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

[austin944]

For almost 20 years now, Cliven Bundy has lived off government welfare that he is not properly entitled to claim under the laws of the US government. He has not properly paid the grazing fees required of him and used government land without permission.

If the US government had been dealing with an group of OWS types who had taken over land owned by the government, then those OWS should have been ejected from the land just like Cliven Bundy's trespassing cattle.

That makes Cliven Bundy a welfare rancher, no different than any other welfare recipient who is not properly entitled to their ill-gotten gains.

Criticizing a welfare recipient does not imply support for the welfare program, just like criticizing Cliven Bundy for using welfare does not imply support for the ownership of the land by the Federal government.

One can say that the land should be sold, returned to the state of Nevada, or for some other purpose useful to the true owners of the land -- the US public at large. But to say that Cliven Bundy somehow owns or has rights to the land is not based on any law or fact.

There is a false dichotomy being setup by the two main sides on this issue, when there are really three sides to the issue. This third stance is that neither Cliven Bundy nor the Federal government should own the land. And this is a stance that is completely consistent with the message of limited government embraced by many in the Liberty movement.

I believe the Liberty movement has gotten off track by supporting this welfare rancher. ALL welfare programs are suspect because they transfer wealth using force, and Cliven Bundy has shown that he supports the use of force to continue receiving his welfare. It does not matter whether Bundy happens to use the "correct" anti-government rhetoric that many might agree with -- he is still a welfare recipient that has illegally acquired his gains at the expense of the US taxpayers.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution 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."

This means that the US government lands can be used for whatever purpose the Congress desires -- for saving turtles, or doing nothing with it at all.

The land in dispute first came into the possession of the US government after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, in which Mexico ceded lands to the US government in what is now known as the state of Nevada.

All of Bundy's claims to the land have been reviewed by the Federal courts and all such arguments have been rejected. Therefore his cattle should be ejected from the land, and this welfare rancher should go try to live off the proceeds of his own work, instead of trying to live off the US government.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Well put. Some libertarians have jumped on the wrong bandwagon in this matter. Bundy is a freeloader.

 

[juleswin]

I have been very reluctant to weigh in on the whole fight for the land. I know that even here in Nebraska, ranchers pay some fee to the state to allow their animals to graze on and the fee is for grazing right and not for fixing or maintaining the land. So after all I have heard of this case, no where have I read that the Bundy's were willing to pay a fair price for grazing right. So as it is now, they are more welfare ranchers that liberty activists.

I also know that I do not support some federal bureaucracy managing state land or them using overwhelming force to confront ordinary citizens but in the system we live you, you just cannot continue grazing on the land without paying for it.

My suggestion is for the govt to sell the land asap or sell the grazing rights for it on the auction block and may the best man or woman win the bid.

 

[Philhelm]

That's like saying a tax-evader is a freeloader and a welfare recipient. His unlawful grazing of cattle on the King's Land is not comparable to the government taking the fruits of my labor at gunpoint and handing it out to others.

 

[Philhelm]

I have been very reluctant to weigh in on the whole fight for the land. I know that even here in Nebraska, ranchers pay some fee to the state to allow their animals to graze on and the fee is for grazing right and not for fixing or maintaining the land. So after all I have heard of this case, no where have I read that the Bundy's were willing to pay a fair price for grazing right. So as it is now, they are more welfare ranchers that liberty activists.

Just because everyone else sucks up to the King [mod edit] doesn't mean that those who refuse are wrong.

...you just cannot continue grazing on the land without paying for it.

Why not?

My suggestion is for the govt to sell the land asap or sell the grazing rights for it on the auction block and may the best man or woman win the bid.

The federal government "owns" the majority of the state. Wouldn't it make more sense for the state, including all occupants, to cede the remainder to the federal government instead? Actually, should the government be allowed to own "private" property to begin with?

 

[steph3n]

Finally a rational OP....followed by more [mod delete].

 

[RJB]

It's open range. Cattle have been grazing there since they started raising cows. Before that the buffalo grazed.

The Feds are new comers. Why are the Feds entitled to grazing fees? Why can't I charge Bundy grazing fees?

 

[donnay]

Finally a rational OP....followed by more loons.

The federal government should not own land. It's the peoples land, not government. This is ridiculous, politicians are making backroom deals with foreigners. It's not theirs to sell or make deals. Any politician who sells or makes deals with foreigners should be rounded up and jailed.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I don't really care if the man copulates with his cattle. He's doing something right if the media is calling him racist

 

[pcosmar]

The land does not and CAN NOT be owned by the Federal Government, as specifically described by The Constitution of the US.

The argument is moot.

And as far at "treaties" go.. One of the other Ranchers that was destroyed by the FedGov was a Native Indian who was Granted Rights by Treaty.
The FedGov broke that treaty as well.

 

[JK/SEA]

For almost 20 years now, Cliven Bundy has lived off government welfare that he is not properly entitled to claim under the laws of the US government. He has not properly paid the grazing fees required of him and used government land without permission.

If the US government had been dealing with an group of OWS types who had taken over land owned by the government, then those OWS should have been ejected from the land just like Cliven Bundy's trespassing cattle.

That makes Cliven Bundy a welfare rancher, no different than any other welfare recipient who is not properly entitled to their ill-gotten gains.

Criticizing a welfare recipient does not imply support for the welfare program, just like criticizing Cliven Bundy for using welfare does not imply support for the ownership of the land by the Federal government.

One can say that the land should be sold, returned to the state of Nevada, or for some other purpose useful to the true owners of the land -- the US public at large. But to say that Cliven Bundy somehow owns or has rights to the land is not based on any law or fact.

There is a false dichotomy being setup by the two main sides on this issue, when there are really three sides to the issue. This third stance is that neither Cliven Bundy nor the Federal government should own the land. And this is a stance that is completely consistent with the message of limited government embraced by many in the Liberty movement.

I believe the Liberty movement has gotten off track by supporting this welfare rancher. ALL welfare programs are suspect because they transfer wealth using force, and Cliven Bundy has shown that he supports the use of force to continue receiving his welfare. It does not matter whether Bundy happens to use the "correct" anti-government rhetoric that many might agree with -- he is still a welfare recipient that has illegally acquired his gains at the expense of the US taxpayers.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution 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."

This means that the US government lands can be used for whatever purpose the Congress desires -- for saving turtles, or doing nothing with it at all.

The land in dispute first came into the possession of the US government after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, in which Mexico ceded lands to the US government in what is now known as the state of Nevada.

All of Bundy's claims to the land have been reviewed by the Federal courts and all such arguments have been rejected. Therefore his cattle should be ejected from the land, and this welfare rancher should go try to live off the proceeds of his own work, instead of trying to live off the US government.

pure comedy. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[asurfaholic]

This article is full of hypocritical fail.

There is a false dichotomy being setup by the two main sides on this issue, when there are really three sides to the issue. This third stance is that neither Cliven Bundy nor the Federal government should own the land.

his means that the US government lands can be used for whatever purpose the Congress desires -- for saving turtles, or doing nothing with it at all.

The land has been used for cattle grazing since before there were claims that the government somehow came into ownership of the land.

The argument isn't so much who owns the land, because I believe nobody does, and anyone should be able to use the land, and nobody can build a fence to keep others out. But rather can the government just up and decide whatever resources it wants can suddenly be subject to fees and permits.

Say you drill a well at your house, and use that water for years, then the govt makes a law "protect the children's water" and says that anyone who has a well must now pay a "water resources" fee or face big penalties. That is pretty much what I see at the bundy ranch.

The government is not the owner to anything because the government was not created as a special ruling class. Public lands, there is no crime for letting your cow eat the grass or your dog take a shit.

 

[juleswin]

Just because everyone else sucks up to the King [mod edit] doesn't mean that those who refuse are wrong.

Yea, but you lose a credibility if you yourself was sucking up the King and decide that its a little too much now [mod edit]. It would be one thing if their original argument was that they did not owe BLM anything or the state for that matter, but its not. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the disagreement that the fee were too much or is it that they referred paying to the state instead of the feds?

I wonder how many people will come to my support if the feds came for me after I stopped paying my hunting license while continuing to hunt for 20yrs? anyone?

 

[JK/SEA]

Yea, but you lose a credibility if you yourself was sucking the King and decide that its a little too big now. It would be one thing if their original argument was that they did not owe BLM anything or the state for that matter, but its not. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the disagreement that the fee were too much or is it that they referred paying to the state instead of the feds?

I wonder how many people will come to my support if the feds came for me after I stopped paying my hunting license while continuing to hunt for 20yrs? anyone?

fucking brilliant statement....bravo...

yawn, with a slight sneer.

 

[pcosmar]

. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the disagreement that the fee were too much or is it that they referred paying to the state instead of the feds?

You are wrong.
He was willing to pay a fee for grazing.. But was required to sign an agreement that would limit him out of business.

He refused to sign such a contract. And they refused to take his payment.

The BLM was created as a land grab,, and to drive off the Ranchers,, The loggers and any others that were using public land.
They are managing it to sell it off to foreign/corporate interests.

 

[JK/SEA]

fuck the fees....geezus...are there really this many fuck tards in the Liberty movement, or are we just being blessed by FBI operatives playing on discussion forums?...makes me go hmmmmm..

 

[bunklocoempire]

Yea, but you lose a credibility if you yourself was sucking the King and decide that its a little too big now. It would be one thing if their original argument was that they did not owe BLM anything or the state for that matter, but its not. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the disagreement that the fee were too much or is it that they referred paying to the state instead of the feds?

I wonder how many people will come to my support if the feds came for me after I stopped paying my hunting license while continuing to hunt for 20yrs? anyone?

Who's land are you hunting on?

They (State of HI) tell me I need a license to take feral pig from my property. Uh....

 

[Philhelm]

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

Not when the King's Men have weapons drawn. Complying with a rapist does not equal acceptance of the rape.

It would be one thing if their original argument was that they did not owe BLM anything or the state for that matter, but its not. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the disagreement that the fee were too much or is it that they referred paying to the state instead of the feds?

Trying to obtain a more favorable arrangement through an appeal to an alternative government entity does not mean acceptance of the situation.

I wonder how many people will come to my support if the feds came for me after I stopped paying my hunting license while continuing to hunt for 20yrs? anyone?

Probably not many, unfortunately. I think the issue with Bundy is that the Feds' seizure of cattle (his personal property) and all of the bullshit about tortoises, implications of Harry Greid's involvement, Fed's with sniper rifles, etc. made the whole situation more high-profile than your example of poaching the King's deer.

 

[juleswin]

You are wrong.
He was willing to pay a fee for grazing.. But was required to sign an agreement that would limit him out of business.

He refused to sign such a contract. And they refused to take his payment.

The BLM was created as a land grab,, and to drive off the Ranchers,, The loggers and any others that were using public land.
They are managing it to sell it off to foreign/corporate interests.

Then he should talk about this every chance he gets, make it known to start every single interview with it so that every single person that listens or reads to any of his interviews knows that he was and still is willing to pay his fair fee for the grazing rights. This should end the accusations of welfare queen if he did that from the start.

And he should get a PR guy immediately. This man and quite frankly most people are not savvy enough to handle the MSM

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are wrong.
He was willing to pay a fee for grazing.. But was required to sign an agreement that would limit him out of business.

He refused to sign such a contract. And they refused to take his payment.

Pete is right and this was explained in detail in the Bundy thread, buried now I'm sure.

It had to do with "animal units" or some such.

The bottom line was that if he agreed to the deal, he was essentially signing his business' death warrant.

The wobblies, weak kneed panty wetters and "Do Nothing" wing of this "movement" have been quick to sound off, predictably.

This is not about Bundy, his remarks, his political views about whatever, or even his cows...

This is about Regulation without Representation.

Nothing more.

And "we" actually won one, for once.

And, as has happened so many times in past, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.