Cliven Bundy Laughably Trying to Get Criminal Charges Filed Against BLM

cliven-bundyLife in general is filled with a lot of irony – politics especially so.  It’s no secret that I believe conservatives are some of the biggest hypocrites in this country.  These are the “small government” people who love using the government to deny homosexuals their equal rights.  People who call themselves the party for “fiscal responsibility” when they haven’t had a president from their party balance the budget in over 50 years.  Those who talk about the love they have for our Constitution, while doing their best to violate the rights it gives to certain Americans who they don’t feel should have those rights.

That being said, it should surprise nobody that Cliven Bundy is an absolute hypocrite.

On their official Facebook page, the Bundy Ranch announced their intentions to file criminal charges against the Bureau of Land Management.

They posted:

If you witnessed or were subjected to any of the following crimes,
please come and file a report with us:
Men blocking access to public land
Men blocking public roads
Men harassing people for taking photos
Men impersonating Police officers
Men claiming to be a police officer and refusing to show valid identification
Men threatening to use Tasers
Men threatening to fire upon unarmed civilians
Men using attack dogs
Men pointing weapons
Assault
We believe that the BLM men who pointed guns at over 1,000 people
on April 12th near the I-15 freeway south of Mesquite committed a
criminal act and that the Clark County Sheriffs office should be required
to investigate.
The only way to get the Clark County Sheriffs office to investigate is to
file and personal, individual “Criminal Report” with the Sheriffs office.

So, let me get this straight.  The Bundy family was on record bragging about their guns and their willingness to “do what’s necessary” to fight the BLM.  Along with that were all these protestors calling themselves a “militia” proudly displaying their weapons.  And these people want to try to act like they were just innocent and non-threatening?

These people are completely nuts.

But the irony behind this is what makes me laugh.  Say they successfully file criminal charges against the BLM, leading to some kind of a trial in a court of law.  Explain to me how a man who has had four court orders telling him to pay the fees the BLM says he owes, would suddenly want the BLM to comply with a court order pertaining to whatever kind of ridiculous criminal charges these people think they should face.

He wants to take the BLM to court to face criminal charges, hoping the courts will side with him – yet he ignores the authority the courts have when they’ve found him guilty of breaking the law.

I don’t really like using the word “stupid,” but these people define stupidity.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • bamcintyre

    So the first time he comes to court to testify, the county sheriff should arrest him. He won’t ’cause he’s a redneck on Bundy’s side (based on the fact that he would take no actions to protect the local populace from the “militias.” However, the state police would/could be used to arrest him when he comes to court, to serve him with papers siezing his property for back taxes. (You can be sure the feds would do that if YOU owed back taxes.)

    • strayaway

      Your idea of State or local police arresting Bundy for ignoring court orders to pay his grazing fees is better than sending federal agency swat units and armored vehicles in and risking another Waco. At a standing room only Bunkerville Town hall meeting a couple of days ago, residents spoke out against the Clark County Sheriff for not opposing the BLM and thanked the militia for doing what they thought the Sheriff should have been doing. The local news video did not report any dissent. I don’t think those militia guys should have been there either. I’m just reporting what seems to be local sentiment. Residents wanted their Sheriff to protect them from the BLM; not the militia. Your larger point though is that when Bundy shows up in town he should be served a warrant and arrested. If you or I didn’t pay let’s say $500 in overdue parking tickets, we would find ourselves in front of a judge. Let the courts sort this out.

      • Pipercat

        The courts have sorted this out already, four times; ruling against Bundy on all four occasions. Connivin’ Cliven just doesn’t want to fork over the money.

        Instead, he wants to create all this drama and put people in harms way. What a hero!

      • strayaway

        We have to assume there is a lien against Bundy’s property. When he dies, and he is old, that amount will be collected plus interest if there is any, from his estate. Meanwhile, he is under a de facto house arrest if he is afraid to leave his property. While I admire your ability to read Mr. Bundy’s mind, be patient and either he will emerge from his ranch to face a warrant and arrest or his estate will be reduced should he die.

      • Sandy Greer

        Assume nothing! Ascertain facts, instead.

        Fact is, you argue criminals/squatters/thieves be allowed to live out their lives in peace. That their wealth (stolen from us) be allowed to grow. And that we wait to recover what we may from their heirs.

        1) Should I ‘assume’ you don’t hold with Personal Responsibility?
        2) Should I ‘assume’ you wouldn’t prosecute ANY criminals/squatters/thieves?

        3) Or should I ‘assume’ that only applies to those you favor?

        ^^^The ones who wrap themselves in the flag, raise an army to openly defy our govt – who spend YEARS thieving from us (building personal wealth) – while ranting about Welfare Queens on Food Stamps.

      • Pipercat

        I’m going to invent a fallacy dedicate to his majesty.

      • strayaway

        Did I not mention the possibility of interest being included? I realize that Democrats want to spend money before they even print it but interest at the punitive rates usually imposed by the federal government should assure anyone concerned that repayment is only a matter of time. What’s the alternative to patience except a Gestapo type Waco raid and why would any American want that?
        1) Yes, even for the President.
        2) No, but assuming you are thinking about Bundy and not, say illegal aliens, was there anything I wrote suggesting he shouldn’t receive a warrant, be arrested, tried by jury, and imprisoned if found guilty?
        3) already covered by 1&2.

        Now, questions for you-
        1) Whats the logic of the BLM so far paying a wrangler $966,000 and an auctioneer $300,000 to sell Bundy’s cattle over a $300,000-$1M grazing fee? This is not including the cost of housing all those BLM guys in Las Vegas hotels and administrative workers to mange this event, in order to collect a lesser amount.
        2) How about the property damage vandalism and shooting (multiple bullet wounds) at least six of Bundy’s cattle a couple of which were in a corral? What’s with that?
        3) Explain the constitutionality of the BLM’s “free speech zones”.

      • Sandy Greer

        Quit.

        You argued we should ‘be patient’ – said he’ll emerge to face a warrant (not likely, w/his army to back him up) Argued ‘patience’ because he’s old. And will die (as we all do, someday) and we can collect then.

        ^^^Who can take you seriously, when you argue thus? And now, you try to deny it; offer ‘interest’ – like it was icing on the cake. Proceed to Ad Hominems.

        Doesn’t matter what anybody says; how many times we’ve argued it before: You turn everything into a Police State argument. Insinuate Bundy has a right to do as he pleases because…what?!?!?…about the president’s Personal Responsibility? Good Lord.

        You’re ‘slippery’ in your arguments – like water, flowing, thru my hands. You’re all over the place, impossible to pin down. Flowing, liquid. I’m not stupid, but I can’t tell if you’re for real – or take pleasure in deliberately ‘clouding’ discussion. We have to argue 10-20-30 different points – just to argue one ‘issue’ with you.

        You probably think you’re clever. And maybe you are. But you chase people away. Because most of us don’t have the ‘patience’ required to continually beat our heads against brick walls of ‘slippery’, flowing, arguments.

        Our eyes glaze over. And ‘slippery’ wins again.

      • Pipercat

        How about, “the dog ate my homework” fallacy?

      • Sandy Greer

        I think I need to retire, enjoy my evening, and collect my ‘patience’ – as best I can. 😉

      • strayaway

        Saying that I “Insinuate Bundy has a right to do as he pleases” is a step up from claiming I said that but where did I insinuate it? I did say that if he leaves his ranch, there is the option of handing him a warrant, arresting him, trying him, and imprisoning him if found guilty. How, exactly, is that insinuating that he can do as he pleases? Putting a lien on his property is a way of collecting money due. Wasn’t that he goal? Or is it something else? Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t to kill him maybe with a little collateral damage for good measure to show who is boss, to make an example. Otherwise, there must be another explanation for spending more to collect Bundy’s grazing fees than can be collected or pumping lead into six of his cattle? I just can’t figure out the logic. I asked you but you didn’t respond. Sigh…

      • Sandy Greer

        >Sigh…

        OK; you made me laugh. 😉 Here’s where I lose patience:

        1) Exageration: Inflating the argument, to include Obama, illegals, and other assorted characters/issues. Where does it stop? We can go on forever, but what’s the point… I focus; will only argue one issue at a time.

        2) Police State: You preach to the choir. I don’t buy your premise, and won’t argue it. Not even ‘encroaching’. Police State, goon squads, SWAT teams, Gestapo, black helicopters, FEMA boxcars (et al) cause my eyes to glaze over.

        I like you, strayaway, and respect you. But patience is not my strong suit, and where you lead – I don’t follow.

        Bunkerville Town Hall: I wonder how many were absent, fearing Militia. But, apparently Bundy won the popularity contest for those in attendance. Kind of like here – I agree w/Pipercat, and he with me. And you, with no ‘upvotes’. Proves something, surely, but I doubt you’d capitulate, for lack of votes.

        >Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t to kill him maybe with a little collateral damage for good measure to show who is boss, to make an example.

        ^^^And so is Bundy, trying to show who’s ‘boss’: Puffed up w/hubris, making his Stand Against The Man.

        An example should be made of him. He’s a trespasser, and a thief. Who self-righteously wraps himself in the flag better men than he have died for. ‘Patience’ (unto death) is simply not a viable alternative our govt should offer him.

        Floor is yours.

      • strayaway

        1) When you asked me yes or no questions, a yes or no answer would not be as much fun so I decided to flavor my answers; to give them context. You didn’t even answer my questions by the way.

        2) I don’t think I used the words ‘goon squad’. you forgot ‘Pinkertons’ that I replaced with ‘Gestapo like’ after I came across a number of ‘progressives’ here using terms expressing their desire ‘get’ Bundy, take his family down too as collateral damage, “make an example of him”, etc.. Pinkertons are just about keeping someone rich. ‘Gestapo like’ infers the hatred of its controllers; something not necessarily present in greedy capitalists who hire Pinkertons. Regarding Police State; in the last two days, I’ve read articles saying how the Obama administration now wants to monitor all brokerage accounts to ‘protect’ us of course. Drip. Another was about Vets getting letters saying they could not own guns if they were disabled; this without a court hearing or even an explanation of exactly what disability caused the VA to take away their rights. Drip. The drips are working their way into a torrent even if you manage to ignore the drips.

        I don’t post for up votes. Think of me as more like the kid who blurts out that the Emperor has no clothes. Up votes butter no parsnips anyway.

        I agree with you that Bundy might also be on a bit of an ego trip. But patience is prudent while Waco was rash. I prefer prudent to rash governance.

      • Sandy Greer

        1) Those were rhetorical questions. You’d said Pipercat was ‘reading Bundy’s mind’ (a no-no) while you ‘assumed’ a lien on his property (same post)

        Rhetorical questions require no answers. Neither do yours – require my answer. 😉 *I* decide what, when, and where, I answer.

        I ‘focus’: Don’t become distracted by questions which serve as excuses, reasons, and justifications for criminal actions. Bundy grazed his cattle on BLM lands for YEARS prior to that.

        Sorry, but you don’t set the terms for what I argue.

        The upvotes was just to show you how little the Town Hall supporters count. Of no importance.

        Give me a lead on brokerage account monitoring? I don’t find anything.

        VA: I wonder if they’re concerned about PTSD, and the number of suicides among vets?

      • strayaway

        “*I* decide what, when, and where, I answer.”

        Very good, you can become an honorary libertarian although your support for status quo Republicans in the primary might be held against you. Please post a selfie Youtube video of yourself telling that to the nice TSA person the next time you fly. Drip. You go girl! Meanwhile, I set the tone for what I argue whether or not you choose to duck questions.

        Don’t worry, there is no charge for my answering your rhetorical questions if that’s what they were. I’m still trying to find out how anyone believing that this is just about collecting $1M in grazing fees justifies spending more than that to collect it including the cost of setting up “free speech zones”. I must have been absent the day my 10th grade honors civics class learned about free speech zones. Otherwise, I might have turned into a Democrat (shiver). Oops, I’m being unfair. I realize that free speech zones appeared under Bush.

        PTSD and suicides are valid concerns. As such, court orders could be issues restricting the rights of those concerned and probably should be and afford vets the same rights as the rest of us. But administrative fiat without even citing reasons, seems like a violation of the rule of law. Drip.

        I couldn’t find the article I first read spelling out privacy concerns but I found a Wall Street Journal article, “Get Ready for Regulators to Peer into Your Portfolio”, mentioning the same new oversight. Since we can believe every word Lois Lerner and James Clapper told Congress, including that the NSA doesn’t “collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of million of Americans.”, I’m sure that all the information collected by this new watchdog agency will also be protected. Drip.

      • Sandy Greer

        Hah! You seem in an especially good mood this morning! I’m ‘upvoting’ you because your first two paragraphs made me LOL (for real, no kidding) Not that I can ever expect the same (c’est la vie)

        Read your WSJ article. Didn’t you complain Elisabeth Warren was ineffective, with the CFPB under the Fed? Don’t care for this proposal (and it is still only a proposal) that brokerages be monitored to see they don’t ‘bilk’ us? Okey doke. If you say so.

        You can worry about ‘drips’ all you want. Me – not so much. I’ll let you do my worrying for me; I’m just not the worrying kind. Two reasons:

        1) Most of what we worry about never comes to pass
        2) Worry about tomorrow robs us of today

        ^^^I realize this is just a difference in our philosophies. But worry-free works for me.

        You did make a good point (and I was sure you would – you’re so predictable)

        >I set the tone for what I argue

        ^^^Yep; just exactly what I said (rephrased) So I’m taking credit for leading us to agreement – a very rare occurrence. 😉 Can we agree we’re just about done here, and have nothing further to argue?

      • Pipercat

        Doesn’t take a telepath to figure out Bundy is a deadbeat, delusional, and entitled. And speaking of reading people’s minds, that’s one of your M.O.’s. as you report on local sentiment. As usual, you are throwing darts into the wind blindfolded; where I am amusingly reminded of a scene in Young Frankenstein.

        There is a lien already, on the cattle. What do think caused all of this excitement in the first place.

      • strayaway

        Ah, Bundy’s a “deadbeat, delusional, and entitled”. I could say the same about the President but it would be a similarly meaningless but perhaps true observation. Regarding my mention of the Town Meeting. It’s on You Tube. I figured you wouldn’t have come across it on the Daily Kos, the Daily Worker, MSNBC, or whatever your news sources are. If you think I mischaracterized it, how so? I was referring to a lien on real estate but thanks, I wasn’t aware of a lien on the cattle.

      • Pipercat

        Why are you even dragging in the President? Oh, that’s right, you’re obsessed. As for the town, who gives a shit? This is a Republic, not a Democracy. The sheriff has no authority over the Feds, period. That has something to do with that Constitution you so wonderfully misquote and misapply. Those townsfolk are just a bunch of morons (morans the way you guys spell it) thinking that the sheriff has any authority in the matter. With that said, does it occur to you, that perhaps, you mis-characterize everything?

      • strayaway

        Just calling either Bundy or the President names, does not prove anything whatever the truth of the name calling. I could have as easily used Bush. My remark about the Bunkerville Town Hall meeting was in response to a previous comment. You have to follow along. Your alternative is to call those at the Town hall ‘morons’ because they don’t agree with you. I don’t know of any sheriff who can’t make arrests.

        You disagree with federal law. “When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he SHALL offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”
        -U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C

        Unlike you, think that the Sheriff “is an appropriate local official having law enforcement authority”.

      • Pipercat

        Do you read the shit you write? Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? Do you understand, now, why I make up fabulous monikers for you? Lemme guess, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once.

        Now c’mon Stray, time to fess up, you’re on medicare, aren’t you?

      • strayaway

        What’s the matter Kitty? No comment on the federal law requiring the federal government to hire local police authorities to make their arrests instead of sending in their own Gestapo units? As your arguments collapse, you seem to need to do personal attacks. If only you had your own swat teams and armored vehicles.

      • Pipercat

        Ah, ze Gestapo! Zis explains everyzing Herr UberstupengrupenBismarkisaredherring Fuhrer!

  • Pipercat

    Yeah, I prefer to use the word, doltish.

  • Francine Anoia Price

    just have the FBI go in and arrest his behind for failure to pay his fair share.

  • Edward Krebbs

    I wonder if when he shows up to present his case if the feds will use that as an opportunity to arrest him / judge holding him in contempt / etc. (and somehow I seriously suspect that he is using his immense store of constitutional knowledge to plead his own case).

    • Gert B Frobe

      Are you being factious, or are you not Ok?

  • Edward Krebbs

    Uh, in the list of what Bundy wants you to report, wasn’t there a story about how some of Bundy’s self-proclaimed posse were doing these things ? So Bundy wants you to report the crimes of him and his people? Specifically:

    Men blocking public roads
    Men harassing people for taking photos
    Men impersonating Police officers
    Men pointing weapons

  • Karen Mitchell

    How will he take the BLM to court if he refuses to recognize the authority of the United States government?

  • Matthew Reece

    The court decisions against Bundy are illegitimate because the courts are part of the government and are deciding a case in favor of the government, a clear conflict of interest that would not be tolerated in a case not involving the government. Equally perplexing, however, is Bundy’s failure to recognize that if he gets to put BLM agents on trial, the defendant and the judge will be part of the same organization, another clear conflict of interest. But this is the kind of cognitive dissonance that arises when an anti-government person is a conservative rather than an anarchist.