Thread: MY TWO CENTS: THE BUNDY RANCH & FREEDOM IN AMERCIA

Graphic Photos Show What The BLM Really Did To Bundy’s Cows

And this was supposedly done to save animals...

---

B. Christopher Agee — April 16, 2014



According to several reports breaking on social media Wednesday, federal agents targeting the Bundy Ranch in Clark County, Nev. did much more than merely herd hundreds of cows away from the site prior to backing down from their position Saturday. The following graphic images are being distributed by the Bundy Ranch as proof that multiple head of cattle were slaughtered, apparently under the direction of federal Bureau of Land Management officers.

Some close-up shots reportedly reveal the entrance point of wounds that took down the family’s livestock.

The photos show the dead and decaying cattle, offering little room for speculation beyond the assumption that BLM agents were complicit in their deaths.

With elected officials, including Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, declaring the standoff is “not over,” many worry the government’s apparent predilection for violence could easily spill over to include human targets.

Many outraged commenters have pointed out the glaring hypocrisy of leftist animal rights groups who, at this point, have remained largely silent regarding allegations of cattle mistreatment on the ranch by federal forces.


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/gra...srlRQgQuKwF.99

I think that prize bulls are very expensive and that these two should be around 1 million dollars each.

Animal Abuse... find out the Snipers who were on site doing this kill shots and lock these Brave BLM Men Up

Remember the Alamo and Bunkerville NV

Posted 2014-04-15 20:00:38 - by Tim Selaty Sr. - Admin

First, the Bundy family has been on that range since 1875, long before the BLM even existed. The Bundy family was legally grazing their cattle on otherwise worthless land until 1993 when the US Government decided they would charge ranchers to graze there and when Bundy said, no you wont, they withdrew his long standing grazing rights and declared him a criminal. Thus it was not through any action of his own, but by government edict, that he became a criminal.

I am thinking of making a bumper sticker that says “Remember the Alamo and Bunkerville NV”

Or maybe, “Cliven Bundy was Right and so am I”

Being legally correct and being Morally right are NOT necessarily the same thing.

The internet helped stop another Ruby Ridge or Waco from happening. But we came as close as a firecracker to having another revolution. If the Bureau of Land Management had not backed down and one shot had been fired accidentally or one firecracker lit off, 200 federal agents could have been dead and what was left of 1000 citizens would have been labeled as terrorists with nothing left to loose. Had that happened, with today’s internet, the number in that crowd would have swelled to 10,000 over night. Then what happened next, with the National Guard of Nevada at less then 10,000 strong, would have been a scary thing.

I dont think Harry Reids comment that “it is not over yet” helped to stabilize anything. The man is a fool, no, I will say that differently, he is a damned fool.
Luckily, someone at the top realized that having 200 dead federal agents and an army of pissed off citizens that was armed, outnumbered the National Guard and had “nothing left to loose”, was not a good scenario. Yes, the National Guard has tanks, helicopters and sophisticated weapons. But do you think the majority of them would have followed orders to fire upon their neighbors and fellow Nevadans? I dont think they would have. The National Guard is sworn to carry out any “legal order” from their superiors and they are carefully educated on the lessons from the Nuremberg trials. You can swing by the neck for following an order from your superior so you need to make that determination on your own.

If the National Guard had been called out, then that 10,000 man/woman army would have grown even faster. There were people in that group that came all the way from Connecticut with their “illegal” assault rifles to help Cliven Bundy. This is what the Second Amendment was designed for. To allow the people to resist an oppressive government, just as they had at Lexington. This time, with the Second Amendment still intact, it worked to preserve our Free nation to remain Free. We must be constantly vigilant to preserve the Second Amendment intact and un-changed if we are to preserve our nation.

Is Bundy in the legal right under our current legal environment? Maybe not, but that does not say that our current legal environment is right. Is Bundy in the moral right? The charges against him are being misrepresented, the reasons for going after him are being misrepresented, and the methods used are not justified.

First, the Bundy family has been on that range since 1875, long before the BLM even existed. The Bundy family was legally grazing their cattle on otherwise worthless land until 1993 when the US Government decided they would charge ranchers to graze there and when Bundy said, no you wont, they withdrew his long standing grazing rights and declared him a criminal. Thus it was not through any action of his own, but by government edict, that he became a criminal.

Second, the reason that BLM decided to go after Cliven Bundy in April of 2014, after 20+ years of court action (Courts that are owned by the US Government and therefore NOT impartial) was not to protect a Dessert Tortoise, but rather because Harry Reid wants to build a Solar Farm on the land…..which by the way will require the Tortoise to be removed first. Harry Reids relatives and political friends are in high places in the legal departments of the company that wants to build the Solar Farm and at BLM. Now do you get it??

Third, since when do we use armed force to go after anyone that is not a danger to the public. Bundy was not resisting at the point of a gun….not until his son was Tasered and his daughter tackled to the ground and then others came to his defense. Which of us would not defend our children when tactics such as these are used? The BLM, IRS and all other government bureaucracy’s, that are not charged with the control of violent criminals, should be DISARMED except as to their personal arms that are guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Our taxes should not be going to pay for the arming of Government thugs. Even the BATF agent that inspects my business (I am a Federal Firearms licensee) does not wear an open carried firearm. He may carry concealed, but he doesnt carry openly as a threat. Many of our current bureaucracies arm their “inspectors” just to show how large their penises are!

“You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free.”

Jim Isbell

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/fo...full&id=168165

Reid Calls Bundy Supporters Domestic Terrorists; Federal Task Force Being Assembled

BY STEVE STRAUB ON APRIL 17, 2014 · 1 COMMENT · IN US, VIDEO


On Thursday Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) at a Las-Vegas Review Journal event claimed that supporters of Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against a BLM cattle round-up with guns and put their families lives at risk.

Reid was clear: “They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists. I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

He also revealed that a federal task force, which includes Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie , is being put together to deal with the Bundy Ranch situation.

Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States,” Reid said. “The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees. And he doesn’t follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority.”

“There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”Watch the latest Fox News report on this situation:



What do you think is going to happen next?

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...eing-assembled

What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle

Go back more than 20 years, and you’ll find a similar effort in the Clinton era to sacrifice 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat to Las Vegas area land developers, even as they set up restrictions on cattle ranchers including Cliven Bundy. As the Washington Post’s Tom Kenworthy documented in a March 21, 1993 article,

By Rich Noyes | April 17, 2014

The showdown between federal authorities and rancher Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters in Nevada is one of those rare topics from the libertarian-conservative news agenda that actually made its way into the establishment media. Between last Thursday and Monday, ABC, CBS and NBC gave the story a total of nearly 16 minutes of coverage on their morning and evening newscasts.

Network journalists have consistently framed the case as one of a rancher failing to pay the requested fees for his use of government land. But they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules — in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests (land developers, or solar companies) while hurting others (cattle ranchers, for example)
.
The networks have focused on the amount of money the government has demanded of Cliven Bundy, and let the Bundy side talk about the government’s heavy-handed tactics in seeking collection. On Saturday’s Good Morning America, for example, ABC’s Mike Boettcher framed the story this way: “For 20 years, rancher Cliven Bundy has refused to pay rent to herd his cattle on government land, $1.1 million in grazing fees.”

The next morning on NBC, Sunday’s Today included a soundbite from Bundy’s son, Ammon, talking about the intimidating force employed by federal agents: “They had the tasers, they had the weapons, they had the dogs, and we had nothing except us. We were almost equally numbered, and then they were the aggressors.”

Omitted from the network coverage: How cattle ranchers like Bundy have been victimized by federal government plans to protect the desert tortoise, and how the current showdown was provoked by an environmentalist lawsuit. As the Las Vegas Sun explained: “Things came to a head when environmentalists threatened to sue the agency to protect the endangered desert tortoise that lives on the land where Bundy’s cattle grazed. The BLM said Bundy’s cattle trampled the tortoise’s habitat.”

In their coverage of the Nevada showdown, neither ABC nor NBC ever acknowledged the role of regulations designed to protect the tortoise, while CBS’s Teri Okita in a Friday morning report included it as an afterthought: “Authorities want the cattle off this land for another reason: Environmentalists say it’s home to the endangered desert tortoise and it’s protected land.”

In fact, the tortoise is listed as a “threatened” species, not yet “endangered,” but it’s that designation (applied in 1989) which led to restrictions on cattle ranchers’ use of land in Nevada, California and Utah. And the federal government has for decades permitted some destruction of tortoise habitats if they like the project, while cracking down on others as they see fit.

As the Powerline blog has well-documented, the BLM has enforced these rules in ways that favor projects endorsed by federal bureaucrats, such as solar projects, while being tough on the cattle ranchers.

But go back more than 20 years, and you’ll find a similar effort in the Clinton era to sacrifice 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat to Las Vegas area land developers, even as they set up restrictions on cattle ranchers including Cliven Bundy. As the Washington Post’s Tom Kenworthy documented in a March 21, 1993 article (retrieved via Nexis, so no link):

Three years ago, with tortoise populations crashing largely because of habitat destruction across its range in Nevada, California, Arizona and Utah, the federal government added the tortoise to its list of threatened species. The designation immediately imperiled tens of millions of dollars worth of construction projects in this development-crazed city.

But it also triggered a novel experiment in the peaceful resolution of endangered species conflicts that is similar, in many respects, to the process Babbitt would like to try nationwide to defuse explosive development-versus-environment fights.

Employing a rarely used mechanism approved by Congress a decade ago, environmentalists, developers, government officials, cattlemen, miners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts began negotiating a “habitat conservation plan.” The hope was it would satisfy both the needs of the tortoise and the Las Vegas area’s rapacious appetite for development.

The result was a plan to protect the tortoise by providing vast tracts of federal land as a refuge while sacrificing other tortoise areas to development....

By mid-1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service had approved a short-term conservation plan that allows for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land south of the city. The plan is funded by development fees of between $ 250 and $ 550 an acre paid by builders. Almost $ 10 million has been raised so far.

Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land....

Cattlemen are particularly irate, and have gone to court to prevent grazing restrictions on BLM land now outside the tortoise management area, where the federal agency has tried to keep cattle from competing with tortoises for forage for three months in the spring. Ranchers like Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a “land grab,” are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.

The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It’s background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds — but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...-cattle-battle

Harry Reid and his family are up to something no good. Please SHARE!!!



Harry Reid Labels Supporters of Rancher Cliven Bundy ‘Domestic Terrorists’, Reveals Federal Task...

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) claimed on Thursday that armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists” and reckless individuals who put their...

THEBLAZE

#OccupyTheRanch: Rotating Shifts Have Commenced at Bundy Ranch

Added by Darla Dawald on April 17, 2014 at 10:54pm
View Videos



Ranch update from Michael Doyle: We need 30-50 men to man posts for guard duty and rotate shifts. We have a Field Kitchen and 3 meals a day if homeless Vets want to help We are occupying the Ranch for 3+ months.

http://patriotaction.net/video/video...sg_share_video

It is all about votes and bowing to the radical, city dwelling, environmentalists.

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Bundy Ranch Family vs. Big Gov., Big Green, Big Media

Written by William F. Jasper



“Hoofed locusts.” That’s how Sierra Cub founder John Muir saw domestic sheep and cattle. It is a term later adopted by Earth First! anarchist and “EcoWarrior” Edward Abbey and other radical enviro-actvists.

Muir, Abbey, and their ilk harbor equal (or, perhaps, greater) contempt for the farmers and ranchers who inflict the “hoofed locusts” on Mother Earth. The “locust” farmers/ranchers, like the “destructive” critters they produce, must be eradicated (humanely, of course), say the activists. That is why Cliven Bundy (shown) and his family’s ranch in Clark County, Nevada, are now in the headlines.

In the 1980s, a broad coalition of the major enviro-actvist groups targeted cattle ranching for extinction. Specifically, they initiated a multi-pronged, long-term plan to evict livestock from the vast “public lands” of the Western states. They planned to drive out all the ranchers by 1993, thus their slogan at the time: “Cattle Free by ’93.”

Some of that plan was detailed at a “Public Interest Law Conference” held March 7-10, 1991 at the University of Oregon School of Law in Eugene, Oregon.

A key presenter at the conference was Roy Elicker, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. Central to Elicker’s message was the point that ranchers could be driven off range, the “public lands," by simply driving them out of business with costly fees and regulations.

“In other words,” he told the conferees, “if you start making them pay their true cost of what they're doing, they're going to fold up. They can't — if they got to go out and move that cow around six times, by the time they're done, they've lost their shirt.”
So, the activists must work closely with the politicians and the federal and state agencies to make it too expensive for the ranchers to stay in business — force them into bankruptcy.

Elicker warned the attendees that they would not be able to accomplish this overnight; it was a plan that would take years, but would gradually yield big, permanent results.

Elicker stated:

So one of the keys is, when I talk about opportunities to make a difference, is not only the fact — you know, what everyone likes is the big victory. You load up them cattle trucks for the last time and it goes riding off into the sunset and they never come back.

That comment and vision for the future drew laughter and applause from the audience. Elicker continued:

But you can win a lot more victories than that ultimate one. You can win a lot more victories by making him pay for what he does out there and by making it so expensive in his operation and making all these changes for him to continue to run the cattle on the public lands, he goes broke.

The plan outlined by Elicker (and others) was implemented by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign (NPLGC) and other Big Green allies. A key component of that campaign has been to falsely portray ranchers such as the Bundys as “welfare ranchers.” Over the past couple of decades, the overall campaign has been very successful in driving many ranchers off the land.

“Crucify Them!”

Of course, this is the same strategy that was publicly announced by then-Senator Barack Obama, as he campaigned for the White House in 2008, when he assured his “green” backers that he would escalate the “war on coal.” Candidate Obama promised:

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Obama’s Region Six EPA Administrator Al Armendariz carried this philosophy to its logical conclusion, advocating that EPA officials use their “authority” with brutal efficiency. Armendariz said that his philosophy of enforcement “was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

According to Armendariz, you find folks who are not in compliance with the EPA’s constantly changing, draconian edicts, and “you hit them as hard as you can, make examples of them. There’s a deterrent there.”

The problem for Armendariz was that his comments were videotaped and went viral on the Internet, forcing him to tender a hasty resignation, in order to spare his boss political blowback. (To see a YouTube video of his remarks, click here.)
So it goes against all of the natural resource industries that are essential to sustaining a large, modern, industrialized society: farming, ranching, mining, logging, energy, fishing — all of these are under concerted, coordinated attack.

In the case of the current Bundy ranch/BLM conflict, one of the main hired guns of the Big Government/Big Green combine is the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). As one would expect, the wealthy urban green militants at CBD claim to be watching out for all of the furry, fluffy, feathery, scaley creatures whose habitats are threatened by the big, bad invasive species, Homo Ranchero.

KREM News, the CBS affiliate in Spokane, Washington, provide this short news item on the CBD connection:

Environmentalists accused the bureau of capitulating to threats of violence from armed Bundy supporters and urged them to pursue action against the rancher. "The BLM has a sacred duty to manage our public lands in the public interest, to treat all users equally and fairly," said Rob Mrowka, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Instead it is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own fiefdom." "The BLM is setting a dangerous precedent in announcing that it will pick and choose who has to follow federal laws and who it will reward for violating them," he added. [Bureau of Land Management spokesman Craig] Leff declined to comment, reiterating that the bureau's top concern was the safety of its employees and the public. In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy's cattle at the last minute.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...d2-cff77c5b26-

Fox News

In an exclusive first reaction to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's comments calling rancher Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters "domestic terrorists," Bundy stood his ground.



EXCLUSIVE: Rancher Cliven Bundy Hits Back After Reid Calls Family 'Domestic Terrorists'

Bundy said that he believes that Sen. Reid's words will only serve to rally more supporters to the ranch's cause.

FOX NEWS