He represents the tea arty not the GOP. A tea party representative demanded the
local Mesquite government to support him at a meeting.
Now he's down there "receiving revelation". The guy is unhinged.
I read the KLAS story. His parents bought their ranch from the
Leavitt's in 1948. His family were actually in "Bundyville" AZ (MT
Trumbell area??). His grandmother on his mother's side may have settled in
Littlefield Az according to census records. Like he said- he doesn't
always know what he said (he just knows what he wants). He said his father
"either bought or inherited his rights" and he inherited them from him.
Sounds like he doesn't know??? No wonder he never wins in court. And
he's your poster child (far-right)???
The remote Gold Butte area is raw desert, no grass. The cattle out there are
ideological lifestyle pets. You wouldn't want even a burger from the mojave
desert cactus cattle.
Repubs, Even Glenn Beck says that Bundy is wrong and should pay the
fees.That says a lot. I think those who continue to defend him are
living in their own fantasy land willingly. Keep worshipping your false idol.
The rest of society has moved on.
Stretching mountainman. If Gietner hadn't paid his taxes in 20
years,refused to recognize the US government like a seditionist, lost numerous
court battles, was still cheating on his taxes and brought a bunch of friends
with guns to intimidate the government agents then you would have a point. Oh and Bundy seems to be treated pretty well for all of this
doesn't he? He's never gone to jail and didn't get shot when
confronting the government agents with guns.
He is an anarchist advocating overthrow of the government.
When is the last time that side has been right about anything? The right is
"Most large tracts on good grazing land were quickly snapped up by
politically-connected Democrat families, leaving only marginal lands, like those
Mr. Bundy ranches, available to real people."And thus you have
an explanation why there are no wealthy or large land holders who are
Republican. It no doubt give credence to why most rural areas are so democrat
leaning.... you know.... non-real people.Good grief... will the
partisan blah-blah-blah ever end?
I would gladly pay what bundy is supposed to pay per acre and more if I could
get a few sections of federal land for my personal lifestyle retreat. Maybe a
weekend camping and quadding spot, maybe a cowboy poetry festival or an arts
festival like burning man. Maybe build that gyrocopter I've always wanted
and have my own airport. Whatever. If all bundy wants it for is his lifestyle,
supported by a few scruffy razor thin desert cattle, give the rest of us, those
of us who would make lease payments, a go at it.
Re: "The plot thickens."Yeah, but not in the way you mean
it. For those of you unfamiliar with the real agricultural world, Mr.
Bundy's family didn't buy the part of their ranch Big Government
rustled his cattle from. Not in 1948. Not ever.Rather, that land was
always open range land, and prior to FDR and his socialist "New Deal,"
was open to real Americans for grazing, even to erect forage-enhancing
improvements. Just not for fencing, after 1885.One of FDR's
first collectivization acts -- the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 -- organized the
BLM and empowered it to enforce grazing districts, to allocate grazing
monopolies [primarily to FDR cronies], and charge fees for grazing on public
lands. Most large tracts on good grazing land were quickly snapped up by
politically-connected Democrat families, leaving only marginal lands, like those
Mr. Bundy ranches, available to real people.If his family was
ranching in the area in the 1870's, it was quite likely on that open range.
The purchase by his parents of other private land in 1948 would not have
involved the land today in question.
Lagomorph,"....A title search showed that Cliven's parents
bought the ranch in 1948 and census records don't show family in the area
before 1900...."______________________________The plot
thickens. I hadn’t heard any of that. If I were Bundy’s lawyer, I
might advise him not to say anything in public, certainly not to the press.
When the Native Americans have their ancestrial lands returned to them -- or The Mexicans and the Treaty of Guadalupe, THEN Cliven Bundy can
cry "poor pity me" all he wants to...
Craig Clark: "Bundy family ownership of the land dates back to Mormon
colonization days predating the BLM."KLAS-TV (Las Vegas)
reported that a search of government records does not corroborate the Bundy
family's claim of land occupancy since the 1870s. A title search showed
that Cliven's parents bought the ranch in 1948 and census records
don't show family in the area before 1900.Have the Bundys
issued any statement in response to this report or offered documentation to
support their claim of ancestral ownership?
Bundy family ownership of the land dates back to Mormon colonization days
predating the BLM. That basis for claiming he is not subject to BLM jurisdiction
was rightly tossed out of court. But it was enough to make him a hero to the far
right. If he had kept his mouth shut on his racial attitudes, he might still be
their golden boy.He’s a fallen hero for the wrong reason. Yes,
he deserves the censure he’s getting but equally censurable is his attempt
to be a law unto himself. His right wing cheerleaders seem to be perfectly
alright with that part.
2bits.Yes, I am guilty of over the top rhetoric. My 'small
nuke" comment was a complete exaggeration and a joke. I think you know
that.I have no problem with Bundy the racist. I have no
problem with protesting perceived "government overreach"I
have no problem with "some people wanting to make a statement out of
supporting the American rancher"But I do have a problem with
people resisting laws that they don't like with a group of people carrying
guns and vowing that they will do "whatever it takes"This
could have easily ended up in a big shootout with lots of people dead. That is not a protest. That is armed resistance. Huge difference.I have a feeling if the sheriff comes to evict me from my house for non
payment, and I resist with firearms, I would end up dead at worst and in jail at
best.How is Bundy's situation different?
Re: "Your argument is like a child who argues that he should be able to do
something wrong just because so and so did something wrong."Kinda like the open-borders crowd's argument on illegal immigration, huh?
Or Occupy Wall Street's. Or the Obama administration's arguments on
Executive Branch legislation.
@mountainman. Your argument is like a child who argues that he should be able to
do something wrong just because so and so did something wrong.
Thid BarkerVictor, IDJust put a lien on his property! Problem
solved! No need for the Gestapo to roll in.8:12 a.m. April 29,
2014======== Um. Because he does OWN the
property.He is using Public lands, which he can use with the proper
permits, and I for once actully want the
"Gestapo" as you call them to stop him.
Re: "Pundits . . . quickly distanced themselves from the Bundy comments,
though not, curiously, from his objections to the government's authority
over grazing lands."It's not at all curious. Conservatives
are principle-driven. Unlike liberals, who are always looking for charismatic
messiahs, who typically need their adherents to protect them from close
scrutiny.What is curious is why, to liberals, the Cliven
Bundy's racism somehow diminishes his status as a victim of Big Government
overreach, but an Occupy Wall Street activist's anarchic past does not.At least conservatives stand only with that portion of the complex
Cliven Bundy issue that's consistent with American values.Liberal activists, on the other hand, have a curious need to embrace the
entire personna of their "big-tent" invitees. They accept, not just the
support of people, but noxious concepts like abortion, immigration and border
lawlessness, monetary and financial profligacy, anarchic Occupy-Wall-Street
riots, criminality, the improbable new-age tree-hugger and atheist religions,
and terrorism's collective-guilt logic, because their political desperation
drives them to invite those people who embrace such concepts into their "big
tent."There's the real curiosity.
@2BitsBut why does he deserve to use this land(owned by the federal
government) for free? I have family who are ranchers, they pay a good chunk of
change to rent grazing land from a private owner, should they get to use the
land for free because they have been using it for the last 50 years, and are
more familiar with the property than even the owner? What about all the other
ranchers who do pay grazing fees to the federal government. Why does Mr Bundy
think he's so special? Why does he think he doesn't have to live by
the same rules that the rest of his industry follows? The real question is, what
is the government overreach in trying to collect fees that any other rancher
would be required to pay? Pretty sure that's the governments job.
@JoeBlow,A reality-check for your usual overthetop rhetoric...Re: "Had this been a bunch of hippies living in tents on this land,
the right would have advocated removing them with a small nuke".Proof your assumption NOT true... Did anybody propose nuking or anything
like that when hippies occupied places in EVERY STATE... and defied and even
invited clashes with law enforcement... and NOBODY proposed nuking...===Re: "Even those who concede that Bundy was in the wrong, do
so begrudgingly and with caveats"...I have no problem denouncing
his racist comments. But does that automatically mean his CAUSE was wrong??
This cause isn't based on his personality or his foibles!I mean
it's not about HIM... it's about government overreach...He's just the guy the government was going after (and some people wanted
to make a statement out of supporting the American rancher... instead of the
government).That doesn't necessarily mean they approve of
EVERYTHING he ever said or does...====His remarks do not
mean everybody must abandon the cause he came to represent... They are separate
things. That you can't separate them... is very telling about the tactics
you like to use...
Did anything happen like this to Tim Geithner when he didn't pay his taxes?
Oh he eventually paid them,(as will Bundy), but it was no big deal, was it libs?
It was just a "misunderstanding". He even became Secretary of the
Treasury! Is America a great country or what?
Must every real person be turned into a TV character before people can either
connect or reject them?This constant attempt to turn people into
their version of them on TV... is ridiculous...Just deal with him
for who he IS... not the TV character he reminds you of!
Thid Barker: "Just put a lien on his property! Problem solved! No need for
the Gestapo to roll in."You've suggested this before. A
lien is only collected when the property is sold, which could be decades from
now. Do the unpaid fees and penalties accrue interest in the interim? What if
the property is in the name of a corporation or trust and not Bundy himself? It
seems like a creative property law attorney could find many ways to circumvent a
lien. Would you suggest this approach for anyone who owes the government money,
or only those who throw a fit?
I've long wondered why so many locally are drawn to the mendacity of
extreme right politics, especially when all too often the results are so
regrettable as in the cases of Cliven Bundy, Russell Pearce and Mike Lee.
Just put a lien on his property! Problem solved! No need for the Gestapo to roll
@Fitness FreakSalt Lake City, UTIsn't it just a little foolish
for the U.S. government to nag Bundy for 1 mil. in "land rent" (and
spend 3 mil. trying to collect it), 6:21 a.m. April 29, 2014====== No more foolish than spending $100 billion a year for
law enforcement sending kids to jail for selling $6.2 billion worth of pot.
Cliven Bundy's biggest sin is he opened his mouth.Of course not
all Republicans are racist, but if there's anything that defines a
conservative, it's a longing to return to a better, simpler time, where the
roles of the genders were well understood and adhered to, where right was right,
and wrong was wrong, etc.For many conservatives - many more than
they'd like you to know, or to believe themselves - that sentimental
"Ponderosa" involves ideas on race most of America now finds completely
repugnant.To many African Americans, Bundy was refreshing because he
was brutally honest in speaking his mind. "At least he's honest."
They know we've made good progress on race, but they also sense that since
racism has become taboo, it's not gone, it's just been driven
underground. For African Americans it's often difficult to
tell if the person behind the smile truly accepts them as equal, or is a poker
face hiding a wish to return to the past. This is a burden white Americans have
no way to understand.
Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UTPresident Obama should handle
this situation the same way that President Washington handled the Whiskey
Rebellion, the two situations are remarkably similar.2:06 a.m. April
29, 2014========= Agreed, very similar.Except this time -- arrest him, try him, and send him to jail.
"The GOP does not deserve to be indicted along with Bundy,..."Yes it clearly does.
Just put a lien on Bundy's property, the government gets its money and the
problem is solved! No need for 200 armed sharp shooters, attack dogs and tasers
threatening innocent people, killing cattle and acting like the Gestapo which
cost the taxpayers over a million dollars. WAY too much force for such an easy
law enforcement problem! Imagine the hissy fit the left would be having if the
feds send the same show of force to collect taxes from Timothy Franz Geithner,
who didn't pay his taxes either! And Geithner is Secretary of the Treasury!
Well said, Kathleen Parker.
Isn't it just a little foolish for the U.S. government to nag Bundy for 1
mil. in "land rent" (and spend 3 mil. trying to collect it), while at
the same time we have 20 million illegal alien trespassers that cost us 100
billion per yr. in our lost wages and government services?
Had this been a bunch of hippies living in tents on this land, the right would
have advocated removing them with a small nuke.Even those who
concede that Bundy was in the wrong, do so begrudgingly and with caveats.Why? Because it involves people with guns and the evil government
overreach (Reagan executive order 12548)Bundy has been wrong since
day one. His racist rant did not change the facts. Taking up arms
against laws we dont like is wrong. It should not have taken racist
remarks for patriotic Americans to distance themselves from him.
What I think is interesting is there were posters who claimed Bundy was on the
side of right because he was a member of the church. He had to be a good guy by
their logic. On the other hand, there are those who say Bundy has to be a bad
guy because he has racist attitudes. By their logic his behavior is just an
extension of his twisted soul.The interesting things is neither are
right. Bundy's membership doesn't make him a good guy, neither do
his attitudes make him a bad guy. I have relatives and inlays that I know were
good people, that shared his thinking about race. I think they were and are
wrong in those attitudes, but that attitude does not comprise the totality of
those people. In fact, some were more generous to blacks than many liberals I
know. The issues are not linked. I do think Bundy's
attitudes on slavery are wrong. I believe he is also wrong about the land he is
using for free. But I know those who share his attitudes, that are still
basically good people… and just perhaps he is a good guy too……
President Obama should handle this situation the same way that President
Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion, the two situations are remarkably