Cliven Bundy is a welfare rancher and is not a friend of Liberty

[CPUd]

I think it was just that those States were still very sparsely settled when the Feds got around to making their major land grab so there was much more unclaimed land for them to grab.

In the case of Nevada, they gave the federal govt control of all their unclaimed land; it is in their state constitution. For NV to take it back, they would have to amend their constitution to remove that language, and then probably fight the federal govt in court until it becomes a SCOTUS case.

The land in question is currently being leased by Clark County for the purpose of non-grazing.

 

[Deborah K]

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense?

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

Are you even aware that they have pushed out 54 other ranchers in that area, by making it unaffordable to ranch there? He's the last man standing.

 

[Deborah K]

The provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 are not to be confused with two other historical Constitutional issues regarding exclusive legislative jurisdiction as applies to lands only while in a territorial state:

(1) The "Property" Clause - which applied only to the "western wastelands"- territories east of the Mississippi that were ceded to the federal government by the original States;


"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

(2) The "Treaty Making and War Powers" - upon which the ability to acquire new land outside the original boundaries of the United States was based. These were to be governed under the Rules of International Law while in a territorial, pre-State status. (This applied to Florida, Louisiana and the lands west of the Mississippi acquired through international treaty.)

Both of these exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction arrangements were supposed to apply only to lands while in pre-statehood territorial status, and were not to survive statehood. Under the equal footing doctrine, new states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original States. Ceded ("public") lands within the new Eastern States were temporarily retained only in regard to proprietary ownership by the federal government, as a trustee until the lands could be disposed of into private hands and the States completed in their sovereignty. Although ownership of "wastelands" in the far West has been claimed by the federal government on the basis of terms and conditions imposed through Enabling Acts for statehood, the status of political jurisdiction over lands within a Western State's borders is SUPPOSED to be on an equal footing with that of the Eastern States.

http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/exclufed.html

 

[Carlybee]

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense?

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

How is he mooching from the government dole? What loss has the government suffered in monetary terms? If he never used the land they would never have received grazing fees anyway and if he leaves they won't get any because they have put all the other ranchers out of business.

 

[BucksforPaul]

Yea, but you lose a credibility if you yourself was sucking the King and decide that its a little too big now.

So a human who was enslaved for a long period of time finally broke the shackles and ran away has no credibility? What a pitiful statement and the statist could not have said it any better.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense?

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

Government dole? The government did not create, maintain, or otherwise build upon the land in which his cattle roams. The BLM offered him a deal, knowing that after five years absent of his cattle grazing, his water rights would cease. He refused them. They wished to limit the amount of heads he could have down to 150. It would have bankrupt him. They were not propping him up, as it is not their land; they were seeking to punish him for not kowtowing to their often senseless bureaucratic decrees.

You are speaking in a truly progressive manner, comrade. The Federal government creates wealth, I'll be told next (or you've probably already said it), and Cliven Bundy is usurping that wealth. Though what many a republican progressive may not recognize is that neither are the case.

The government takes, it does not create. The government squanders land, it does not establish it. This is fundamental and I'm rather unimpressed to be reading a contrarian argument against it. It spits in the face of individual rights.

I have no doubt that if the time came you'd use any power afforded to you to enact your own authoritarian vision onto the world. Quite frankly you are little better than the "left" who wish to steal my money, regulate my business activities, and torture me with their incorrect historical tales. It's a mindset, really, and to be clear, yours is wrong.

You can tell that by you being the one to extort, tax, imprison, or otherwise murder a peaceful man (not you, I'm sure....) who would probably be perfectly content to let you establish a little authoritarian commune so long as you were not encroaching on those who did not wish to be a part of it. This isn't even a debate and I know no amount of words will change your mind. I suppose I'm just musing to myself about how it possibly is that people come, or were born to think like that. It's rather depressing, really.

Or was that the intent of it?

 

[austin944]

Show where in the enumerated powers of the Federal gov't they have a right to land-grab via a bureaucracy like the BLM?

I already posted that information -- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It gives Congress unlimited powers to dispose of the land that it is owned by the Federal government.

Do you believe in the people's right to a redress of grievances?

Of course! However, it is not persuasive to claim a redress of grievances when you do not understand the current law.

In order to change the law, you first need to understand it.

And that's the problem with many of the supporters of Cliven Bundy. They do not understand or even recognize the current law that they want to change.

In order to propagate and grow the Liberty movement, I believe it is important to understand the current law and espouse a coherent and rational argument to change the law, based on a set of principles consistent with Liberty.

All we have seen to date from Bundy's supporters is Bundy has some claim to the land. How or why, has never been rationally explained. It's just been histronics. And that's not going to be terribly convincing to people that are new to the Liberty movement.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

You have got to be kidding me. I'm gone a few hours and a new thread tugs out old rehashed crap that...n/m was there not enough info already posted in other threads to debunk this OP? /disappointed

 

[DamianTV]

So much Fail in this thread its unbelievable.

The burden is not on Bundy. The burden is on Federal Govt to Lead by Example. And starting another Waco situation is not the way to resolve problems. Every true criminal is seen as having Rights. Innocent until proven Guilty. A Right to face their Accuser. Due process of Law. What has happened here is that what Govt has decided has spilled over into resolving any disagreements with Violence.

There is a lot of Propoganda going around right now against Bundy, and many people are responding as they are expected. Harry Reid has a personally vested interest in kicking Bundy off his property, and abuses the power of the Law for his own personal benefit. Im not trying to say that Bundy is by any means perfect, or I am either for that matter. Is he actually Racist? A better question would be "is it relevant"? So let me pull some of his racism remarks toward myself for a moment. Hypothetical. I am not happy with people who come to this country and refuse to make any effort to learn our language. Does that make me Racist? The definition is Subjective, some would say yes, some would say no. Now take that opinion I just expressed and apply it to a car accident that goes to court. Lady ran a stop sign and hit me. She claims that she is not at fault because "she never stops at that particular stop sign". Lets also say this lady is Hispanic and I have been labeled as a Racist. Does my frustration with non english speakers have anything to do with her running the stop sign?

The entire thing is a distraction from the real issues, where the Limits of Rights exist. Parks are also considered "Public". Does that mean that I should be fined from allowing my dogs to drink water from a stream that lies on Public Land? My dog drank the water, so does that mean I now need to surrender my dog to the Federal Govt (to be executed) in compensation to the "Public" for having drank said water?

The Real Target here is not Bundy, its YOU.

Govt wants nothing more than Absolute Unlimited Authority to do what ever it wants. The entire concept of this country as a Nation when it was first created was that Govt HAS Limits. Offering support to a Govt with Unlimited Authority means that you will no longer own private property, have any Rights that will be respected, and in the end, you will no longer own yourself. The universal symbol of Justice is a Blindfolded woman holding Scales. The Scales represent Balance. The Permissions of Govt and the Rights of People need to be kept in balance. Its also an indication that not every situation is cut and dry. If anything could be said, it would be wise to say neither Bundy or the Federal Govt are entirely right or wrong in their claims. We know Govt to be abusive with its power, thus, I lean a bit more in defense of the individual, but I do not absolve the individual of all accused guilt based on my distrust of Govt abuses of power. I also question the OP's definition of Welfare. Did allowing Bundys cattle to graze somehow harm me? Did it harm the Federal Govt? Did it harm the Land itself? Did I pay out of my pocket for damages done by Bundys cattle? Expectations of Fees, Fines, Levies, and Taxes and other forms of taking Bundys' money I do not see as being valid to begin with so he isnt stealing from me. Oh damn, that guy (not Bundy, just some guy) didnt pay his Income Taxes. As if I have an expectation that money taken from him should be given to me?

Heres the point. Someday, the Federal Govt may very well come after YOU. If you want violence, then by all means, support Reid and Govt to abuse Bundy now. If you want everything for yourself to be provided by Big Govt, also support Bigger Federal Govt here and now. But instead, if you want Balance, Fairness, Eqality, your Rights to be recognized and respected, then show some moderation to the situation at hand.

 

[austin944]

How is he mooching from the government dole? What loss has the government suffered in monetary terms?

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

 

[kahless]

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

Why should the US taxpayers receive anything for the land? Just leave it as state public lands. He is not an intruder and neither would you be if you went out there. This is not the "kings land", this is your land.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You have got to be kidding me. I'm gone a few hours and a new thread tugs out old rehashed crap that...n/m was there not enough info already posted in other threads to debunk this OP? /disappointed

To be honest, I had not even looked at this case when it was all happening. A 70 hour week kept me mostly occupied, that and my usual routine.

When I finally did take notice it was around the time that the video of the needlessly armed federal bureaucrats backing down surfaced.

Upon research and applied principle, the issue is cut and dry.

I do not care who the man is or what his beliefs are.

The BLM has overstepped its bounds (considering it took a step). They were a corrupt organization from the get go and 264,000,000 acres of squandered land is offensive.

I don't think people actually much care for facts. Their grievance, from as best I can tell, is that his money has not had its chance (through the one simple extortion racket, anyways) to become theirs or to be divvied for what they think is admirable. Misguided would be putting their views lightly. There's so much fail in the OP I would have trouble containing myself.

Absurdity.

 

[tod evans]

Why should the US taxpayers receive anything for the land? Just leave it as state public lands. He is not an intruder and neither would you be if you went out there. This is not the "kings land", this is your land.

The US government owes the state of Nevada untold sums of gold for devaluing land placed in its stewardship.

Nevada is well within her rights to reposes the lands and demand compensation for damages.

Bundy parcel notwithstanding..

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

How did the tax burden fare when multiple millions were spent on an attempt to rustle his cattle, and drive him from the land?

You are something else.

The fucking deadbeats would be the ones paid for shear un-productivity.. I'll call a spade a spade and say you probably were there... if at least nothing else, in spirit. 1 in 9.

 

[austin944]

How did the tax burden fare when multiple millions were spent on an attempt to rustle his cattle, and drive him from the land?

I do not subscribe to the principle that a property rights battle is won by making it more expensive for your opponent to win. Property rights are not justly obtained by "might makes right" on either side.

 

[DamianTV]

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

The Taxpayers arent going to be the recipients of the cost of the sale, the Federal Govt is. Govt isnt going to lower anyones taxes just because some land was sold. If the land is sold, put up a fence around the land that is sold and keep the damn cattle out.

Cattle and other grazing animals are also going to exist whether humans exist or not. The land is undeveloped. When / If that land is developed, the owned livestock and all other animals are going to be kicked off the land. What difference does it make if the cattle is owned, or its a pack of wild horses? Would wild horses on the same land to be sold also devalue the land? How about if a coyote goes on the land in question, eats a wild rabbit, then takes a dump on the land? Does that devalue the land as well? It implies that I am also a "Moocher" and on "Welfare" because I pay NOTHING to walk my dogs on the same BLM land. I do live in Nevada and do live on the edge of BLM land.

All it means is that Bundy woudnt be able to use the sold land for grazing any more. Being that I live on the edge of the desert as well, lets try a hypothetical. Someone comes along and develops some part of that land right next to me. All it means is I wont go on to that land any more. If I had cattle, they woudnt be able to go on to that property any more. They ought to put up a fence. Build a house with a yard and some grass, might wanna put up a fence so that neither wild horses or owned cattle will try to eat that grass.

The thing is that it isnt BLM land that is the real goal. The real goal is Bundy's land. Federal Govt wants his property too, and are looking for every possible way to kick him off of his land, including calling him Racist, labeling supporters as "Domestic Terrorists", and the ultimate "he owes us money". Bundy is the LAST MAN STANDING. Every other Rancher in his area has been effectively kicked off their land, which now belongs to the BLM and he is the last one.

And as far as calling him a Deadbeat, he has cattle, which means he produces. Do you have any idea how many people own farms and are paid to NOT farm? They are paid to NOT produce. Id call that Welfare and Price Manipulation more than I would call Bundy a deadbeat. Not paying taxes is not an indication of a deadbeat unless one desires a Welfare state. Bundy has repeatedly offered to pay said taxes to the State of Nevada, not the Federal Govt. Again, not what I'd call a deadbeat.

 

[austin944]

Why should the US taxpayers receive anything for the land? Just leave it as state public lands. He is not an intruder and neither would you be if you went out there. This is not the "kings land", this is your land.

All that does is turn the problem over to the State of Nevada. If the State wanted full fair value of the land in order to sell it, they'd first have to eject this squatter from off it.

 

[DamianTV]

All that does is turn the problem over to the State of Nevada. If the State wanted full fair value of the land in order to sell it, they'd first have to eject this squatter from off it.

So I am a "squatter" too because I walk my dogs on the same exact Nevada BLM land? Yeah, I live here.

 

[Henry Rogue]

U.S. border extends 12 miles out into the sea. Make sure you pay your fishing tax. You don't want to be free loading by harvesting the kings fish. Where do all these fees go? To pay the salary of some bureaucrat no doubt. If delinquent fees make it tougher for government to operate, that is a plus in my book.

 

[otherone]

So I am a "squatter" too because I walk my dogs on the same exact Nevada BLM land? Yeah, I live here.

doood
I'm jelly brah.