From Dan Bongino
Regarding the Bundy family in Nevada:
First, this is not a question of law but the process by which laws are enforced and the methods used to enforce them. Sadly, many Americans are questioning if the process is fair, equal and apolitical in application?
Many patriotic and previously apolitical Americans are frustrated and are questioning if it is a more accurate expression of fidelity to our Constitution, and the rule of law, by violating the law in support of a larger principle?
When the administration consistently ignores clearly written laws, yet expects you to vigorously follow the letter of the law in an alphabet they no longer use, are we in a society of laws or just laws that apply to you?
I hope some of the DC elites read this because we are a country of genuinely good and law-abiding people who just want to know that their voice is heard and that the process is not rigged. Labeling Americans who speak out, and are frustrated at a process that seems to only apply to them and not the connected few, racists, terrorists and other terrible names, is not leadership or courageous. Maybe when their voices and their access to the process stops being drowned out by the voices of the cronyists and politically connected we can reach a place where a land-use disagreement such as the situation in Nevada doesn't escalate as it did.
This is true but the fact still remains, this is the first time, to my knowledge anyway, that we have sent in snipers and hundreds of thugs to confiscate the man's property.
I have the utmost respect for Bongino and for a reasonable man like Dan to speak like this, it makes me take notice.
We are a nation of rule by law that no longer observes the rule of law. We are ruled by decree by a bunch of lawless creeps that have absolutely no respect whatsoever for our constitution or principles.
More of this militia involvement is being stirred up now because of this. I have no idea where it will wind up but I'm pretty sure I know where it's headed.
They are both such hypocrites, Bundy and Reid.
The Federal agents were there showing force because Bundy has repeatedly threatened to meet anyone trying to enforce the Court rulings with force.
Where the agents charged with enforcing the Court order supposed to simply walk in hoping that he was lying?
The stubborn fool doesn't even have the support of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, and I can bet that the NCA members as well as the nearly 16,000 other ranchers holding BLM grazing permits and leases probably wish that Bundy would just shut up. He's shining a bright light of the very lucrative practice of grazing on public lands.
According to a Congressional study in 2012, grazing fees in non-BLM managed lands can run up to $80 per month per cow/calf combination in grazing lands managed by the States and as high as $150 per month per cow/calf unit in privately-owned lands leased for grazing. The BLM is charging $1.35 for the same as per Reagan's Executive Order #12548 as a result of heavy Federal subsidies for the program.
In other words, the taxpayers of that nation that Bundy claims doesn't exist are heavily subsidizing ranchers everywhere. Those subsidies include Federally funded predator killing programs that kills wildlife at the request of ranchers, even though predators account for less than 3% of all cattle/calf losses each year.
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to let the free market rule here. Let's put those lands up for bid to the highest bidder and let the winner set the grazing fees according to who has the ability to pay the highest fee. That's the kind of freedom that Bundy wants... isn't it?
Or if the State wishes to take title to those lands, let the citizens of that State decide whether or not they want to continue providing corporate welfare for Bundy and all the ranchers now enjoying it, or whether the ranchers should have to buy the land that their cattle graze on and pay taxes on it, just like everyone pays taxes on land they claim title to.
I'm sure that those other 16,000 permit holders are thrilled at the idea of Bundy getting his wishes and the government out of the grazing lands business.
And I'm sure those ranchers paying $1.35 per AUM would consider it an honor and their patriotic duty to pay $80 to $150 for AUM instead.
Freedom isn't free, and it shouldn't be subsidized either.
Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title to more than 40% of their “western” lands (237 million acres between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802.
Federal land acquisition from foreign countries began with the Louisiana Purchase (530 million acres) in 1803 and continued via treaties with Great Britain and Spain (76 million acres) in 1817 and 1819, respectively. Other substantial acquisitions (620 million acres), via purchases and treaties, occurred between 1846 and 1853. The last major North American land acquisition by the U.S. federal government was the purchase of Alaska (378 million acres) in 1867.
We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not.I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to mean but I believe there is a huge difference between believing that the constitution exists and believing that the constitution is being seriously abused by those in charge of protecting same.
If anyone here is showing no respect for the Constitution is the man who doesn't believe that the nation that the Constitution created actually exists.
Read up on George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion.
I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to mean but I believe there is a huge difference between believing that the constitution exists and believing that the constitution is being seriously abused by those in charge of protecting same.
As an analogy I would say that a person can have the utmost respect for the office of president and have a complete disdain for the person holding that position. Such is the case for me concerning Obama.
Also I would say that a person could even have a certain respect for the government and the agencies of the government but in today's world that gets tougher and tougher.
I hope you're right about "We observe the rule of law to a greater degree, by far, than not" ...but I'm looking for better than that. My take on it would be that as a people we observe most of our laws but our leaders do not. The further up the chain of command you go, the more lawless they become. Our agencies and departments have been corrupted, beyond the tipping point. Whether that's a majority or not, I don't know, but one thing's for sure, it's a foreboding trend.
This nation, IMO, cannot survive another 3 years of the Obama administration. Somehow, he and his sycophants must be neutralized.
Luis wrote:
[[ Cliven Bundy, by his own words, has declared himself an enemy of the United States by dismissing its existence, and when he boasts about waging a "range war" against the government of the United States, he is threatening to levy war against the United States.
That's the Constitutional definition of treason. ]]
I urge you to come down off the high horse.
Why do you write as if you have something stuck up your craw about Cliven Bundy?
He may not be as pure as the driven snow, not that they get much snow where he is. He's not even close to being squeaky-clean.
Mr. Bundy actually sounds a little (or perhaps a little more) off-kilter. The same might have been said about Randy Weaver up in Idaho some years' back. But what happened to him at the hands of the federal government certainly struck a raw nerve amongst many. And he was later vindicated in court.
It's obvious that the BLM wanted Bundy's cattle off of their land, and at some point in the past may have been leveraging to drive him out of business -- the same way they succeeded in driving the other ranchers in the area out of the same kind of business.
The BLM's modus operandi was to coerce ranchers into signing "contracts" consenting to terms under which it would become all-but impossible for them to continue in the ranching business. At least if they wanted to make any money from it. The others couldn't hang on, but Bundy has toughed it out.
I'm only guessing, and you can attack me for that, but I'll guess that that's why Bundy reached a point where he no longer wished to do business with a "party of the first part" that was trying (obviously) to drive him OUT of business.
Mr. Bundy may not be the proverbially-clean hound's tooth. But his "range war" has taken a bite out of the BLM -- and out of the federals -- to which many folks can relate.
And it's brought national attention to the fact that there is too much "government ownership" of land in the western states, without a compelling reason why there should BE such ownership.
Look at the way Texas is responding to the dispute with the BLM up along the Red River, in the wake of Bundy's War.
The federals may not be finished with Mr. Bundy yet.
But the issues which Bundy has raised are going to cause a lot of commotion in the future...
Mr. Bundy was quite happy to let the devil pay the piper when the welfare deal was sweet. The devil gets to call the tune, though, and Mr. Bundy has absolutely, positively nobody to blame but himself for the situation he got himself into. He is as worthy of respect as is any inner city ghetto squatter refusing to vacate his apartment despite refusing to pay the rent.