through the IRS, then why not the Bundy family that have been illegally trespassing on a land owner that happens to be the Hated Federal Government? :?

Personally I wish when the courts ruled Bundy had not proven his case and that they were illegally trespassing on the Federal public land in Nevada, the local sheriff would have quietly went to the ranch and arrested Cliven on a misdemeanor charge that he was guilty of according to Nevada Livestock laws and held him until the family dealt with the cattle themselves. If the family did not want to comply to the court orders then hold him on Contempt of Court charges until they did comply. No calling in the guns on either side and risking the showdown that could have very well ended far different than it did considering Bundy's own promise to do whatever it took to hold off the legal court order seizer of his cattle that brought out the Government snipers in the first place.

Again let me repeat myself I don't like what happen to the family but when you break a law on either side of the political table there needs to be repercussions to show US LAWS MEAN SOMETHING. and if they don't then who gets to decide which ones are followed and with ones are ignored. Hold them all accountable or nobody which is it going to be? :?
 
Court rules you say. Why doesn't the Government follow court rules and laws? If I'm not mistaken the US Forest service owes the Hage family 12 million dollars. Court orders. They've yet to be paid. The Hage family was treated much like the Bundys. You can't follow laws if the law makers don't follow them.
 
Exactly, Ho55.

This has been going on since Clinton was President. Why all of a sudden do they take action NOW? Surely not because the President, AG, & Senate Majority Leader all happen to be on the same page...and probably each will get a nice fat envelope from China, or the city of Los Angeles, or from someone with a vested interest in the land and water rights.
Miss Tam, wake up and smell the coffee. Very sinister forces are at work here, and what has been reported isn't even the tip of the iceberg...
 
Tam said:
loomixguy said:
Then explain why you so virtuously defend your Dear Leader & AG Holder who seem to break, circumvent, and ignore the laws of the land on a daily basis?

If that's OK, then why should anybody else follow the rule of law?

Do you really want to live in a nation of THEY ALL DO IT is a defense for every illegal action, you seem to have a big problem when Oldtimer uses that defense of his hero Obama's actions?

This is what I don't get in this whole mess, the right (including myself) do nothing but complain about the laws broken by this Government, but there seems to have been Federal laws being broken for over 20 years (three Administration both Democrat and Republican) by someone in the ranching community and everyone seems to be rallying behind the law breaker with their guns drawn. :?

Do I like what happen to the Bundy family NO I DON"T it should not have happened and the BLM could have handled this whole mess without all the public hoopla if they had any common sense but then so could have the Bundy family. But if you are demanding law breakers in this Government are to pay for their misdeeds of trespassing on your privacy by snooping or targeting you through the IRS, then why not the Bundy family that have been illegally trespassing on a land owner that happens to be the Hated Federal Government? :?

Personally I wish when the courts ruled Bundy had not proven his case and that they were illegally trespassing on the Federal public land in Nevada, the local sheriff would have quietly went to the ranch and arrested Cliven on a misdemeanor charge that he was guilty of according to Nevada Livestock laws and held him until the family dealt with the cattle themselves. If the family did not want to comply to the court orders then hold him on Contempt of Court charges until they did comply. No calling in the guns on either side and risking the showdown that could have very well ended far different than it did considering Bundy's own promise to do whatever it took to hold off the legal court order seizer of his cattle that brought out the Government snipers in the first place.

Again let me repeat myself I don't like what happen to the family but when you break a law on either side of the political table there needs to be repercussions to show US LAWS MEAN SOMETHING. and if they don't then who gets to decide which ones are followed and with ones are ignored. Hold them all accountable or nobody which is it going to be? :?

I agree again Tam - handled flat-a$$ wrong... Should never have let him get away with it as long as he did- then had the judge charge him with interference with a court order... If I had been calling the shots- and those attempting to cross security lines or block trucks and kicking at police dogs would not have been thrown to the grown or tazed---- they would have been cuffed, stuffed and sitting behind bars...

I thought the federal agents showed great restraint to a very volatile situation.... Interferring or obstructing with the carrying out of a court order is a criminal offense... In most jurisdictions kicking, hitting or assaulting a police dog is a felony....

I would agree with you if these "jackbooted thugs" as some call them were acting on their own- BUT they weren't... They were operating with court orders from Federal District Courts given by two separate Federal Judges ( the law of the land until overturned by a Federal Appellate Court)... So after being told by the defendant that this meant a "range war" and that he didn't recognize the federal government-- I can see the reason the government officers were concerned....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top