Published: Wednesday, April 23 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
The extreme right in Utah is using this as a takeover issue. The call to
moderation and recognition of the law is important. Unless you want the Militia
types riding around in pickup trucks with machine guns hoping for a fight.
There's nothing worse than preppers that have a million bullets and 10
years of food in the basement and nothing to do with it. So the
Nevada rancher says he wants a million dollars of free grass from the
government. Ok. I'm sure he's ok with everyone else just grazing there
free too? I say everybody should bring their livestock to his place and see what
One vote. You need to educate yourself about Ruby Ridge and Waco where it was
government thugs who were the ones riding around in trucks and machine guns
hoping for a fight, just like they almost did in Nevada. Our forefathers stood
up to abusive government thugs and we call them patriots, which they were.
American needs more patriots instead of lemmings.
Are you kidding me? Your effort to rationalize law breaking so you can have a
foot in both worlds is stunningly ridiculous. Your underlying premise is wrong,
including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Yes, the rebels of
the West were upset that land was set aside for purposes that would exclude its
exploitation for their personal gain, but the land is owned by the people (as
represented by the Federal government) and we had every right to designate it as
a National Monument. There is nothing in limbo. Bundy is a lawbreaker and has
been for decades, unlike most of the other ranchers who obey the law. As I talk
to BLM folks, you assertion is completely false - they are sensitive to local
issues. The problem comes when certain local folks can't get what they
want, and it's always for their own selfish interests. For most of us,
take away the emotional arguments, and we will mostly agree that the federal
government is doing the right thing by protecting public lands for our
widespread use rather than closing them off so a few can profit.
This is a good, sensible editorial, but one gets the sense that a lot of the
"sagebrush rebels" want the land deeded to *them*, not to the state or
any county or any other form of government, which are all viewed as simply
differing levels of evil, all to be opposed.It's increasingly
apparent the vigilantes / patriots / welfare ranchers who are now railing
against Obama will immediately turn their sights to the Utah Legislature if/when
the United States is dumb enough to cede ownership of federal lands to the
states.Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle,
Fine, place a lien on Bundy's property, the government gets its money and
the problem solved! There was no need to send in 200 armed storm troopers,
threaten people, kill cattle and act like thugs and waste over a million dollars
of taxpayer money trying to show who's boss! That's the point!
I think the BLM could do a better job of communicating with the local natives
when making decisions. Especially decisions that affect the life and livelyhood
of the local natives. I think the fact that they are giving it some
time to de-escalate is a good development.I think both sides have
made some mistakes. To pretend that the Federal Government has never made a
mistake, or that they couldn't make a mistake now... is viewing reality
through very strict blinders that only allow you to see what you WANT to see.
Likewise assuming ranchers are always right... is a narrow view of reality.They need to work together and try to find compromise and make sure the
position of BOTH sides is explained and understood (not just crammed down other
side's throat because you aren't REQUIRED to discuss or explain).
They seem to have learned from our friends in Congress... that
"compromise" is a bad word, and shows weakness, and should be avoided at
all cost. Only confrontation, dramatically created standoffs, ideological
purity, and insisting YOU get everything YOU want... is needed.Yes... BOTH sides do this from time to time. Not just one side.
The government is forbidden to own land, except for a 10 mile square parcel of
land which is the District of Columbia and minor pieces of land for Forts,
Magazines, and Federal Buildings. That is what the Supreme Law of the Land
tells us. Obviously, the federal government thinks that it is above the law.
So, if both sides are lawless, which side should be rewarded?The
federal government needs to divest itself of all "public lands".
Mike Richards,Re: "The government is forbidden to own land"...As usual... there are different viewpoints.There are 3
different interpretations of the "Property Clause" of the Constitution
(ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2)google "Property
clause"...The primary constitutional authority for the
management and control of this vast real-estate empire is the Property Clause.
The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate. Broadly
speaking, three different theories have been advanced.The narrowest
conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the
Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land.The broadest conception, which can be called the police-power theory,
regards the clause as conferring not only the powers of ownership but also
general sovereign authority to regulate private conduct that occurs on federal
land or that affects federal land.there is also an intermediate
conception of the Property Clause, which can be labeled the protective
theory.It is not certain which of these three theories corresponds
with the original understanding of the Framers...It's still
being debated by the various Courts and Constitutional Scholars.
Read the Constitution. IT is the Supreme Law of the Land. Google is NOT the
Supreme Law of the Land.When people look for an excuse to excuse
government lawlessness, they will surely find like-minded "peers" who
prefer to get their "law" from the Internet.Either we have a
Constitution or we do not. I contend that we have a Constitution and that no
amount of lawlessness by the government or by government supporters overrides
So what happens when legal remedies through the courts have been exhausted?
@ One Old Man"So what happens when legal remedies through the courts
have been exhausted"? What should happen is Clive Bundy and the
anarchist surrounding him should be gathered up and thrown in jail. If they
don't go peacefully then take them by force.
@FT,Re: "If they don't go peacefully then take them by
force...My... you sound so Gestapo-like today... You're
mind-set fits perfectly when you have the SS or the Gestapo to round people up
and throw them in jail for daring to question the government.What is
this left in this country becoming???
FT. You would love life in Cuba, Iran, N.Korea, Hitler's Germany or Russia
because that is what they do there but not in America. You see, in America the
people tell the government what it can and can not do, not the other way around.
In America we have freedom to stand up to government abuses. Or at least we used
to but some people just don't get it! Some people would rather be subjects
@ 2 bitsNice straw man argument about the SS and the Gestapo. I happen to
believe in the rule of law and support our law enforcement. Clive Bundy has
been found guilty by the courts and refuses to comply to the rule of law.
Anyone protecting him from justice is obstructing the law. Go ahead and
question the goverment and get your day in court but no man is above the rule of
law. Clive Bundy and the ararchist surrounding him think they are and there is
no place in a civilized, democratic society like ours.
FT,There's nothing illegal about protesting, or possessing weapons.
We still believe in freedom of expression... don't we? Or can you now be
carted off by force and jailed for protesting this government action?Bundy may have broken a law... but what law did the people who showed up to
protest break???===You call them "Anarchists", I
call them "People".People who have just as much right to
protest as the Occupy Wallstreet people...===Question:Were you saying "If they don't go peacefully then take
them by force"... when the occupy wallstreet people were told they were
breaking the law by setting up their camps on private property, vandalizing
stores, etc?How about the anti-war protesters? Just call the SS
and cart them off to jail??Or is it just when the protesters
don't agree with you (or your party) that they need to be carted off to
jail (for protesting)?The BLM protesters broke no US Laws that
I'm aware of. The occupy people did though... and you tolerated their
"The government is forbidden to own land..."And yet it does
and has for two centuries, ample time to mount a concerted legal challenge. As
the legal maxim goes, res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.
@ 2 bitsOnce again nice straw man arguments. If you can't win an
argument do you always recreate the facts? Where did the occupy Wall Street
protesters come into the equation here? Truthfully, I have no idea if they were
breaking the law or not. If they were they're no different than Clive
Bundy and I would support our law enforcement in doing what was needed to
enforce the law.As far as the armed protestors surrounding Bundy many of
them have threatned to use force if law enforcement comes to arrest him.
I'm not an attorney but it would seem to me that threatning the life of a
law enforcement officer from doing his sworn duty is breaking the law.
Protesting is fine, threats and indimation of our public law enforcement is not.
“ . . . There is room for compromise with BLM . . .”WRONG.The Federal Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists,
either foreign or domestic.Get used to it.Federal Lands
belong to “We the People of the United States . . . ”Federal Lands do NOT belong to the states or exclusively to local yokels
with attitude problems . . . even if they do strut around carrying guns while
shouting about how much they hate the government.The Federal
Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists, either foreign or domestic.
I agree, but your remarks are a might tepid. But this will liven things up.
The organizers of Burning Man (who do pay a user fee to the BLM) have declared
"Bundyfest" to be held right after Burning Man right across the road
from Mr. Bundy's ranch. Since Bundy has declared himself to be outside of
U.S. jurisdiction, Bundyfest will be an exercise in pure anarchy. Anything
goes, and I do mean anything. It should be quite an event. I will await your
editorial about that along about September.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments