Skip to content

Hey, Conservatives: Cliven Bundy Is Not A Deadbeat Or A Whackjob

11 April 2014 @ 19:50

Dana Loesch cuts through all the Leftist propaganda and conservative ignorance.

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

– See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.jrh8COME.dpuf

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

– See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.jrh8COME.dpuf

I quote her in full to help spread the Truth:

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

– See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.jrh8COME.dpuf

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

– See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.jrh8COME.dpuf

He is, in Truth, a brave man standing-up to Tyranny.

He is an OUTLAW — one of us.

He’s fighting for all of us who believe in The Constitution, who seek the restoration of the freedom and liberties bequeathed to us by God and The Founding Fathers.

We should all support him and do what we can to counter the lies being spread about him and to overcome the ignorance of our fellow conservatives.

LiveFreeOrDieResistentiam Tyrannis nunc.
Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula.
PROSCRIPTUS!

Resistance to Tyranny now.
Resistance to Tyranny forever.
OUTLAWS!

22 Comments
  1. bellalu0 permalink
    12 April 2014 @ 01:12 01:12

    Reblogged this on can i just finish my waffle?.

  2. Starless permalink
    12 April 2014 @ 08:32 08:32

    One selling point you’ll occasionally see in rural property listings is, “bordered by [some number of acres] of [federal/county/state] land!” as a good thing because you’re guaranteed that no one will build on the neighboring property. That’s great until some committee somewhere decides that it’s “in the public’s interest” to expand that federal/state/county land and that that expansion goes onto your property. All they need is some legal pretext to seize your property and throw you some spare change for your troubles.

    The Bundy Ranch situation isn’t precisely analogous, but it’s very close. He’s “trespassing” and he “owes” a meeeel-yon dollars (IOW, he’s an unlawful, anti-taxer dirtbag who won’t get with the collectivist program). Why? Because some committee somewhere decided to change the rules and use an animal, whose endangered-ness certainly seems in question, as a pretext to confiscate money and property.

    (BTW, is it any coincidence that at about the same time, in the Age of Obama, we see the IRS confiscating money from the children of dead people decades after the gov’t may or may not have made a financial error in those dead people’s favor? Confiscation which cannot be disproven and therefore must be okay and in the gov’t’s favor. You can’t prove that you didn’t get this money? Well, we changed the rules, so f*ck you and pay up.)

    The more immediate concern in the Bundy case is that the Democrats obviously learned nothing from Waco. Now there are “militia” showing up and it seems that what we can expect is an inevitable escalation. Let’s hope that at some point the feds remember that they control whether they become the bad guys or not and descalate things, but I do fear the worst will happen.

    • 12 April 2014 @ 15:08 15:08

      Maybe not…
      http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/04/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-with-feds/
      …this time.

      Interesting…what are they planning for next, I wonder – because, as you well know, the Left NEVER gives up.

      • Starless permalink
        12 April 2014 @ 15:15 15:15

        Yeah, I saw that they were stopping the roundup and that the sheriff and Bundy would try to negotiate a deal. I seriously doubt this is over, though.

        • 12 April 2014 @ 15:26 15:26

          Maybe not:

      • Adobe_Walls permalink
        12 April 2014 @ 18:11 18:11

        Indeed they won’t give up if only because they can’ allow the precedent. What will happen next in this case or some other is they will start the operation with overwhelming force using massive assets so there is no buildup time period thus completing the operation before anyone can react.

      • Adobe_Walls permalink
        12 April 2014 @ 19:36 19:36

        No they can’t quit if for no other reason than they can’t allow the precedent. They might have to choose another target as there are likely going to be folks staying near Bunkerville for a while. But they must erase this affront to federal authority. So some time in the not too distant future they will strike again. Next time they’ll gather enough forces to strike and finish the operation before news gets out and freefor has time to react.

  3. rosalindj permalink
    12 April 2014 @ 10:14 10:14

    Hi Bob. Sent you a tweet somewhat parallel to this, in the it-is-because-we-say-it-is category.
    Things are becoming interesting. It’s one thing when the leviathan decrees thus and so against an entire population. When there’s a face on it, people focus. “Cult Mormon”, check. “Owes money”, check. “Crazy lone holdout”. Ahh, whoops.

    • rosalindj permalink
      12 April 2014 @ 11:54 11:54

      To clarify; the narrative doesn’t work anymore. For people to include his religion as a pejorative reveals their own shortcomings. To state he owes money when it’s been disproved is plainly ignorant. All that’s left is the lone crazy person, and he is not alone.

      • 13 April 2014 @ 20:41 20:41

        Indeed, he is not alone…and we must not allow him or any of these ranchers to ever be alone. This is our fight, too.

  4. Adobe_Walls permalink
    12 April 2014 @ 16:44 16:44

    No land justice no peace! Why does Interior/BLM have jurisdiction over 85% of Nevada?

    • Starless permalink
      13 April 2014 @ 08:08 08:08

      FWIW, that 85 (or 87) percent number doesn’t seem to be accurate (and is supposedly from 1948). Nevada land managed by DOI (including BLM) is more like 80%, which includes parks, forests, Indian reservations, bureau of reclamation, and so on, though it is still a big number. And, surprisingly to me, the number of acres controlled by DoD and DOE is pathetically small compared to DOI. As to “why” — AFAIK, the Feds have that land because no one else wanted it at the time and, ironically, they wanted to keep the range open for ranchers (as they did in much of the West)*. Of course, ranchers’ power has been eclipsed by skinny, pale, latte sipping effete environmentalists.

      *I’m wandering a bit into the realm of speculation on that last part.

      • Adobe_Walls permalink
        13 April 2014 @ 19:26 19:26

        The farther west and more recent becoming a state the higher percentage of land in a state is likely to be federal land. Without looking it up I’d wager that more than half of federal land in VA was acquired after 1900 from private owners. At any rate this “disparate federal control” should be a good issue for Republicans but one never hears anyone bring it up. The constitution provides for federal acquirement of land from states with their permission and only for military uses. There is no constitutional justification for parks.

        • 13 April 2014 @ 20:43 20:43

          Well, TR was a Progressive [‘Damn The Constitution – full speed ahead!’] after all.

        • Starless permalink
          13 April 2014 @ 23:10 23:10

          Kelo, Bundy Ranch, forcing private businesses to close and fencing off open-air memorials during the shut down…all issues any Republican candidate with half a brain should pound on in 2016. So, let’s cross our fingers and hope for a candidate with at least half a brain this time around.

Trackbacks

  1. The Daley Gator | Tyranny comes to Nevada, where will it reach next?
  2. News and opinions for Sunday, with a focus on tyranny | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots
  3. Sen. Reid BLM Connection?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: