Even the Tea Party is Abandoning Cliven Bundy as Facts Clearly Show He’s Guilty of Breaking the Law

cliven-bundy-1Though Fox News seems highly invested in doing everything possible to turn Cliven Bundy into some kind of galvanizing conservative icon (and let’s be honest, this kind of anti-government kook plays right into the hands of their audience), mainstream Republican organizations and politicians have mostly avoided the issue.

And it seems even some within the tea party are realizing that Bundy is guilty, owes this money and those supporting him clearly don’t understand the law.

The more this issue gets attention, the more the facts continue to emerge and show that Cliven Bundy is nothing more than a scumbag who doesn’t want to pay grazing fees due to his cattle grazing on land that isn’t his.   Once people learn the facts of the case, Bundy’s “anti-government” approach seems far less sexy and simply becomes a case of another person trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions.

“It’s like, really, Glenn Beck? This is the issue you want to get behind?” said one Nevada conservative activist who has followed the story for years. “People who aren’t in tune with the story just jumped all over it. And then you go back and read the facts of the story, and then you go, ‘Uh oh.’”

Politico actually reached out to the Tea Party Patriots for comment about the situation in Nevada, but they claimed there was nobody there to provide a comment and they were focused on “other” issues – like the IRS and “Obamacare.”

When you have a fresh anti-government “story” like Cliven Bundy and even the tea party is choosing to focus on the same old nonsense they’ve been regurgitating for years, that pretty much tells you that Bundy isn’t a “conservative hero” – he’s a freeloading rancher who doesn’t want to pay his fees for repeatedly violating federal law.

Because this isn’t a case about “government overreach.”  It’s a story about a guy who’s been fighting for over 20 years to not pay fees tied to his illegal grazing simply because he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s authority over the land.  Not that they don’t have authority over it (courts have repeatedly sided with the government and ordered Bundy to pay the fees and remove his cattle), but because he doesn’t want to recognize that they do.

And that’s what this really boils down to.  It’s the federal government versus a delusional rancher’s ignorance and continued attempts to avoid taking personal responsibility for the laws he’s violated.

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

  • Kay Peterson

    interesting that people like Bundy see PUBLIC LAND as “their land” while the rest of us see it as “our land”

    • strayaway

      If 84% of all land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, exactly how much property tax did it pay to the State of Nevada last year?

      • Jack Nagwadantuhna Lester

        It’s not taxable by the state. That’s the way the law works. Nevada has made a ton of money off the feds through tourism just with Area 51 alone. I don’t hear any Nevada politicians complaining about the other three bases there either.

      • strayaway

        You sound like the Sheriff of Nottingham defending royal privilege in Sherwood Forest. Royal fox huts bring in tourist pounds after all. Which law? Why? I don’t understand why the one property owner that owns 84% of the land gets away without paying taxes. Talk about mooching… The federal government also tested 1,400, mostly underground, nukes and tried to implement a nuclear waste repository in Nevada too. Hey, another tourist attraction!

      • John

        The only “royal privilege” being defended here is that of the Mr. Bundy. He thinks he should have some landed estate passed down from generation to generation, and let the peasants (us taxpayers) pay for it because he does not want to. Sorry this is not 17th century England, nor is it 20th century communist Russia. So Mr. Bundy play the capitalist game and pay for what you’re using, else move on to a different country.

      • strayaway

        Nevada property owners have to pay enough taxes on 16% of Nevada land to pay all their bills. US taxpayers get off scot free on paying their share of taxes on the other 84% of their land. I wasn’t defending Mr. Bundy because I don’t know a lot about the history of his land like you do. I was just pointing out that US taxpayers are mega freeloaders compared with Mr. Bundy assuming a court finds him guilty. 17th century England and 20th century communist Russia probably would not have cut such a favorable deal for their equivalent of the Reid clan with China.

      • Jim Mauney

        States cannot levy taxes against the federal government or other states. It’s in the Constitution. Nevada makes plenty tax money off gambling. I doubt Nevada residents are getting drowned in taxes.

      • strayaway

        Nevada’s Constitution strongly suggests that Nevada can tax federal property but at no greater rate than anyone else’s property tax. Please cite the wording in the US Constitution that says, “States cannot levy taxes against the federal government.”

      • An Angry Scotsman

        That’s YOUR interpretation of it, and you need to take another civics class.

      • //*Nevada’s Constitution strongly suggests that Nevada can tax federal property*// No it does not. In fact it says exactly the opposite.
        “…no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States”

      • strayaway

        Had you read the thread, I already addressed that. But I will look it up for you AGAIN. here: “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, THAT LANDS BELONGING TO T CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, residing without the said state, SHALL NEVER BE TAXED HIGHER THEN THE LAND BELONGING TO THE RESIDENTS THEROF; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, UNLESS otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

        The federal government does, in fact, pay a measly $22M/year in lieu of property taxes it chooses not to pay and Nevada cashes its checks.

      • Joe

        Notice here, how this section specifies the CITIZENS of the United States, as opposed to the earlier quoted section that referred to the United States.

        What this section states is that any citizen of the USA, regardless of state residency (say someone from New York, or Colorado) cannot be taxed (for property they own within Nevada) at a rate higher than land owning residents of Nevada.

        the earlier quoted section, quoted by rewinn, stated that unless the US Congress offers to pay taxes on land owned, or later purchased by the United States (the Federal government), that Nevada cannot levy property taxes against the United States for that land.

      • strayaway

        I think you bring up a good point and grey area. I don’t see any distinction between the individual and corporate citizens of the US mentioned however. As a citizen of the US living outside Nevada, by definition I am also an owner of all federal land owned in Nevada. Some of the people arguing with me have been making that point. That they are also owners by virtue of being US citizens. I agree that Nevada cannot force the federal government to pay its share. My point though was not whether or not the federal government could be forced, it was, rather, that the federal government is a much of a mooch as some here claim Bundy to be because it chooses not to pay its share.

      • Nam Vet

        The land Nevada is on was federal property before it became a state so how can the state charge the feds for property ceded to them by the U.S. gov.? If this is incorrect then please enlighten me.

      • strayaway

        It isn’t incorrect that that federal government was ceded that land by Mexico although I am not so sure about why the federal government kept it after Nevada was made a State since states and the people have all powers not given to the federal government and the Constitution also has a list of things the federal government may buy land for. Using your logic, 84% of all the land in the US should belong to the federal government. Yet, somehow, most states east of the rockies have nowhere near the federal ownership of Nevada. My point though was the federal government was as big a mooch as Cliven Bundy rather than whether or not the federal government can own any land.

      • kansas

        Ok the people of Nevada are not single handedly paying for the upkeep of federal land located in Nevada, you do realize that every program, agency or property run by the federal government is paid for by every person in the US who pays taxes? So the people of the state of Nevada who pay federal taxes contribute to federal programs in other states and people who live in other states contribute to federal programs run in Nevada. Explain how the federal government is a mooch? What you want is for all taxpayers in the US to support this man’s cattle herd? No. The fees he was asked to pay to continue to graze his cattle on OUR land were nominal compared to what he would have to pay if he owned the land or if he had to pay a private company to graze his cows. Why should this guy not pay to feed his cattle? why should he not pay to repair the damage his cattle does to property owned by the citizens of the United States? This is the most ridiculous bunch of BS. How about if I just take my cows over to your yard and claim that it’s my right because I don’t recognize you as anyone important?

      • strayaway

        I’ve written multiple times that if there is cause, Mr. Bundy should be arrested by the local polic when he leaves his ranch and shows up in town at a diner, feed mill, or grocery store. If a jury finds him guilty. he should go to jail. What we don’t need is a Gestapo like Waco raid in which people could be hurt. So you are barking up the wrong tree if you think i have been advocating for Cliven Bundy.

        To your questions: The federal government is only paying 2.6% of Nevada’s property taxes in lieu of paying property taxes on 84% of the land in that State possibly in violation of the equal protection clause. That is a minuscule miserly amount. That is why I contend that the federal government is also a mooch. What federal programs were you referring to? 1,400 nuclear tests, nuclear waste repository, lining the pockets of the Reids? Other states aren’t monopolized and controlled by the federal government. I would like the federal government to fund only those things it is delegated to do. That would cut our federal taxes although increased state taxes would probably have to make up part of the difference.

      • John Spriggs

        Did you go to school to learn to be stupid or did you just suck to much koolaid from faux lies?

      • strayaway

        Do facts and/or numbers even exist in your vacuous brain?

      • Guest

        Dear Sh** for Brains:
        As a single business owner in CA I am taxed at 37% between my business and personal income. I pay mine. Bundy needs to pay his. End. of. story.

      • strayaway

        Could you point out the place where I said Bundy shouldn’t pay or not go to jail. I’m thinking you retail weed in California and tested your product line, because you are imagining I said something I didn’t. What’s your point, that misery likes company?

      • Nelson

        And what does any of that have to do with a deadbeat rancher who doesn’t want to pay his fair share? Nothing.

      • strayaway

        If the federal government is only paying for about 2.6% of Nevada’s annual budget although it owns 84% of Nevada’s land, it too is a “deadbeat”.

      • youre right robin hood, lets tax all the churches not paying THEIR taxes either.

      • kurt

        There is a difference between a person not paying taxes that already exist and an entity that is considered tax exempt. Churches dont refuse to pay taxes like bundy is, there just isnt a tax for churches (although there should be). You cant compare the two. Its like asking why you have to pay tax on an inheritance but a kid doesnt pay taxes on an allowance. Your comparing apples to oranges.

      • crookedstick

        Bundy is a Mormon, the largest corporation, i mean Church, in Utah, Idaho and Nevada. Wonder if he pays his tithes?

      • Wendy Palm

        Now we understand….he’s a religious fanatic whack-job and he’s a moocher and a law-breaker who needs to go to jail.

      • strayaway

        I agree with you. Churches should pay taxes. Your presumption was wrong.

      • kurt

        Its federal land, but managed by, and governed by nevada. Each state rules over its own land, but enforces federal law. Its federal land, governed by the state. The state collects taxes on the land. Thats how education is funded per state…property tax. Grazing taxes. Yoyr state and local taxes pay for state infrastructure. Your federal taxes fund the u.s. federal government. These posts shows how little people really know about how government functions on state and federal levels.

      • strayaway

        Someone else wrote in here and said that the federal government only pays $22M/year in lieu of property tax to Nevada. That amounts to about 2.6% of Nevada’s annual budget. That’s a better deal than the 1% gives itself.

      • Shadow Diver

        Your point is?

      • strayaway

        Property owners should pay property taxes.

      • Shadow Diver

        So you are trying to make the dimwitted statement that the fed should pay itself taxes for money it owes itself? Stay in Nottingham. You live in fantasyland

      • strayaway

        Property taxes are not paid to the federal government Property taxes go to state, county, and educational venues. Property that is off the tax rolls forces the balance of property tax payers to make up the difference. Some day when you grow up, own property, and receive your own property tax bill, you will understand this better.

      • Shadow Diver

        When I grow up? Listen little lordfkhd. The fed does not pay property tax to the state. I guess where you come from grown ups just pull stuff out of their asses, that are not true, just to make a point.

      • strayaway

        It sounds like you’re back on the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham defending the King’s right to own property and do with it as he wishes or, at least, the Reid clan from providing a Chinese company land for far less then its property evaluation? Why doesn’t the federal government have to pay property taxes like everyone else? Besides the (im)morality of the thing, what part of which constitution exempts one property owner owning 84% of the property from paying its share of state taxes?

      • Matt

        Don’t you dare poach the king’s deer!! Go eat your gruel like a good, little serf.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Because they are your federal government. It doesn’t matter how many taxes they pay, the money will always find itself back in the hands of your federal government. So why clutter the entire process with more paperwork, more red tape, and more unnecessary overhead just to get the same result? I thought you conservative nitwits were all about SMALLER government?

        You can’t interpret your own laws. You can’t use common sense. You can’t find the easily laid out logic that everyone else is putting on the table in front of you. If you aren’t prepared to find reason, why are you looking for it? Are you just expecting to wear us down so we’ll toss our hands up and say you win? Logic and reason won’t allow us to do so. And your stubborn stance won’t allow you to see how blind you really are to the rule of law. This may be one of those instances where we will have to agree to disagree, but know deep down in your heart of hears that you are completely wrong.

      • strayaway

        The federal government is paying only about 2.6% of Nevada’s annual budget although it owns about 84% of Nevada’s land. How is that fair, as in equality under the law, to other Nevada property tax payers? Your logic is that of the Sheriff of Nottingham defending the privileges of the Crown or at least the 1% as personified by the Reid clan.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        And you use the ‘sheriff of Nottingham’ argument again. Really, man, why are you using fables from MY United Kingdom in order to explain nonsense in YOUR United States? The federal government owns that land, and it’s purpose is to server the interests of the public, albeit wildlife preserves, national parks, military bases, what have you. So essentially, that land is PUBLIC land, and it is the PUBLIC that pays for it.

        You really are as clueless as you hint at, aren’t you? That, or you’re one brilliant troll. In either case, you’ve been given enough attention. Whether you enjoy the attention, or you really don’t understand the logic that so many of us have carefully placed before you, I bid you good day.

      • strayaway

        Some of us growing up in the States were acquainted with The Sheriff of Nottingham in our weekly tv programming. It is a good analogy although perhaps you are unaware of such venues. The Sheriff worked for the crown protecting the royal forest from the locals. Bad things happened to locals who kill a rabbit to feed their family. Yet, the elite of the day could use the forest for their amusements. This is much like the ranchers being driven off of government property while the corrupt Reid clan leases out that same land to a Chinese company for much less than its evaluation to enrich themselves. You should be aware that Senator Reid’s son is the lobbyist for this Chinese company.

        The Constitution lays out the limited uses the federal government may buy land for. They do no include foreign giveaways. “Nonsense” is correct although I would add greed and corruption as descriptions of the the federal actions. Also there is a federal law requiring that local authorities arrest people and I don’t think there is any constitutional provision allowing the Department of Land Management to have Swat teams and armored vehicles. Maybe that goes beyond the scope of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s thuggery and your criticism should instead be that I did not go far enough..

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Now I’m convinced you are a brilliant troll. Good show.

      • FFS, change the record, your’s is nicked and stuck in a loop.

      • strayaway

        I agree but people keep asking the same questions which in involve the same answers.

      • ozarksgal

        “Reid clan from providing a Chinese company land for far less then its property evaluation. . .” Thoroughly debunked. Next.

      • strayaway

        One deal was cancelled but other deals went through and Reid’s son is still a lobbyist for a Chinese company. Rory Reid was also involved with another land deal with ENN. Didn’t Jimmy Carter’s brother Billie have to register as a foreign agent for the Libyan government? Now it’s a Reid hooked up with Chinese interests and Daddy Reid advocating for a Chinse venture or two. How did Senator Reid get rich? None of this looks good.

      • Pipercat

        Actually, he’s Emperor Supercilious I of Falacia….

      • Why5ks

        Try reading the Nevada Constitution, like the third Ordinance which says, “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States.” This issue was settled before Nevada became a state, so why is your opinion on it relevant?

      • strayaway

        Ok, Taking your advise, here is what I found:
        “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

        So, why not tax all that land at the same rate as other land is taxed in Nevada? You are still defending the biggest deadbeat in Nevada: the US government.

      • Why5ks

        Because by Federal Law states can not impose taxes on the Federal Government. If states could tax the Federal government that would make them “supreme” to the Federal government and that is not how our Republic has been established. That is why no Federal agency pays sales tax on any purchase. The ancillary to that is the state doesn’t pay for the upkeep of the areas. The BLM is in charge of maintaining the land and the roads. There are occasions where the states will do some of the repairs and maintenance on Federal lands, but the bill is paid to the state by the government.

      • jwald1

        The fed does spend part of our tax money maintaining these lands.

      • Michael W. Herberth

        They also would have spent the fees that Bundy didn’t pay on that land. This property-tax bullshit is just another diversion, a way of avoiding the facts with a string if “buts” -but Reid did this, but the Feds don’t do this, but, but – none of which have anything to do with the situation. This is about grazing fees, not property taxes. Ranchers pay grazing fees and property taxes. Grazing fees for the USE of public lands, property taxes for REAL PROPERTY they own. Bundy pays property taxes on his real property. He refuses to pay established grazing fees on public land. The courts have ruled against him. He still refuses. He is guilty and he needs to pay. Whether or not the government pays property taxes to the state does not have a thing to do with that.

      • jwald1

        I agree with you.

      • dgunthert

        “no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

        You really can’t comprehend, can you? The first part of your quote means that Nevada can’t tax non-residents a higher tax rate for property they own than Nevada charges residents. The second part says that can’t charge ANY taxes on federal land unless an act of Congress says otherwise.

      • strayaway

        Did you read the part, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States?” My contention was that the US was as much of a deadbeat as Mr. Bundy is accused of being. No one here seems to be able to produce the amount in dollars, or by percent, the amount of property tax the federal government is providing to Nevada.

      • CPullum

        You DO realize if the US Government has to pay taxes on public/federal land, that means WE THE PEOPLE will have to pay MORE personal income taxes to the government to raise that money for all those taxes? Right? You do realize everything the government “pays” comes from revenue raised through taxes and other fees? That WE pay? Do you even get how stupid that is? He(Bundy) is stealing from US, THE PEOPLE!!! Those grazing fees go to the government to help pay for keeping OUR land secure and managed, not destroyed. Look up the history of the land and results of ranchers who abused it before these limitations were put in to effect. Please, try to keep up.

      • strayaway

        Do you realize that the Constitution is supposed to protest everyone equally and that by not paying its share of property taxes, people in Nevada have to dig a little deeper into their own pockets to pay their bills. The Sheriff of Nottingham must have made the same argument as you in defending the rights of the Crown with respect to Sherwood Forest.

      • CPullum

        That land has NEVER belonged to the state of Nevada. It belongs to the government of the US. The government does NOT pay taxes on federally owned public land. It does however collect fees from grazers in this case, to maintain the land. Not sure how you are trying to equate the people of Nevada are paying any kind of taxes for this land, they are not, since it isn’t theirs. Who do you think is not paying a share of taxes here? My statement above was in response to the idea that the government SHOULD pay property taxes on the land. If that WERE the case, that would fall on taxpayers to pay, since we fund the government. Maybe you just did not get how stupid of an idea THAT is.

      • strayaway

        I’ve covered that about a dozen times. Roads, schools, and other local government services cost money. If everyone chipped in equally, each would pay their fair share of costs. If, in Nevada’s case the entire load has to be borne by 16% of the property owners, they pay more than their share. There is a legal obligation and a moral obligation. The amount of land that the federal government owes in Nevada is larger than New England where the federal government owes almost no land. Yet, New Englanders do not have to pay for necessary public services in Nevada from land they too own and benefit from. Sure, just let those stupid suckers in Nevada carry the load. That gets me back to the concept of moral obligations. People on the east coast are getting a free ride.

      • CPullum

        The government disperses federal funding for other government services(which has nothing to do with public lands or how much is in any state)based on the census. So every state gets their federal funding for those services depending on how many people live there, not how much property taxes people pay, or how much bigger the state is, or how much of the land in the state is owned by the government.

      • strayaway

        So how much does Nevada get? The only answer that i’ve received so far is $22M/year in lieu of property taxes or about 2.6% of Nevada’s expenses. Peanuts. Nevada is treated like a colony except I don’t know of any colony that to submit to 1,400 nuclear tests. It’s Connecticut’s turn for an underground test. Why not?

      • CPullum

        All states get funded the same way, amount of people, not the amount of land. Get over it. And it’s not the governments job to pay 100% of everything each individual state needs to keep itself running. And Nevada GAVE UP that land when they became a state. They don’t get to beg for income from what is NOT THEIRS. But you can keep on with your tirade against the government all you want to.

      • strayaway

        That was the Church’s argument during the middle ages, In France, and in Mexico when it piled up so much land and kept it off of the tax base. Laws don’t have to last forever though. Consider sequestration which Democrats agreed to and then overturned. Why is a condition written in the days of slavery as a condition to the 40,000 residents who lived in Nevada then any more sacred? Considering that the federal government is becoming as powerful and self-serving as the mid-evil church, maybe you should get over upholding antiquated agreements

      • terribletwos

        When you understand that the state is the tax collector for the federal government, it in turn is turned over to the federal government. Where does the money comes from when the federal government turns it back to the state?

      • strayaway

        Property tax is collected by the county in most places and is divvied up between county, state, municipal and local educational venues. The state does not collect taxes for the federal government. My point is, why isn’t the federal government paying its fair share of Nevada’s property taxes since it owns 84% of Nevada’s land? How much is the federal government paying Nevada?

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Let’s put it this way: If you own a house, and you rent it to a family, then that family has full rights to that house. In essence, as long as they pay their bills, they have the same rights to that land as you, the owner does. Some things they need your permission for, such as changes to the structure or land, but they are essentially a sovereign entity within that house. But because that is your land, federal land, should you pay rent to them because they live there?

      • strayaway

        Can you find any place where I defended Bundy not paying his bills or are you imagining things?

      • An Angry Scotsman

        You created this red herring argument about how the federal government should pay property taxes to the state of Nevada. Then you cite laws, quoting them in your own comments, that actually provide the argument AGAINST your position. All the while defending your red herring argument and the fact it has nothing to do with the actual article this comment section is attached to. I have addressed your red herring argument with a very accurate simile. And you accuse me of trying to point out that your red herring argument is indeed a red herring argument. I don’t care what your argument is, it is still wrong, and I have addressed it as such. Please learn to read and comprehend what you are reading before continuing your mindless assault on something nobody is addressing whatsoever.

      • strayaway

        No, my point was that the federal government is as big of a deadbeat as Cliven Bundy is portrayed to be. The Nevada law authorizes accepting the same level of property tax payment as is received by other taxpayers. It cannot force the federal government to pay but you neglect to include the word “unless” the federal government chooses to make some payments. “Please learn to read and comprehend what you are reading before continuing your mindless assault .” It does provide $22M in lieu of property tax payments which works out to about 2.6% of Nevada’s annual budget although it owns 84% of Nevada’s land. That makes my original point that the federal government is as big a deadbeat as Bundy is portrayed to be.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Then you’ve completely lost the concept of what the federal government actually DOES. FFS, I’m not even born in your bloody country, but I know the workings of your government better than you do. Get a clue, nutter.

      • strayaway

        In a nutshell, this is what the federal government can do. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -10th Amendment. The delegated powers are spelled out in the Constitution including the purposes for which the federal government can purchase land. The US government, in Nevada’s case, did not purchase land. It took Nevada from Mexico. Leasing land to a Chinese solar company is not one of the reasons listed however the federal government gained title to Nevada. That said, the Tenth Amendment is the most often disregarded part of the Constitution by Republicans and Democrats would lose their raison d’être at the federal level if they acknowledged it. You are right though if you think the 10th Amendment is overlooked so as to do things the US government often does.

      • So, you say they didn’t buy the land and yet you cite them violating what they can’t buy land for? Can you cite where it says what they can and can’t do with lands they already own? Also, wasn’t that Chinese deal off the table a long while ago anyway? Do you even read yourself without giggling at the stupidity?

      • strayaway

        No, I am making the point, over and over, that the pittance the federal government pays Nevada for the 84% of the land it owns makes the federal government as much of a mooch as some here describe Bundy to be.

        Reid is involved in multiple solar and wind projects across the Nevada desert. One was cancelled. Just days ago, Senator Reid was featured in a photo at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new solar project just 35 miles from the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. I’m all for solar projects but putting one of his cronies in control of the BLM who kicks off ranchers in favor of a Chinese company that his son is a lobbyist for smacks of corruption. Try to keep up.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        It did NOT take Nevada from Mexico. Nevada did not exist then. You really don’t understand exactly WHAT the tenth amendment has to do with how your laws are shaped, do you? Well, here’s one big clue: It’s not a tax law. You think there is some great conspiracy that the federal government has this tax free loophole that they enjoy and are breaking the country apart so the Chinese people can enjoy their fat cigars and slurpy noodles in your backyard, but I assure you, this is not the case. I won’t deny that your government is corrupt. Most every government in the world is, and yours is among the worst. If you really want lessons on how to end corruption, take a few notes from Canada or Finland, or even Australia. But the corruption you are citing is completely a non issue. There is no corruption or illegality in what you are stating, and by continuing your mindless, endless debate about such a non issue, you distract yourself, and those who pay you far too much attention than you deserve, from the REAL issues of corruption. While I admire your heart, and encourage your passion, you need to refocus your attention.

      • strayaway

        Ok, Nevada was part of the territory ceded by Mexico to the US to get the US troops out of Mexico City. Is that better? The 10th Amendment is written in plain understandable English so even you should be able to comprehend it. It applies to the entire Constitution. Regarding corruption; it looks bad when Senator Reid appoints one of his own people to run the BLM who proceeds to evict farmers and make contracts with a Chinese company whose lobbyist is Senator Reid’s son. Given the choice between whether this is complete coincidence or probable corruption, I would guess the latter. You apparently assume the former.

      • Michael W. Herberth

        You have been provided with every document or reference necessary to get yourself out of this endless loop you are stuck in. It just cannot be made any simpler for you. Your “point” is pointless, incorrect and irrelevant to the Bundy Ranch situation. Completely irrelevant.

      • strayaway

        My point was that the federal government is as big of a deadbeat as Bundy is accused of being.

        1. Nevada’s constitution allows it to charge up to the same tax rate on federally owned land as it taxes anyone else.

        2. Nevada cannot force the federal government to pay taxes “unless” the federal government chooses to pay its share.

        3. Nevada does accept a pittance, $22M/year, from the federal government in lieu of federal taxes.

        My point is still that that the federal government is as big of a deadbeat as Bundy is accused of being whether you choose to condone privilege or not.

      • Isn’t 1 the key here? They are allowed to (not bound, forced to) charge UP TO the same tax, but chose not to. So you expect the federal government to pay taxes they are not asked to pay? So if there was any validity to your ranting the villain here would be the state of Nevada and not the Federal government. Point 1 makes point 2 mote and irrelevant. 3. So Nevada still get Federal funds even though they have elected not to charge taxes and yet it’s all on the Feds side? Your ranting is holding less and less water and you just sound like a broken record repeating a mantra.

      • strayaway

        Nevada was created, when it had only 40,000 people, to tip the scales as an anti slave state . The federal government was more interested in a couple of more anti slave senators, at the time, than the interests of 40,000 people living in the territory. Today, Nevada has 2.75M people living on and controlling only 16% of its area yet the federal government still treats Nevada as its territorial dump. Having the clause about the federal government paying no more than others pay was a refute to those here saying that Nevada can’t accept federal property tax. Although Nevada can’t force the federal government to pay, it can and does accept the pittance it receives. My point remains that the federal government, paying only 2.6% of Nevada’s taxes, is as much of a mooch as Bundy is said to be.

      • Nelson

        And “renters” should pay their rent.

      • strayaway

        I don’t disagree. Arrest him the next time he goes shopping in town, put him on trial, and jail him if a jury finds him guilty. I have no problem with that but let’s not have another Waco incident.

      • darlenek

        Hey Strayaway, read the LAST 4 LINES:
        The Nevada Consititutions states:

        That the people inhabiting said territory do
        agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the
        unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same
        shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
        and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the
        said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the
        residents thereof; and that (IMPORTANT PART COMING UP)

        no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or
        property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the
        United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
        Also according to the Nevada tax code
        NRS 361.050  United States property exempted.  All lands and other property owned by the United States, not taxable because of the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation.

        [Part 1:344:1953; A 1954, 29; 1955, 340]

      • strayaway

        Hey darlenek, My point was that the federal government is as much of a deadbeat as Bundy. Note the line you quoted that reads, “UNLESS otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.” The deadbeat US government only pays $22M/year in lieu of taxes on the 84% of Nevada land it owes. Nice of you though to defend privilege.

      • The USA is not a deadbeat; it has no legal obligation to pay Nevada anything.

        Bundy, OTOH, has a legal debt to the federal government which he refuses to pay. That makes him a deadbeat.

        You’re welcome!

      • strayaway

        It has no legal obligation but an entity that pays only 2.6% of Nevada’s tax bill even though it owns 84% of all of Nevada’s land is by any reasonable definition a deadbeat.

        So arrest Bundy when he leaves the ranch and give him a trial. No need for the gestapo to do a Waco style raid.

      • ozarksgal

        If you have NO obligation to pay something, you are NOT a deadbeat. So “by definition” the federal government is not what you say it is. Just because you throw some imaginary figures out there does not make it so. “Deadbeat: 2: a person who does not pay money that is OWED.” Merriam-Webster

      • strayaway

        You are correct about the federal government not being legally required to pay its fair share of Nevada property taxes. Your argument is that of those who have always championed the privileged who set their own rules. In the USSR everyone was equal but those most equal had private dachas. The Reids make deals dealing with public land. The church in the middle ages accrued huge tracts of land. The rich often find ways to legally avoid onerous taxation. The problem is that the citizens of Nevada have to pay more because the federal government chooses to pay little more than a pittance. The working and middle classes in Nevada, I suppose, just do without to that extent to prop up Senator Reid.

      • Charles Vincent

        Two points See I. One on your head and one poking you in the butt.

      • John

        I am glad federal property was given a tax exemption in the US constitution. Imagine how much more we would have to pay the feds in taxes, so they could pay property taxes. Thank goodness we have that constitution! Something else it says, that Mr. Bundy seems to ignore, is this: Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 – “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”

      • strayaway

        And where might the part of the Constitution exempting the federal government from paying state property taxes be? Rules and regulations cannot contradict other parts of the Constitution. Powers not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states and people unless otherwise prohibited. One of the rules is included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C

        “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.”

        So why were federal federal snipers, assault vehicles, and swat teams even present? The Nevada Constitution allows Nevada to tax the federal land at rates up to what it taxes everyone else and the federal Constitution promotes equal protection do why do Nevada residents have to pay all the property taxes instead of other US citizens who own 84% of the land? That doesn’t seem like equal protection to me.

      • terribletwos

        Oh Gawd! Reading comprehension is not your strong point.

      • strayaway

        Rational argument is not your strong point.

      • terribletwos

        Clearly, you are not understanding your posts as your posts make the argument for the federal government.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Think about this: Somewhere in the world is the world’s worst lawyer. Now realize he is probably representing someone in court tomorrow.

        I think we may have found our man.

      • terribletwos

        How “rational” is your argument?

      • strayaway

        Since my arguments are often backed by numbers and the post you referred to cited US Code, my arguments and fact and number based opinions tend to be more rational than PC cliches and talking points.

      • Why5ks

        If Yoda were asked about strayaway he would say, “the stupid is strong in this one it is.”

      • An Angry Scotsman

        No, that is something that “bigfoot” from the Howard Stern Show would say.

        Yoda would say, “Strong in this one, the stupid is.”

        Completely irrelevant, but sometimes the nerd in me has to break out.

      • Bob Reilley

        You bastard, you made my coffee shoot out of my nose. Best comment ever.

      • crookedstick

        The only sniper that I saw a picture of, was a milita-man from Idaho jaying on an over-pass with his automatic weapon between a space in the concrete wall.

      • Doug

        Automatic? You know this how? By the way, full autos are not illegal if you get the one time tax stamp.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Yet another red herring argument. Please, do the rest of us intelligent people a favor and go away.

      • kansas

        Pointing a gun at a law enforcement officer is illegal, no matter what kind of gun it is. Refusing to obey a lawful court order, illegal. Refusing to pay fees and fines that a court has repeatedly ordered you to pay, illegal. Stealing land or stealing something that is located on land, that you don’t own, yup that’s illegal too. You have no respect for the government, your country or the laws that govern the land where you live. The warped self image of the tea party ‘patriots’, the illusions of grandeur and images of yourselves as hero’s and followers of God, will eventual take you to the same place every member of a delusional, violent cult ends up, dead or in jail.

      • Guest

        And you were there checking his paperwork? Pffft. What a horses ass.

      • strayaway

        Yup, or so it was claimed. I don’t know from the picture where the gun was pointed, who the guy was, or if it was loaded. Maybe you do. The four people taking pictures of him didn’t seem too worried about return fire.

      • The terrorist with the long gun was pointing at a crowd of people. Had a law enforcement officer been present on that overpass, it would have been his duty to take the terrorist down with extreme prejudice.
        The terrorist knew that. That’s why he chose a location where law enforcement could not see him.

      • Guest

        In kevlar……stand up and take it like a real cowboy!

      • LOL. Nevada disclaimed any right to tax federal lands right in its constitution: “… the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States…
        … no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States”

        (btw the part about equal taxation? It refers to land owned by citizens of the USA, not by the USA itself: “….lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof…” . As others have said: reading comprehension is NOT your strong suit LOL)

        You. Lose.

      • strayaway

        No, you lose. 1) Notice the word “unless” as in “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States”. 2) Don’t forget the part of the Nevada Constitution that stipulates that Nevada cannot tax federal property at a rate higher than other properties. 3) and consider that the US government does give Nevada $22M a year in lieu of property taxes. So it isn’t as if Nevada is refusing federal money in lieu of property taxes assuming Nevada cashed the checks. My point, which you failed ot address, is that the federal government, although it owns 84% of the land in Nevada, is as much of a mooch as Bundy is said by some to be.

        “No state shall deny any person… within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law”. What you are saying is that if one property owner holding 84% of the land doesn’t have to pay taxes, the other property owners holding 16% of the remaining land have to cover all expenses. It doesn’t seem like the owners of the 16% of the land are getting equal protection if that is the case. It sounds more like they are getting the shaft. Back in the middle ages, the Church accrued huge amounts of land, probably never 84%, but revolutions in France, Russia, and Mexico returned much of that land to the people. Maybe you could make a case for why the mid-evil Church should have so much land off the tax rolls too. its the same sort of thinking.

      • terribletwos

        Ah, let’s see. Could we not ask the same if the question is reversed?

      • jwald1

        It was federal land before it became a state. Part of the money the feds collect is given back to the state.

      • strayaway

        Again, who did the federal government buy all this from and for what types of land use does the Constitution allow the federal government to purchase land? Since the Nevada Constitution allows Nevada to make the federal government pay as much as other taxpayers and total Nevada tax revenue is about $6.7B annually, what percentage of that amount is derived from taxes the federal government chooses to give back to Nevada?

      • terribletwos

        Check your history how the U.S. received this land. I’ll give you a hint: Mexican/American war.

      • strayaway

        I know that. Thank you for making my point. The US never paid anything but a token amount for land it conquered. There was a big study released this weak about the US as an oligarchic state. The irony is that the corrupt Reid clan is systematically using its Pinkertons to get rid of competing interests in order to profit by leasing or selling some of that land to Chinese interests for less than its value.

      • Michael W. Herberth

        You made his point! Good, because he sure can’t seem to! What was that point, again??

      • terribletwos

        No I didn’t make your point. Considering the amount paid by the U.S. government and the year it was paid, what would that amount be in today’s rate. My God! Are you that stupid???

      • strayaway

        I think that you have proven yourself to be the ‘stupid’ partner in this conversation. The US paid $15M for all the land it took from Mexico. That amounts to four cents an acre. That amounts to $298.4M in 2005 dollars. In other words, about twenty times the the initial $15 to account for inflation. (20x$.04/acre=$.80/acre “in today’s rate”. There has been about 18% inflation since 2005 so (118%x$.80/acre=$.94/acre) So let’s go back to my original statement which you described as “stupid”.

        “The US never paid anything but a token amount for land it conquered. ” I hold that even including inflation, $.94/acre is a token amount although you might see it otherwise.

      • terribletwos

        Reid using Pinkertons???? Cite your PROOF!

      • strayaway

        Reid (technically government bureaucrats alligned with Reid) did not hire any personnel from the Pinkerton Company. Government police from the Bureau of Land Management and other government agencies were sent in to do what Pinkertons used to do to uppity obstructionists. I suppose that I did not make it clear enough that my choice of words. “its Pinkertons” was suggesting use of police in much the same way Pinkertons employees were once used. I do hope that you read the Constitution as literally as you read my post.

      • Jim Mauney

        The Nevada constitution doesn’t allow for collecting taxes from the federal government. Your quote above specifically states that.

      • Michael W. Herberth

        It’s 7th grade history, you dumbass! Man, you are getting really boring…

      • strayaway

        Name calling is usually a substitute for content.

      • Just Saying

        So, by your same argument, Nevada is the 7th largest state in the United States. Do they pay the Federal Government property taxes? If they don’t, then they should. By your argument. Otherwise, Nevada is freeloading off the other 49 States.
        Thanks.

      • strayaway

        Umm, there are no federal property taxes but if there were, Nevadans should pay for their 16% of their own state.

      • David_Moffat

        The Department of Interior has a program called “Payment in Lieu of Taxes.” As the name implies, it goes to states and counties to offset the loss of revenue that results from having federally owned land within the state or county. Nevada has received $22 million each of the last three years.

      • strayaway

        David, thank you for digging up that number and fact. If, as I recall, the annual budget of the State of Nevada is something like $9.6B., the $22M would constitute something like 2.6% of Nevada’s annual budget.

      • Point being? Feds should pay the entire state budget for them? How much of that budget is taken up by costs incurred by the Federally owned lands (which would be the only relevant cost to pitch the 22mil against).

      • strayaway

        No, feds should shoulder their part of the property taxes. There are other taxes and land in Las Vegas, for instances is accessed much higher per acre than what the federal government owns. I’m just suggesting that the federal government pay its fair share of property taxes so the weight of paying for them isn’t unequally places on other property owners.

      • Nelson

        Federal trumps state, state trumps local.

      • Doug

        Fed only has power specifically given by the Constitution. Anything not specified falls to the State. Feds have very limited power, but that part has been over looked by the liberals.

      • strayaway

        True up to a point but the Ninth and Tenth Amendments limit the power of the federal government as to the remainder of the Bill of Rights. My point though was that although some here criticized Bundy for being a moocher, the federal government only pays for about 2.6% of all of Nevada’s total annual budget (from all sources) although it owned 84% of Nevada’s land. That is a pittance.

      • karen

        How come I can only register the like ^? I wanted to tap the arrow down button on your coment. Sheesh!

      • strayaway

        That’s discus’ new policy. The answer to Kay Patterson’s query, to which I responded is that the US government pays only about 2.6% of Nevada’s budget even though it owns 84% of its land.

      • Guess it can’t go below zero and it’s not like he’s getting any +’s from anyone.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Rather weak straw man argument, isn’t it?

      • strayaway

        No, but it isn’t an insipid statement like yours.

      • An Angry Scotsman

        Now you are being mean. You can kiss my arse, you stupid bastard.

      • Guest

        It paid 21 million in grazing fees it cost 144 million to run. Fact check genius. Maybe they would do better if Bundy and his buddies paid up.

      • strayaway

        That’s between the federal government and its renters. Raising the rent would take care of that problem. Maybe the Reids will make more money renting Nevada to Chinese solar energy companies. Its a good way to insure the treasuries China has. Sell America. Go, Harry Reid.

      • Wendy Palm

        How much land is owned by churches? Getting any taxes from them? Private schools? Why should the federal gov’t pay taxes to Nevada? Las Vegas is all you need….corruption, greed and gambling drunkards. Wouldn’t live in the wild west if it was free.

      • strayaway

        I’m all for taxing churches and private schools too. Casinos and brothers are already taxed. Let’s treat all property owners equally!

    • Charles Vincent

      Actually he called it the state of Nevada land.

    • Matt

      I agree. I find it interesting that you think his land belongs to you. Everything is “ours” right? And how about that SOLAR PANEL ARRAY that HARRY REID wants to build on Bundy’s land?? Oh I bet that’s just a conspiracy theory that you would never even seriously entertain because then it might mean you’re carrying the water for a traitor. Will that SOLAR PANEL ARRAY be “ours” and will we all “share” in the energy it makes or will that energy be sold and profited from? You know the answer as well as I do.

      • terribletwos

        Do keep up. That’s already been disproven. And when you post such drivel, it only adds up to a lie.

      • Matt

        I have neither seen, nor heard of this “proof.” So we can accuse each other of lying, I suppose, or you could have shared the proof you supposedly have, which would, you know, prove your point. I suppose if you read this “proof” on say, The Atlantic, it must be true because the media cannot publish fallacies. Everyone knows that’s impossible.

      • terribletwos

        It’s easily checked out. You can “tab” this and find out for yourself. You are the one who brought this into the conversation so it’s up to you to do the research. Make sure you check out all the sites for information.

      • Matt

        Way to cop out of a simple request!! My research has led me to conclude that you are either wrong, or lying. Disprove me.

      • terribletwos

        Then where’s your research and cites? Google it. You were the one who brought the subject up, not me. If you were in court, you’d have to back up your statement with PROOF! Just saying it, doesn’t make it so. So, at this point, you’ve got NOTHING!

      • Nelson

        Never argue with a stupid person. They will wear you down with their drivel and beat you with their experience.

      • Red Lazerous

        their is no solar plant or fracking conspiracy. The spot that was going to be used for the Chinese investors who pulled out was 190 miles away…

    • ninemm

      I wonder how many hikers and hunters he has chased off of the land that he hasn’t been paying rent on for the last 20 years?

    • IndyMason

      In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

      “Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

      And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

      “The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

      Judge Jones continued:

      In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

      By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.

      It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

      So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

      And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

      “For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

      “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

      So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

      And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

  • PigeonPie

    Maybe we can dump the Tea party in Boston harbor …….. and have them all drown. What a load of crap they are. ‘Patriots’ my ass !

    • Trae Chiancola

      Don’t want them in Boston. Dump them in the Gulf of Mexico

  • geminijeanna

    Clive is a thief! If he has not paid in 20 years – it’s time to take his cattle etc

  • ellenabbott

    I’m sure Bundy would feel quite differently if someone else was grazing their cattle illegally on his land and refused to pay him for grazing rights.

    • John

      I bear if there was a wildfire, we would surely want the BLM firefighters to put it out for him too!

      • John

        *bet*

    • Matt

      For that to happen, there would have to another rancher near him.

    • Doug

      Yeah, like I feel about Reid and son wanting the land for a deal with the Chinese.

  • Shadow Diver

    If this was OWS, they would have had the shit beat out of them and if OWS had shown up with weapons, the GOP would have demanded Armageddon.
    Hopefully there is a C-130 gunship in these white trash, terrorists future.

  • James Hepler

    A well meaning person looks at the narrowly averted firefight with solemn appreciation for clear headed decision-making. Swaggering and eagerness for another standoff reveals a very different character trait. If you want bloodshed badly enough you will find it, and I have a feeling these militias won’t have a lot of hubris left when it’s all said and done.

    • Sandy Greer

      Faux News built him into a ‘folk hero’ – making a stand against The Man. RWNJs bought in.

      They hoped for another Waco – which they could lay at the feet of Obama.

      They WANTED that fight: If not today – tomorrow. If not this Cause – another.

      These people are inherently dangerous. Just a matter of time.

      • Charles Vincent

        People like you are just as dangerous Sandy.

      • Sandy Greer

        You better believe it! There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman who stands fearless before the likes of you.

        Compliments are always appreciated by a lady, and she always thanks a gentleman when she receives one. ;D

      • Sandy Greer

        I’m puzzled you think I lack intelligence, Kay Peterson.

        After I ‘upvoted’ your OP (about the land) I mean – prior to even posting myself, hours ago.

        Why, it’s almost like you insulted yourself: Somebody who lacks intelligence agrees with you.

        You’re not some masochist, now – are you, Kay Peterson? :O

      • Sandy Greer

        True. But the point is:

        You DO have a person who ‘lacks intelligence’ agreeing with you. And you don’t even see how that reflects on you.

        A delicious little secret, to me. One I treasure, that you can’t undo. Spit tacks.

      • Matt

        Hey Sandy, here’s a shocker: THERE WAS A THIRD POINT OF VIEW!! I KNOW, RIGHT?!?! CRAZY!!! You agreed with Kay, and then Kay didn’t agree with you. It’s almost like this is COMPLEX, and maybe even a little too complex for TWO RIGID VIEWPOINTS. How do you respond to Kay? By changing your own viewpoint and disrespecting her?? So you were cool agreeing with her, but as soon as she disagreed with your extremist, hateful, do-away-with-all-who-disagree-with-me attitude, you change your position and call her out???? DOESN’T RESEMBLE TEAM SPORTS IN THE SLIGHTEST. NOPE. NOT A BIT.

      • Sandy Greer

        Hateful extremist? Moi?? LOL

        ^^^How’s all that ‘sugar’ working for you – with the ladies – IRL, Matt?

        You having any luck with that approach?

      • Doug

        Looked at you comments via your name and comments from other liberals on this site. You people have a DNA issue. Maybe it was the LSD you did in the sixties that screwed your DNA and now you have passed it to your
        kids. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity of liberals; and I’m not sure about the universe!”

      • terribletwos

        Refer to my above post to A-hole.

      • terribletwos

        And who are you suckling on, Koch’s Krotch?

      • Pipercat

        Remember that little convo we had? Nuff said!!

      • Charles Vincent

        PSST read Sandy’s reply; also we have many conversations or were those the voices in my head?!?!?!

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh, poor Charlie. Not the Reply you were looking for?

      • Charles Vincent

        I think piper said it one always head on but sometimes its sideways.

      • Charlotte Rowe

        Wow, A Clifton you’re too much of a retarded douchehead to actually have anything germane to contribute to the conversation so you resort to ad hominem attacks about physical appearance. Of all the superficial, shallow, blockheaded admissions to your own inferiority to everyone else on the planet, you could not have chosen a more glaring one to parade in public. Certainly says all we need to know about YOU.

      • Pipercat

        It’s a berzerker troll playing both sides against the middle.

      • Shadow Diver

        You talk that stuff while your wife sucksdog cox in the street for money? What a hypocrite.

      • terribletwos

        Wow A-hole, you should talk. LOOK at your picture. One can clearly see you have no depth, looks like you’ve been pressed by a steam roller, head is not attached to body( resulting in no blood flow to your brain) no wonder you post as you do.

      • Sandy Greer

        LMFAO No kidding, you just made my day!

        Can I use that, sometime? I’m STILL laughing…

      • terribletwos

        😀

      • terribletwos

        Sure. Glad to have made your day.

      • Matt

        “These people are inherently dangerous.” Dangerous like automatons who don’t think independently and treat politics like a team sport? The sad thing is that you don’t understand the kind of totalitarianism that would result if you got your way and conservatives were suddenly extinct. And websites like this are really no different from “Green Bay Packers News and Rumors” websites, politically speaking.

      • Phil Keast

        E-FUCKING-NUFF

        It has been said that people get the governments they deserve. If this childish, spiteful, and disgusting name-calling is what constitutes rational political debate, then I feel very very very sorry for the USA. I’m beginning to think that the disgust and frustration factor involved in following this group is rapidly outweighing the value and relevance of the occasional mature discussion of issues.

      • Sandy Greer

        We have an infestation of Trolls here. They try to derail the convo.

        It helps to ignore what you can. 😉

        Oh. And I’d be sorry to see the last of you. Just saying.

  • Sandy Greer

    So another ‘folk hero’ bites the dust of Nevada. Woe are the mighty – deserted – even by RWNJs. How does it feel to be built up by Faux News – and left hanging out to dry, all by your lonesome?

    TeaPugs BETTER ‘focus’ on Obamacare: Dang thing appears to be working. Woe is The Right – fighting the inevitable. What’s left? Another vote to repeal? LOL

    • Matt

      You do understand that this has become an emotional substitute for sports, and you are politically and intellectually speaking, nothing more than a Dallas Cowboys fan rooting against the 49ers. Has the possibility entered your mind that a vast spectrum of viewpoints exist beyond the two ideological extremes represented by donkey and elephant, or does that hurt your brain? I suppose it’s easier to “root” for your favorite “team” and let them do the thinking for you.

      • Kelly Cowan

        So that is your argument?

      • Kelly Cowan

        Your childish comments just show you are not intelligent or informed enough to make any valid argument. You are just a childish troll.

      • Matt

        We’ll never change a single mind with that hateful attitude. You do us a disservice. If you engage a person you can prove them wrong. If you attack a person, you will only embolden them.

      • terribletwos

        terriblebreath is playing both sides.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Them? Us? What are you? Some kind of sports fan?

      • Matt

        No, but I’m talking to a bunch of sports fans right now. 🙂

      • terribletwos

        terriblebreath is playing both sides. He’s irrational.

      • Kelly Cowan

        LOL!

      • Matt

        Is that your rebuttal?? My argument, among people who aren’t “fans” of a “political team” rings very true. So I am assuming you are also a “Dallas Cowboys” fan? Maybe they’ll win the “Super Bowl” in 2016 and you can celebrate.

      • Kelly Cowan

        What is it you are attempting to say regarding Mr. Bundy?

      • Matt

        It’s cute that you’re pretending that you LISTEN, Kelly.

      • Matt

        Don’t stoop to their level with personal attacks.

      • terribletwos

        FYI: terriblebreath is playing both sides.

      • Sandy Greer

        Begs the question:

        Why would YOU want to converse with ME – if I’m (as you say) just a cheerleader who can’t think for herself?

        You’ve Replied 3x to me already. But that ^^^ would have to be one boring convo, for you. Unless you’re the kind who wants to tell me what’s what – and I don’t say anything in return?

        That the convo you’re looking for, Matt?

  • Kyle

    He doesn’t recognize the government ownership of the land because the land was in his family for well over 150 years, before it was even a state. When the BLM was formed, they seized the land and claimed it was federal, “public” land. Even Nevada doesn’t legally recognize Federal ownership of the land, nor the demand to pay fees, and has sided with Bundy criticizing the Federal Government for its actions. It has nothing to do with unpaid fees or anything like that, Harry Reid already sold the land (illegally) to Chinese investors to build a solar farm, and just wants to clear the land using this as an excuse.

    • PRIME79

      Sweet-pea, the Harry Reid part is a lie. The deal was between Reid’s son and others and some Chinese folks. The deal fell apart and nothing came as a result of it over a year ago. This story makes for good conspiracy theory but its simply not true. Try fact checking before you decide to engage in an adult conversation. This is nothing more than 1 guy that doesn’t want to pay fees and fines, in accordance with the law, that he has acquired over the years. Its really not that deep for sane folks.

      • Kyle

        That still doesn’t change the fact that the land was his family’s first, and the BLM seized it. It was never their land to take. Nevada still sides with Bundy, and doesn’t agree with the Feds.

      • PRIME79

        Pretty sure the federal government owned/controlled the land before Nevada was even a state. It doesn’t matter how long who did what on the land. Remember the Native Americans? They had plenty of land before people like Bundy’s family showed up. Ain’t no fun when the rabbit’s got the gun is it?

      • Kelly Cowan

        …and your argument in support of Mr. Bundy is?

      • Why5ks

        Nevada doesn’t side with Mr. Bundy, and never has. There are a few Sheriffs that think they are smarter than the Justice Dept. on Constitution issues, but they are wrong.

      • terribletwos

        Before him, it was Mexico’s and before Mexico, it was the Native Americans. Do you really want to stand on that argument?

    • Why5ks

      Glad to see you are a member of the know nothing battalion of Bundy supporters. Here is an accurate history of the land in question. The land became Federal land upon the signing of the Treaty of San Guadalupe in 1848 at the end of the Mexican-American War. Nevada became a state in 1864 and in their state Constitution there is the third Ordinance Clause which says, “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States.” The Bundy clan began ranching in the area and were granted “grazing rights” which fell under the Homestead Act. These grazing rights did not confer ownership to the ranchers, but allowed them to use the land for their herds. In 986, President Ronald Reagan through Executive Order changed the law and ordered the BLM to begin assessing fees for grazing on Federally owned lands. This was also the EO that created the policy of leasing lands for oil and gas exploration know as “drill baby drill.” As for how the BLM has authority over the area, well that is up of the Department of the Interior which has the Constitutional duty of administering all US owned property amongst other things. As for where that Constitutional authority comes from, it is called Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution that article states, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

      • Why5ks

        Actually, most of that stuff comes direct from my memory as a history major. The only stuff I cut and pasted were the references to the Nevada Constitution. That is only because until now I never had the need to read it. But in trying to understand this whole situation I did just that, I read the state of Nevada’s Constitution, because Mr. Bundy clearly feels the laws of Nevada are the only ones he needs to follow. He claims Nevada is a sovereign state, which their constitution clearly establishes that to be a lie. He claims he doesn’t recognize the US government, which the Nevada Constitution directs all of it’s citizens to do. He claims the BLM or the Federal government has no authority on these lands, which the US Constitution and the Nevada Constitution clearly say otherwise. So explain to me how I didn’t make an effective contribution to the discussion? Do I need to throw a few arbitrary and insulting remakes at people? Or maybe it was too much for you to understand I was walking you to the information to prove your whole argument has more holes than a tuna net? Everything I posted directly contradicted your assertion that the BLM stole “his land.’ He is the thief, not the government. As for whether or not you like how I posted my comment, maybe that’s because I was posting pure facts without one iota of speculation or any political slant. I think maybe you are allergic to facts, a lot of Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be lately.

      • Sandy Greer

        We’re dealing with Trolls, here. They’re allergic to facts. Makes ’em shrink in horror.

        But it’s amusing, to see them immediately upvote their own posts, as a ‘guest’. LMAO, it never fails.

      • Why5ks

        Show me where I used any racial slur or epitaph. I did kind of insult tuna nets. I also did say it seems that Tea Partiers and Libertarians seem to be allergic to facts, but that isn’t racist. The fact that you have changed your moniker to call me a “plagiarist” and claiming that I called you a racist and saying I’m delusional without ever addressing facts tends to lend credence that you have an allergic reaction to facts. They seem to make you feel persecuted and give you an overwhelming need to lash out at the dispenser of facts and yell “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.” I also find it interesting how you keep asking me for citations of what I have posted and as I look back at all the things you posted I don’t see a single citation, not one. Why would that be?

      • Kelly Cowan

        crickets.

    • John

      If the family was at this ranch 150 before Nevada was a state that means they would have been there in 1714 (Nevada became a state in 1864). Back then the property was part of the Spanish Empire, and the American Colonies were still part of the British Empire! I think you have your facts a little messed up. Nearby Bunkerville, Nevada was not establish until 1877, 13 years after Nevada Statehood. Plus the Bundy family came from Bundyville in Arizona in the middle of the 1900s. Their claims to preemptive rights are bogus. The land has been federal since the end of the Mexican-American War, the BLM never seized them, they were assigned by the Department of Interior to management the land for the feds.

      • Why5ks

        The claim by Bundy that his family was there 150 years before Nevada was a state is wrong. No one settled in that area until the early 1850’s. Even if his claim was true, which it isn’t, then his ancestors were Mexicans living in Mexico back in 1848 when the Mexican-American War ended. Mexico didn’t have our constitutional protections. And once the land was given to the US at the Treaty of Guadalupe any property claims they had with Mexico ended then. Sorry, but any way he wants to dig this crap up it is still bogus and he is throwing lots of stuff out there hoping people will not verify his statements. All his arguments have been ruled crap in court after court.

      • Why5ks

        I’m confused, there is one Kyle running around spreading drivel and insulting everyone and then you are making sense. Please tell me these are 2 different people and not a Sybil experience.

      • Sandy Greer

        I’ve noticed the same, several times, several names.

        Open the page again (new window) side-by-side; the names change.

        It’s an infestation of pesky Trolls. They’re impotent in their arguments – their only weapon is irritation. 😉

      • terribletwos

        terriblebreath is playing both sides.

  • Charles Vincent

    Well hello all you terrorist subversive Judas’ who are you lamenting about today? Ooh crying about the bundy’s I see. Well now that you’ve managed to cry a river here is a tissue and some tools build a bridge and get over yourselves.

  • lindylou

    Looks like the cowboy is all chaps and no jeans.

    • gmartini

      Or literally–all cattle and no hat.

      • Pipercat

        … or all corn and no gazzo!

      • gmartini

        hahaha! Even in dialect, no doubt. I’m impressed!

      • Pipercat

        gotta fix the t…

      • gmartini

        Why thank you—I will

      • Pipercat

        Plenty of marinara in these veins!!!

      • gmartini

        I thought it was the garlic and peppers, myself.
        I noticed when you caught on real quickly to what I told a troll to go “google” the other day!

      • Pipercat

        Laughed my ass off, actually. I’m Calabrese, it sounds like “bah fancul, gatso” when we say it!!

      • Pipercat

        Like yours?

      • terribletwos

        Perfect. Describes Bundy to a “T”.

      • Pipercat

        What argument?

      • gmartini

        I almost put it in my Napolitana (female) speak—but decided to use ‘real” Italian instead….and yes, that is exactly the way we say it exept–fangul. For some reason, “C’s” are “G’s.”

      • Pipercat

        You’re fucking toast… enjoy the limelight while it lasts.

      • Pipercat

        You picked on the biggest kid on the block, bring it on!!!

      • Pipercat

        Figures, a little miscreant leaving his scat all over the place.. then runs.

      • canyonguy

        All Yeeha crying mama

      • gmartini

        Ahhhh, isn’t that just too sweet…a dork wishes to come out from under his/her bridge and play along. First clue. Dork, you would need to use the word, “culo” instead of “bottoms” if you want to play by the rules. Otherwise. FLAGGED for being an obnoxious Dork. Ciao!

      • lindylou

        I was thinking about being bare-assed wrong!

  • Matt

    If Bundy was truly “breaking the law” for over a decade, he would have been raided SWAT team style, just like the police do to every other suspected burglar, drug dealer, pot grower or gang banger. There are raids conducted EVERY DAY in America. They didn’t raid Bundy because the federal government wanted to create a scene. I think they wanted to create a situation to show the “new dangers” of “domestic terrorists.” Problem-Reaction-Solution.

    • Why5ks

      No they didn.t raid him, or try to take his cattle until he lost his last court appeal. If you read the story, they have tried contacting him but he doesn’t read their letters. They have ordered him to remove them and he didn’t by the deadline so they showed up to remove the cattle. They only brought protection for their workers because Bundy threatened to shoot anyone who tried to take his cattle. The government has shown patience, just like everyone has asked them to do, Bundy is a turd and a criminal. Yet, some how people are willing to rik their lives for a millionaire criminal.

      • Matt

        You missed my question. WHY DIDN’T THEY RAID HIM? So many other people would have been raided for doing far, far less. There is a reason they didn’t raid him and it sure as $hit isn’t because “Bundy threatened to shoot them.” Criminals shoot at raiding police all the time, they still raid.

      • clareta

        Apparently you missed the answer. He wasn’t raided because his case was still working its way through our court system and only recently exhausted his last appeal. Then they began legally confiscating his property, ie cattle.

      • Matt

        Do you think that raids only occur after court appeals have been exhausted? Are you not familiar with the multiple stories of people who are raided MERELY UNDER THE SUSPICION they are growing marijuana? Happens all the time. These people are not tried, and they certainly haven’t had a chance to work through appeals. Again, I ask you, if this man broke the law for OVER A DECADE, why do you think they did not raid him? I think I have an idea — so this exact dialogue and debate can take place.

      • Kelly Cowan

        How does what happened in one case or another, have any bearing on what has taken place in this one? Is the federal government obligated to you to treat each case in the exact same manner? Your gibberish doesn’t even qualify as an argument. Illogical ramblings of an emotional and delusional supporter of Mr. Bundy is probably a more accurate description.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Well, that certainly isn’t much of an argument for Mr. Bundy.

      • Matt

        You just revealed something amazingly disturbing. You said, “Is the federal government obligated to you to treat each case in the exact same manner?” That is exactly what defines a free society, Kelly. Does not the phrase “equal treatment under the law” ring a bell? I will grant you that selling crack does not equate to grazing violations, but I would encourage you to reflect on what I quoted and if you believe what you are saying. As for your personal attacks, I could give a $hit. They reflect far more on you than they do me and my “gibberish” as you so eloquently call it.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Nonsense, They treat cases differently, when to raid, or when not to raid, is based on the particulars of the case. These decisions are not a ”equal treatment under the law”, they are tactical and strategic considerations. ”equal treatment under the law” is a reference to everyone being held to the laws equally. For example, one rancher is not allowed to graze his cattle on federal land for free, while all the others have to pay the fees.

      • Matt

        “”’equal treatment under the law” is a reference to everyone being held to the laws equally.”
        I agree, and if this were practiced in our country, there’d be a few bankers in jail for mortgage fraud from 2008 and yet there aren’t. Which brings me back to my original question: why was this allowed to be built up to such a dramatic level and what purpose does that serve? I guarantee you that police have dealt with situations far more dangerous than this would have been pre-media frenzy. Last I checked, threatening to shoot federal officials if they come on your land is more than enough to arrest someone (with a SWAT raid!) I believe someone wanted to create a provocative situation that could have gone off like a tinderbox. And I believe they got what they wanted because here we are, fighting over this issue that doesn’t relate directly to either of us.

      • terribletwos

        Perhaps the federal government didn’t want it to escalate into another Ruby Ridge or Waco. This group had brought children there, along with women, on the front lines. Who, in their right mind, as a parent, would expose their children to this kind of danger? Anyone’s stray bullet could have killed one or more of these kids. I have no problem with the women being there, if that was THEIR unadulterated choice, but the children??? Did the children have a choice?

      • Matt

        I’m not even going to try to defend the parents who brought their children to the Bundy ranch. But I sure as hell wouldn’t want to try to defend the government that shot the Weaver children and tried to burn the Branch Davidian children alive, either.

      • terribletwos

        How long ago was that???? Why hasn’t there been a lawsuit against the government??? Perhaps, that was what this government had in mind…the remembrance of those scenes. Ever think of that?

      • Kelly Cowan

        You can believe whatever you would like, it doesn’t have any bearing on Mr. Bundy’s guilt or innocence, it doesn’t even have any bearing on the case. It only qualifies as speculation about an alleged agenda to create an exasperation of the situation. I assume you are going toward saying the federal government is trying to create a situation in order to crack down on militias.

      • Matt

        Kelly, here’s the deal. Defending Bundy is not easy to do. The man broke the law. He had a long time to address it and he chose poorly at many, many turns. But I would rather defend him than a government that treats a guy like him the way they did with 200 armed officers, while bankers go scot free for committing far worse crimes. There are thousands of people locked in prison for growing a plant and people who have been raided for having loose tea leaves in their garbage and shopping at gardening stores. I absolutely despise the way the Federal government handled the Bundy situation because yes, I do believe it is being used as a foil to crack down on gun control. And if I had to choose between supporting two clearly imperfect parties, I would choose to support Bundy, as to me, he is the lesser of the two evils.

      • Kelly Cowan

        OK, so you are a Packers fan.

      • Matt

        WOW! You don’t want to even hear me, do you? I didn’t realize that despising the federal government automatically makes me a Republican, or a conservative, or a Teabagger (your choice). In fact, I am none of these three things, but perception is reality and yours seems to be locked up like a safe. You have thus proven yourself to be the true Packers fan.

      • Kelly Cowan

        I haven’t said anything about political party’s or movements on this post. You are the one who keeps doing that. My position on Mr. Bundy is a matter of law, not a political position. Like you wrote. ” The man broke the law. He had a long time to address it and he chose poorly at many, many turns. ”

      • Kelly Cowan

        So the rich guys kid gets off scott free because his dad is rich and connected, so you support the poor guy getting off scott free because the rich guys kid did? That is recipe for despotism and anarchy, Looks like the Packers keep fumbling the ball to me.

      • Matt

        You have no interest in dialog, you’ve made that abundantly clear. You keep on blindly supporting your government, and whatever you do, Kelly, keep those fingers in your ears and keep singing because if you stopped, you might actually have to hear someone out and that would make you human, if only for a moment. Adieu.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Packers lose.

      • Kelly Cowan

        I agree on the bankers part of your comment, if ”there were equal treatment under the law”, most of Wall Street would have been thrown in jail.

      • Sandy Greer

        I’m not going to ‘upvote’ you because you called me a ‘hateful extremist’ – and I know you wouldn’t want that.

        But I’ve already said Faux News egged him on. TeaPugs jumped on the bandwagon. Anti-govt Militias were ‘provocateurs’ – just ITCHING for a fight.

        So I agree – there were plenty wanted a ‘tinderbox’.

        They wanted a WACO they could lay at the feet of Obama.

        Because they hate him.

        So there you go, Matt. In spite of being called a ‘hateful extremist’ by you (ironically, immediately after saying you oppose personal attacks)

        We agree about your ‘tinderbox’. 😉

      • Why5ks

        First, they didn’t need to raid him, they were evicting and confiscating his cattle which weren’t at his property they were illegally on Federal land. Second, everyone always complains that the government reacts too quickly and heavy handed. Well, this time they were patient and allowed him to exercise all his legal options. Part of the delays can be attributed to his refusing to reply to letters from the government. Just because the BLM was patient does not give credibility to Bundy, if he has won one case or appeal now that would give him some credibility. He lost every time he was in court on this matter, the only thing he ever won in court was a contempt citation.

  • While I don’t agree with everything going in here, the federal government killing innocent cattle and burying them in a mass grave is the only scumbag move here.

    • Kelly Cowan

      If that were actually a real story. SMDH

    • terribletwos

      Where’s your PROOF that the federal government killed innocent cattle? Where’s the video? Or are you just taking Bundy’s, (et al) word on this?

  • Matt

    .

    • Charles Vincent

      The gullible people on the right and left or left and right(pick your poison) are just blind followers happily marching into the new showers their party built for them. The ones here are the ones marching through the door on the left.

      • Matt

        I’m trying to wake at least one person up. Just because someone is on a “team” now doesn’t mean they can’t see what is going on if it is presented in a non-hateful way.

      • Charles Vincent

        This reminds me of the story about the frog and the scorpion. Carry on removing the wool.

      • Matt

        God Himself couldn’t remove this wool.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well nature has a way of working things out. Learned that watching mutual of Omahas wild kingdom.

    • Matt

      Moreover, when did personal attacks become the new default argument? “You don’t agree with me?! You must a douchebag, retard, fat, lazy, teabag, libtard, schill, troll, etc.”
      How does that line of talk change A SINGLE MIND?
      How does that behavior make the world BETTER?
      How does that REFLECT on the person who SAYS IT?
      We’re better than this, people!! We are better than this. Fight with ideas, not hate.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Sounds great, why did you write this to me?

        ”You’re a liar. Plain and simple. A liar with a sick psychological need to “win.” I pity your children, past, present or future.”

        I guess ‘sounds’ is the operative word. I guess disagreeing with you automatically means one has ”a sick psychological need to win”.

      • Sandy Greer

        Ooh, Matt. I’m glad to see this.

        Especially so soon after you said I was a ‘cheerleader’ who can’t think for herself. AND a ‘hateful extremist’, to boot.

        Good to know you don’t believe in personal attacks, Matt. 😉

        Who knows? I might even end up liking you, Matt. Probably not today. But sometime.

    • Kelly Cowan

      ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

      Matt clareta • 38 minutes ago

      ””We’ll” never change a single mind with that hateful attitude. You do ”us” a disservice. If you engage a person you can prove them wrong. If you attack a person, you will only embolden ”them”. ”

      • Matt

        Kelly, not sure what you’re trying to prove here. Either you’re trying to prove I’m allowed to use pronouns, or you’re trying to prove that I’m wrong and we’re not united and we’re not all Americans. I’m not sure which one is worse but if you are hell-bent on being right, you can let me know which one you would prefer to be right on.

      • Kelly Cowan

        It doesn’t have anything to do with politics, it is a matter of law. Mr. Bundy broke the law. You are the one who keeps conflating this with politically parties and movements. Like you wrote. ” The man broke the law. He had a long time to address it and he chose poorly at many, many turns. ” I do not live with some paranoid delusion and fear of government, that is you. So much so, that you have taken the side of lawlessness in the citizenry, even after admitting that Mr. Bundy broke the law.

      • Kelly Cowan

        If someone doesn’t take ”your side” against the government then ”we’re not united and we’re not all Americans.” nonsense. You are behaving like a sports fan. It is not about me being right, it is about the law being right.

      • Matt

        Sir or ma’am, you haven’t given me a shred of decency or respect throughout this entire attempted dialog. You know damn well this is about politics, not just the law and you’re being entirely disingenuous about it. “I haven’t said anything about political party’s or movements on this post,” is what you said. Well you never had to since you’re defending a position taken by FORWARD PROGRESSIVES DOT COM. “Progressive” is a political label, just as conservative and liberal are. You are lying to yourself and everyone who can read this when you turn the tables on me to make me look like the partisan hack for merely taking a side on this debate when that is precisely what you yourself are. And then you have the tenacity to actually say “this isn’t about politics.” You’re a liar. Plain and simple. A liar with a sick psychological need to “win.” I pity your children, past, present or future.

      • Kelly Cowan

        Where have I not shown you ”a shred of decency or respect”. I am here commenting just like you, the fact that I agree with this post doesn’t have any political attribute in any way. This is about the law. Your weak attempts to defect and conflate this is obvious to anyone reading this. You are proposing that anyone who doesn’t take your position is being a political, and I assume, that even those who are taking your position are also being political. You of course are not, pure as the driven snow, completely free of any political view whatsoever. Just a concerned American who thinks the government is a bigger law breaker than Mr. Bundy. Wall Street got off, so Mr. Bundy must be supported. All the rest of your personal attacks don’t show ”a shred of decency or respect” but speak volumes about your character, and the lack of validity of your defenseless attempt at an argument. You just don’t make any sense Matt, your are contradicting yourself…repeatedly.

      • Kelly Cowan

        I have come across hundreds of people who claim they are apolitical as a Trojan horse for their political activity. It is a weak, and obvious ploy. This issue isn’t a political issue at all, it has been turned into one by folks like you. Mr. Bundy’s case and the related events are matters of law. For you to take his side against the government is not political? Anti government sentiment is not political? Please. LOL!

    • Kelly Cowan

      You are all tangled up in your own web. Are you here taking a position in support of Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government? Or are you here to save us from taking a posItion?

    • Sandy Greer

      Hm. I agree with your ‘house divided cannot stand’. I’ll even point out this is the second time I’ve agreed with you.

      But you call me a ‘hateful extremist’.

      ^^^You put me squarely in ‘them’ territory.

      Methinks you don’t practice what you preach, Matt. 😉

  • rossbro

    Put His Ass In Jail !!!!!!! Thumb your nose at a Court Order, go to jail. Take his cows and land, sell them to pay for unpaid fees.

  • Humma

    What I really would like to know is first of all, why was this allowed to go on for 20 years??? Thats crazy… If this man is breaking the law, and the courts say he is, why hasnt something been done sooner??? I think its BS….and to those who dont agree and thing this man is some kind of hero, you ppl are sickening and you are what is wrong with our country..

  • Tracy Johnson

    I find it odd that people keep making this a political issue when the
    only politician that has had a hand in any of this seems to be Harry
    Reid. And it even took some prodding for that Nevada senator to say
    anything at all publicly about it. This was after the BLM had already stood down and Reid’s son’s solar power corporation was in a deal for a land sale somewhere else (9,000 acres near Laughlin).
    As far as Cliven Bundy saying that he would/will not pay his grazing fines – that is false. There is documented proof that he has stated all along that he has been willing, and is still willing, to pay that money to the county or even the state, but not to the federal government. Personally, I’m still withholding judgement but I would have to say that that is a smart call given the situation. Let him pay his fines to whom he wants and they in turn can pay the feds, whatever. But since this whole debacle is SUPPOSEDLY over the desert tortoise (yeah, right) and we still haven’t been told otherwise, it’s a smart move in that respect as well.
    The reason for the Bureau of Land Management’s imposed fines and it’s protected area in which the Bundy cattle were grazing is for the “protection” of the endangered tortoise. But yet, the BLM euthanized 700-800 of these endangered tortoises before this recent standoff at the Bundy ranch even began. There are now only 1,400 left at the the BLM’s critical habitat near Las Vegas, most of them sickly and disease-ridden. The BLM is scheduled to kill about 200 more and close the habitat “due to lack of funding”. If Cliven Bundy were to give the BLM the $1,000,000 that they say that he owes, how many more of this endangered species will they be able to kill off, while using taxpayer money on “our” land?

  • eric hardcastle

    All those brave ‘patriots’ arming themselves and attending Bundy’s ranch will vanish in the mist long before he ends up in court again and is bankrupted by legal fees and loses the inheritance he may have left his deluded children who support his actions.
    The government has no choice for if it allows Bundy to succeed every US taxpayer could take it as a precedent.
    Bundy just doesn’t want to pay the rent imposed by the landlord.
    Perhaps that rent is unfair but he’s challenged it in court and lost which means Bundy has some idea that the law actually counts.
    Now he has gone rogue having lost in the courts. The end is inevitable.

  • crookedstick

    He is more than just a Rancher who doesn’t want to pay. He is a right Wing Extremist who has has been on the Gov Watchlist since the 1990’s. There were pipe bombs that exploded at BLM Office and Fissh and Wildlife in 1995 and 1996 in Nevada. Qho do you think might have been number one suspect?

    • strayaway

      55 people were killed in US drone attacks on Saturday. At least Bundy wasn’t the number one suspect for those explosions.

  • OJ Bundy

  • patbit60

    So when are these people going to NYC to protect 10s of thousands of citizens from being harassed by the government through the stop and frisky policy? Oh right, they’re not because those citizens are poor and mostly not white.

  • fairness_rules

    If he doesn’t believe in the federal government, he probably hasn’t paid federal income taxes either for 20 years! Probably collected every ag subsidy he could get his hands on too.

  • Guest

    The issue is not the fees he owes. Everyone including Bundy knows he owes the money. The issue is that many families used this land for grazing purposes LONG BEFORE the federal government took possession of it. The deal was that they could continue using it. Then the government came in and started forcing them to reduce their herds and pay confiscatory grazing fees with the full intention of driving them out of business and off the land. They successfully destroyed all those family businesses except Bundy. In this case, it’s very likely that Harry Reid or his son has some kind of corrupt deal with private interests or other constituencies. That’s the driving force behind spending more taxpayer money trying to get Bundy off the land than Bundy actually owes. Of course killing his cows, bulls, and destroying the private property he was legally allowed to have on the land was part of the effort. That doesn’t even count all the endangered tortoise dens the government plowed over during the operation. Is Bundy legally required to pay the fees? Absolutely! Is he just some disgruntled dude that doesn’t want to pay? Absolutely! Is the government behaving in a corrupt, immoral, incompetent, and despicable way. DOUBLE ABSOLUTELY!

  • lovethoseknicks

    The issue is not the fees he owes. Everyone including Bundy knows he owes the money. The issue is that many families used this land for grazing purposes LONG BEFORE the federal government took possession of it. The deal was that they could continue using it. Then the government came in and started forcing them to reduce their herds and pay confiscatory grazing fees with the full intention of driving them out of business and off the land. They successfully destroyed all those family businesses except Bundy. In this case, it’s very likely that Harry Reid or his son has some kind of corrupt deal with private interests or other constituencies. That’s the driving force behind spending more taxpayer money trying to get Bundy off the land than Bundy actually owes. Of course killing his cows, bulls, and destroying the private property he was legally allowed to have on the land was part of the effort. That doesn’t even count all the endangered tortoise dens the government plowed over during the operation. Is Bundy legally required to pay the fees? Absolutely! Is he just some disgruntled dude that doesn’t want to pay? Absolutely! Is the government behaving in a corrupt, immoral, incompetent, and despicable way. DOUBLE ABSOLUTELY and WITHOUT QUESTION!

  • Charles Almon

    I Sarah Palin’s $4.7 MILLION consultants told her to butt out,
    Even poopypants Nugent has been strangely silent.

  • Thoreau

    How is this an article? It doesn’t provide any new data or information. Just that some people support Bundy and some people don’t…as usual. It isn’t introducing anything new, just publicizing more headlines. If i had to side with the team saying “just shut up and pay whatever stupid taxes the government says you have to pay” or the team saying “wait a minute, why does the government just get to invent what taxes i have to pay?” i’m gonna side with the nope side. Bundy isn’t mad because he has to pay taxes – he PAYS taxes, his family has paid taxes, for centuries – he’s mad about the ADDITIONAL taxes the government invented a couple decades ago. Why should the government be allowed to tax new things as they see fit? I can’t believe there are people supporting MORE taxes. As if ANY of us like that huge hole in our paychecks. Or as if any of us sees the money missing from our pay and thinks, “well, at least the turtles are safe in Nevada.”

    • Rianya

      Paying your grazing fee isn’t a “tax” it’s more like paying rent.

      And I’d like to see people like Bundy actually paying their share of taxes instead placing the full burden on the poor and middle class.

  • Guest

    Throw him in jail and take his cattle. Period.

    I don’t pay my taxes, my property is taken and I go to jail. The same applies to Bundy. End of story.

  • Ifightforyou

    This is covered by Nevada’s free range laws if the property owned by anyone he can drive his cattle freely in the state of Nevada but the federal government does not honor this like medical marijuana state laws he pushed his cattle through federally regulated lands aka public lands he broke the law but not for the state of Nevada so I see his clear argument which power comes first and does state law even matter the answer is if and only if it benefits the federal government dont stand for this I want you to find your own truth and not look at the false truth for the answer because liberal conservative left wing right wing republican democrat those representatives work for profit not you or me don’t give into the lies to turn you against what is right do not turn away from each other unite for one people a culture ment for everyone and the freedoms and values you wish to preserve or abolish this country right now has no standing with other countries because we don’t fight each other we truly hate one another treat others with compassion and respect before you criticize them I don’t want to be the only one that stands up in the face of tyranny I am us army I fight for the people the little guy who can’t stand up for himself I will stand alone against the government this monster nation has conceived but I would rather stand united for one people in the face of pure evil I stand ready to engage and destroy the enemies of the united people in close combat foreign or domestic I am a us soldier I am anti government please listen to what this article is really about no facts just more propaganda

  • Bjazz

    Not that i am always his biggest fan, but Glenn Beck has actually come out against Bundy, and he did that before the racist stuff came out. It was Hannity who was beating the war drums for him.

  • Chris Chambers

    “Return the land to the people”. Right. I know, let’s start by getting all those cattle and militia/terrorists off.