If the Government were serious about the BLM/Nevada situation

[n2doc]

They could do what they have done to many citizens- confiscate the rancher's bank accounts, confiscate his social security payments, etc. All done with no possibility of him being able to rouse a militia or other group of crackpots. Suddenly, his money is gone. And with it, any hope of influencing people.

Just a thought.

[tularetom]

1. Well, they could also give him back the cows they took, apologize to him for the inconvenience,

and tell him to go ahead and keep stealing from the taxpayers.

Which appears to be pretty much what they have done.

[snappyturtle]

6. The government has spent more in this endeavor than Bundy owes. What is tells

me is that the BLM isn't very creative in their ability to retrieve what is owed them.

[ancianita]

26. Then that's bullshit. Did they really cave to this self-styled victim and his posse?

[defacto7]

88. I wonder who

gave the Sheriff permission or the right to negotiate for the US government in the place of the judicial system? Using the premise of this outcome, if this was what was done during the 1860's we would probably still have slavery in the South. There are times when the government can't just stand aside and allow vigilante rule or everyone's rights and the stability of America will be lost.

Although the ethical thing to do is to save lives, and I'm all for that, saving lives will not be the long term outcome of this. Therefore it was not a decision that will be in the interests of US justice; it just emboldens the so called militia and will set the stage for other, larger conflicts.

[jwirr]

113. They gave him the cows that were in the corral - 100 - they still have 500 they had already moved

out of the area. And I have not heard of any apology. The confiscation of accounts may still be coming. They should not only confiscate the accounts for the past debts but charge him for the cost of rounding up the cows including the law enforcement needed. Put a lien on his ranch.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. That might lead people to crash the banks and retirement system.

Especially coming on the heels of the story that the IRS is now coming after people whose parent's died with a tax debt. All your proposal does is scream that the Feds are not to be trusted with any pool of money. The obvious defense against that is for everyone who doesn't trust the government to withdraw their assets from any place the feds can find it. I can't help but think this would lead to a black market economy.

[n2doc]

4. Fine, let them

The nuts already feel that way. All I am saying is let's apply the same techniques that are already being applied to the drug war to this asshole.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "let's apply the same techniques that are already being applied to the drug war"

Cattle ranching is not cocaine trafficking.

By the way, you do know the drug war is an unmitigated failure, right?

[n2doc]

10. The law is the law

And until the drug war is ended, fair is fair.

and on edit: you think we should coddle this guy more than those whose parents/grandparents got overpayments from Social Security? Or who made errors in their taxes? Or who grew some pot for their friends? He should get special treatment because Hannity and Friends love him?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. "The law is the law"

Tell that to Rosa Parks. Tell that to every gay couple convicted under sodomy laws. Tell that to the small business owner who can't compete because the mega-corp that is off-shoring profits buys politicians to impose regulations and tax laws that the small business can't navigate and makes him uncompetitive.

[DanTex]

28. Rosa Parks? What?

How is some nutcase who is ripping of the Federal Government remotely comparable to Rosa Parks?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. The goons charge fees for a non-service

Nothing about the land has been improved or maintained by the BLM. But they charge fees and set limits on herd size that are so restrictive that dozens of families have had their livelihoods destroyed. Mrs. Parks was forced to sit in the back of a bus, an outrage to her rights as a human being. So too is destroying people's lives.

[DanTex]

103. It's the government's land, right?

That means it partly belongs to me, and I have no interest in letting this idiot free-load on my land. I would rather charge for it, and help lower everyone else's tax bill. Maybe you prefer letting people free-load, but apparently the democratically elected government agrees with me here.

I don't know any of the details of what the government does to maintain the land, or whether there are environmental concerns, or whatever. But that doesn't really matter. This isn't a discriminatory tax in any way -- not like a poll tax or anything like that. Like I said, I would rather not pay my taxes either. Not wanting to pay a tax doesn't rise to a civil rights concern.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. Your so-called democratically elected government also

gave us Jim Crowe, the drug war, corporate bail-outs and Iraq.

Fascism ain't cool, man.

[DanTex]

111. Right, but this has nothing to do with Jim Crowe. Or fascism.

This is about one guy who thinks he's above the law and should have free access to government land. Fascism? What?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. The land was just fine for a hundred years before the goons showed up.

They manufactured the environment for this when they stole the land. Governments don't own land except for specific purposes such as federal facilities. Everything else if theft from the people.

[KittyWampus]

117. So public parks, wildlife refuges is theft from the people? Your views are extremely libertarian.

And it's astounding.

I bicker with some DU'ers often… but it's usually just a difference in angle of attack or such.

Your views are anathema to a functioning government that operates to any degree with the Common Good as it's purpose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. people over government, not the other way around.

The BLM is not acting in the common good because no harm was being done to the public before the BLM stole the land.

[randr]

152. You need to do a bit of research as to what the BLM is

No way in hell did they steal the land. The family that has a lease with we the people have not paid the stippling fees they owe us.
What is now the land managed by the Bureau of Land Management was land owned by the citizens and specifically set aside by the Homestead Acts.
From this point on do you own research and discover some facts that most people should be aware of.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

153. "a lease with we the people have not paid the stippling fees they owe us."

The ranchers can keep my share.

[randr]

155. Out where I live our BLM managed public lands have many uses

Sometimes the uses conflict and the use goes to the highest bidder.
We have BLM land that is used for ranching, wildlife sanctuaries, recreation, logging, wild food foraging, hunting, and seasonal grazing just to name a few uses. Sometimes these uses conflict and the BLM in our area is our means of compromising the situations that arise.
Families that are descendants of original homesteaders often have a sense of propriety. The land in question was put aside for future generations and the use is managed by a very professional and caring group of people.

[elehhhhna]

163. you have no idea what you're talking about

let's all buy cattle and plop them on this "public" land. whoever has the biggest armed posse wins.


series.

[DanTex]

123. When did they steal the land? It's federal land.

It's funny, you'd think anti-goverment libertarian nutjobs would be able to understand the concept of property ownership. Sure, going back far enough, all the land was stolen from Native Americans. But I'm not going to try using that as an excuse to grow a for-profit vegetable garden on the Washington Mall.

We have a nation of laws, and everyone else pays the government to use government land except this one wacko who thinks he's above the law. If I used someone else's land to graze, I would expect to pay for it. But, more to the point, even if I didn't agree with a law, I wouldn't call up my militia buddies for armed resistance.

[catnhatnh]

135. Goons????

Your thought process is definitely fucked up on this one. Goons are people who gather in armed mobs and threaten the Federal Government. Those mobs are VERY lucky. If I were in charge I would read them (literally) the riot act and declare that any who failed to disperse were now in armed conflict against the United States. Then photographic drones would identify who stood confronting the government. Then I would release the cows and leave. And believe me I would be most inventive about tracking down the terrorists identified and would totally destroy and jail every one of them...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. Way to prove me right

[Jim Warren]

156. Not true at all

"Nothing about the land has been improved or maintained by the BLM."

The BLM uses grazing and usage fees to substantially improve access for the ranchers that use the land by building access roads and bridges, installing cattle guards and fencing and by monitoring the per head/per acre equation to prevent over-grazing.

[jwirr]

122. The old coot is not Rosa Parks and it is an insult to even suggest she is like him. He is not

fighting a civil rights issue - he is saying he has the right to steal our land because he rented it once. Also times have changed. There is a serious drought in that area now which has caused many farmers to sell off their herds because the land will no longer sustain them. Why does this not apply to public lands also? Are they supposed to ignore the fact that he is destroying the land by overgrazing?

This man did not win. When he has succeeded in destroying the land his cattle will be starving and then he will not get anything out of it. He simply decided that his way was right for him and ignored the need to protect the land. The turtle is one of the warning signs that things are not as healthy in the desert as they used to be. It is happening all over the SE and this old coot is failing to protect the land - he will not win that game.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. He's not stealing anything. Man, the BS people will shovel to justify authoritarianism.

[jwirr]

126. So we all have free access to public parks and other public owned buildings etc? That land is public

which means that we the people own it and when he thinks he does not need to pay the fees for years and can just keep using it what is that if not stealing? If he had not been told by the courts to pay up or get out I would agree with you but he knows he owes that money and refused to obey. The BLM has given him many chances to come up to snuff. This time was not different than any other time they acted against him except he threw a fit and got the backing of a bunch of armed idiots who also think it is okay to refuse to pay for what is not yours.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. The fees coupled with the limits on herd size are nothing more than

the means by which the goons force people off the land so it can be stolen. It costs $0.00 annually to maintain open range. The families managed just fine for over a hundred years, the turtles too, before the goons showed up.

I also doubt all those cheering the authoritarian goons would use the same "it's the law and the courts have said so" when it comes to bigot laws and the drug war.

[jwirr]

128. Those fees and regulations go back for hundreds of years. They are not johnny come lately plans

to keep ranchers from using the land.

By the way do you think that the drought has nothing to do with getting ranchers off this land NOW? Many ranchers and farmers who raise cattle are selling off their herds which is one reason why our beef costs art going up so far. I watched a farmer in NW IA overgraze is small farm to the point that the only thing that grew on the soil were weeds. I suspect that other ranchers have also been asked to cut the number of cattle grazing on public lands. And yes, many of those ranchers have gone under because they have only a small ranch they own just like bundy and they cannot survive without using the public lands for the small fee they pay. That is not good but it is happening. Until this drought gets over the land has to be cared for.

This is not so different than the 50s when the small farmers lost their farms because they did not adapt to the times. In that era it was economics and new techniques that drove them out of business today it is environment.

I am sensing that it does not matter what I say so I will not be posting on this issue again. Yes, it is not worth fighting about I am surrendering like the BLM did.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. More authoritarian apologizing BS

People do not surrender land every time there's a drought.

The families in that area have worked the land for generations before the goons showed up.

It's a manufactured situation. Screw the goons.

[snappyturtle]

164. Read:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/clark-county-officials-lament-spending-157-million-desert-tortoises

Clark County has spent at least $15.7 million since 2001 on efforts to protect the tortoise, which is listed as a threatened species by the federal government. Those efforts run the gamut from fencing to habitat restoration to sampling efforts to gauge the population.

County officials don’t have anything personal against the tortoise. But they also point to estimates that show some 50,000 desert tortoises are kept as pets in Clark County alone and openly question if the creature is as threatened as the federal government maintains.

“We’ve got people that are starving and such massive needs that we can’t keep pouring money into this,” commission Chairman Steve Sisolak said.

The broader issue of spending on the desert tortoise arose last week at the commission meeting during a routine approval of a $125,250 contract amendment with NewFields Companies for work in sampling the tortoise population at Boulder City Conservation Easement, an 86,423-acre area south of Boulder City.

more...

[Jesus Malverde]

84. Thats silly.

"And until the drug war is ended, fair is fair. "

Until the drug war is ended, wrong is wrong.

I'm surprised anyone would want to spread that cancer into other areas of our lives. The war on terror is bad enough.

[nationalize the fed]

17. The Drug War was one of the most successful big government programs ever initiated

How else do you get a "free" people to not only give up their civil liberties and rights, turn on themselves, spread hate, give the pharmaceutical companies a monopoly on ingredients and get the proles to pay for it all?

[jwirr]

116. While this was a big thing here on DU I don't think most of the US is interested enough to give

the old coot and his posse that much power.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. I'm not talking about Bundy in that post. I'm referring to an overall public distrust.

[jwirr]

124. Okay, but I did not want a silly range war either so IMO this was better and allows for something

else to be done in the future. I cannot remember it but there is an old military saying about retreating to fight again.

[snappyturtle]

3. I think if Bundy had truly wanted to instigate the militias they would

have been there from the get go on March 27th per the Federal Register:


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-27/pdf/2014-06826.pdf

I did not see armed protesters before those that arrived last night, April 11th, and this morning. The confrontation with BLM that was viral certainly did not show armed protests....unless cell phones and a shoulder mounted camera is considered threatening arms. As far as the armed ones showing up....that's what they do. I doubt they needed any prodding from Bundy. imho

[politicman]

7. What do you think would have happened if this was a Muslim Militia?

I can only imagine what would have happened if this Militia was made up of Muslims.

What do you think would have happened if it was a Muslim Militia?

Do you think that if OWS had guns and camped out in Times Square, it would have ended peacefully?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "Do you think that if OWS had guns and camped out in Times Square, it would have ended peacefully?"

If the government used deadly force to evict OWS it would have been a moral outrage. I did not support OWS at the time (I'm seriously re-thinking that now) but nothing the Occupy movement did was worthy of wholesale violence.

[n2doc]

13. wrong post n/t

[politicman]

20. The government used pepperspray and arrests to break up OWS who was non-threatening, yet a armed..

group gets their way.
What lesson do you think most people are taking from this?

So if a new OWS movement armed themselves and parked themselves in Times Square, would you support the feds not doing anything about it?

Because remember, an armed group occupying federal land is the same as a mini-invasion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. "What lesson do you think most people are taking from this?" I hope the lesson is --

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

So if a new OWS movement armed themselves and parked themselves in Times Square, would you support the feds not doing anything about it?

Yes.

Because remember, an armed group occupying federal land is the same as a mini-invasion.

Unless the fed is occupying the land for a specific purpose under its purview, i.e. military installation or national park GIFTED by the owning state; then the fed should not be entitled to declare ownership. The current scheme is no better than the old English monarchies declaring land to be the king's land and any peasant hunting or foraging was punished. That led to the peasants being forced into starvation.

Down with kings.

[politicman]

42. you want a world where an armed group can just claim land as their own without paying for it?

Oh so under your logic, any armed person has the right to just camp themselves out on federal land and claim it as their own?

You don't think that the government that is elected by the people every 2 and 4 years has the right to stop people from just walking around armed to the teeth and declaring that any land they want is now theirs?

Seriously, do you want a country where militias can arm themselves and claim land as their own. cause you know there would be no need for a government anymore. there would be no need for law enforcement anymore.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. "you want a world where an armed group can just claim land as their own without paying for it?"

You're describing the feds to a tee.

You don't think that the government that is elected by the people every 2 and 4 years has the right to stop people from just walking around armed to the teeth and declaring that any land they want is now theirs?

1. Elections notwithstanding, the feds promulgate hundreds of thousands of regulations that no citizen can possibly obey, no matter how much a citizen may want to honestly obey. The government is, for all practical purposes, publishing law in secret and using it to enrich their patrons and increase their power.

2. Except the ranchers haven't declared the lands for their exclusive use. At no time have the ranchers denied any other citizen use of the public land.

[politicman]

62. what about oil companies and federal land, do they have the right ot claim that from the gov?

The government of the day does what it is allowed to do.
If people don't like the government, they elect a new one at the next election, isn't that the whole idea behind a democracy.

Many people never agreed with the Iraq war, but those people would not have used their guns to try and stop the Congress from passing the authorization for war.


Look, just because these guys never officially declared the land as theirs, makes no difference.
A court made an order, Feds wanted to enforce that order, guys with guns came from outside and stood in the way of that order being carried out, ergo, their armed stance claimed the land as theirs.


There are many federal lands that the oil companies would love to be able to drill in, if they organized their own armed militia would it be ok in your eyes if they used that Militia to protect them so they could drill into those federal lands?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. "Feds wanted to enforce that order"

With snipers. F the fed and their militarized police force.

By the way, you do realize that you're making an appeal to obedience to law for no reason other than the fact it is the law to someone who has an anarchist A as her avatar, right?

Look, just because these guys never officially declared the land as theirs, makes no difference.

It does if you're accusing them of doing something that they're not doing.

There are many federal lands that the oil companies would love to be able to drill in, if they organized their own armed militia would it be ok in your eyes if they used that Militia to protect them so they could drill into those federal lands?

Take the land away from the feds and give it back to the states and counties.

they elect a new one at the next election

That's BS and you know it. Federal agencies are passing thousands of regulations every year. No national debate by elected reps. No one can keep up with all that crap but sure as the sun rises goons with guns haul you off to jail all the same.

Do you really think you're arguing in favor of a civil society? You're not. You're playing cobbler for the people who will put the boot to your neck.

[politicman]

68. answer my wquestion please.

No I am arguing for the rule of law to be upheld.

There are many laws that I and others disagree with, would you support anyone if they decided they would not obey a law they don't agree with.

If you don't like a law you work to get it changed, arming yourself and disobeying a law and getting away with it, sets a precedent that anyone can do as they wish as long as they are willing to use their arms if it came to it.

Whats the point of having law enforcement then?

Answer my question please, if I started an oil company and went to federal lands and started drilling their, would you support my right to just start drilling where ever I wanted because I thought the Federal government has no right to stop drilling on public lands?

What about if I grabbed some mates and decided we could do what ever we wanted on public roads? would that be ok with you?

[AnalystInParadise]

70. The good news is

I nor my fellow soldiers would ever comply with an order to shoot American citizens. I will let the people disobey before I will take up arms against them, fortunately nearly all military members feel the same.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. What would you have done in 1957?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_Integration_of_Central_High_School

What about your Oath of Enlistment?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

[SQUEE]

154. obeyed a LAWFUL order.

And yes still do it, even "against my conscience", but a use of US military against American civilians, ON US soil is an unlawful act and I would refuse to move against the American people.

Post MyLai, we have a training regarding Lawful Orders under UCMJ.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Decide what laws you are willing to kill for.

if I started an oil company and went to federal lands and started drilling their, would you support my right to just start drilling where ever I wanted because I thought the Federal government has no right to stop drilling on public lands?

If the government seized your land and gave it to a corporation would you shrug it off and walk away? It's already happening, i.e. Kelo V New London; and that's not a hypothetical.

How about: the SEC is supposed to protect the investors from bad/fraudulent investments. Not only did they fail to do that they took the people's tax money (read: those who never invested in the first place) and gave it to the very criminals who broke this much ballyhooed Law of yours.

The BLM isn't protecting the people. The pigs aren't protecting society, they're protecting they're power and their patrons. The law is rigged. They will trample the people until the people stand firm.

We can do this back and forth all night long (actually, no we can't, my Lover Boy will be home soon and he's a lot more "entertaining&quot . At the end of the day the question becomes: What will you kill to enforce. Cattle grazing on public land is not one of those things. If it's not worth killing for than the law is moot. Nor is it worth killing in the name of the law for nothing more than the sake of the law.

[creeksneakers2]

102. Nobody gets killed for grazing cattle

on public land. They get killed for using armed force against the government, which is the agent of the people.

The BLM is managing public land for the public. Part of that job is guarding against encroachments.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. "the government, which is the agent of the people."

Oh man, where have you been for the last five thousand years?

[agbdf]

43. I wasn't for OWS either

I went down and checked out OWS. There were some really nice people there. I am certainly sympathetic to their cause and hope that we address the economic inequality in this country soon. There were also some real nutjobs. There were people talking about guillotines and revolution. Also, almost all of the leadership was from the fringe left - Communists as well as one flavor of socialism or another. There was also vandalism and destruction of private property.

As a Pacifist, I can't condone violence against persons or property. I'm a proud liberal Democrat. I'm not a radical. My parents taught me three things: 1) Always vote Democratic; 2) Never cross a picket line and: 3) Always look for the good in others. A number of the OWS types that I saw weren't really focused on seeing the good in others or looking for non-harmful solutions.

[snappyturtle]

18. I think the BLM would have tiptoed had it been an American Muslim citizenry

that showed up. The consequences of turning on them would have sent reverberations around the world. As for OWS...if carried legally (I don't know NY gun laws) what more could they have done? We're all so afraid of the police these days and in many cases that fear is rational....but maybe if the police had something to fear they wouldn't be as aggressive. I honestly can't believe I'm saying this but I think it's time to stand up.

[politicman]

23. I can guarantee if this militia were muslim, not one of them would be alive right now

Firstly, I can guarantee you that if it was an armed Muslim Militia, no tip-toeing would occur, it would be straight in and use deadly force, ffs they would probably bring in the army to deal with it.

As for OWS, as it was they were harassed and arrested even though they were peaceful, so imagine if they had of been armed.

But maybe you are right, next time you don't want to follow a law, just grab a couple hundred of your mates and mak sure to arm yourselves, it looks like the government will let you get away with it.

If you are a wing nut militia that is, I would caution anyone else against doing thaty cause you won't live to see tomorrow if you tried it.

[snappyturtle]

31. /////////////

People have a right to lawfully carry a gun....get over it. Personally, I don't find that comforting in many circumstances but that's the way it is. Maybe protestors ought to get a hold of some pepper spray....just sayin'..........

[politicman]

39. you really think so?

Yes, people have the right to carry guns, but when those people are holding those guns and standing in the way of a law being followed, you don't see that as a problem?

Maybe a Muslim Militia should arm themselves and go camp out in the heart of some federal land? Would you be in favour of that?

[snappyturtle]

47. Let's drop the Muslim b.s. Why is that even coming up? I did not see the people with

arms blocking or confronting the BLM. Do you have videos of that? I don't think they were carrying to confront law enforcement but to protect themselves. Amen.

[politicman]

60. i have to admire how you can keep yourself so deliberately naive.

Haha, please read what you write before you post it because you sound absurd.


You think that a group of 200-300 people coming from outside to and holding guns on federal land is not a threatening action?

The Feds want to enforce a court order, people with guns come from outside and the Feds are just supposed to think that these people are there to have a good time and not defend this rancher with armed weapons.


Yeah, and pigs can fly. ha

[snappyturtle]

66. I just try to keep an even keel without injecting factors that haven't

happened. I think you have alarmist tendencies. If any party was confrontational it was the Feds with their dogs, tasers, road block, heavy equipment, free speech pens, no fly zone, etc. The people took a stand. Period. It worked. NOW, maybe civility will take hold and the matter will be settled as it should have been two decades ago.

[AnalystInParadise]

58. LOL

what color is the sky in your bizarro world............

[AnalystInParadise]

65. Really?

n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. You can't guarantee anything of the sort.

For. Fuck's. Sake. Get real.

[MohRokTah]

29. 300 armed to the teeth Muslims demanding the federal government roll over to their political will???

And you seriously do not believe the government would not have wiped out every last one of them????

Seriously? You do realize you are living in a post 9/11 Murka, right?

[snappyturtle]

41. LOL! You have a great imagination. Number one, this isn't Fantasy World.

Number two,'armed to the teeth'....with what...cell phones and holstered firearms?????????? Please submit the list of demands....I haven't heard.

[creeksneakers2]

104. The right wing media

have been promoting the confrontation as the next Waco.

[AnalystInParadise]

59. The government would have done nothing

There have been plenty of Muslim protests in the U.S., a few in Michigan turned semi-violent. I am still waiting for the imagery of AC-130's gunning down Muslims, would you care to share the link with the rest of us?

[cherokeeprogressive]

114. You stir some serious shit for someone who's been here two days.

[ancianita]

27. Muslims would respect the legality of public owned lands and moved their cattle. Period.

[MohRokTah]

30. There is that. eom

[snappyturtle]

44. Where would they move them to? nt

[Jack for Sanders]

5. Are you saying that you think he paid people to show up in support?

I understand the sentiment, but I doubt ruining him financialy would defuse the situation.

It would just feed the RWNJ's already paranoid hatred and distrust of the FEDS.

[n2doc]

8. I don't think he paid them

But it would not matter if the grazing fees/fines were removed directly from his bank accounts.

[Texasgal]

12. Why are people posting about this being "over" ?

This is is just the beginning of what will become. I agree with gov's response. No violence. Much more to come! This is just a wrinkle!

[MohRokTah]

15. I hear you.

I just do not buy that this is not over.

[Timez Squarez]

14. Actually I was thinking that Bundy family should not be allowed out of their

property until all cattle has been culled down to 125 per the original agreement and sold off to pay off the debts.

The militia will not be allowed near the Bundy compound. Any violators will be contained without any questions.

Bundy family will be dead by then.

Then we can repossess everything.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Are you seriously proposing to starve people to death?

if not, then you need to put some more thought into the wording of your post.

[Timez Squarez]

21. Well if he can live off the land

then he doesn't need the government.

He has not paid taxes in 20 years. Why should he continue to steal from us?

[snappyturtle]

24. What's of value here is not the herd or the grazing fees it's the land.

At worst he has joined the ranks of many corporations who don't pay their "fees" either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Why is the government charging taxes to graze cattle on fallow ground?

And doing so to the point that families are losing their livelihoods?

Bundy isn't the only one. Dozens of families in that area have been forced from their multi-generational homes. The only reason for government to exist to protect families and livelihoods. If the government cannot operate without destroying families and livelihoods then the government loses its legitimacy.

Why should he continue to steal from us?

He hasn't taken anything from you. If anything the feds have taken land from the state of Nevada and its people.

[ancianita]

32. The feds have done no such thing. Nevada abdicated its responsibility for land management and turned

it over to we the people to manage at our -- yours and my -- expense. Our tax money, not Nevada's, has kept Western lands maintained to prevent forest fires and preserve wildlife.

[DanTex]

36. Umm, yeah, I'd rather not pay my taxes either.

But if taxes were optional, the country would collapse. Plenty of people manage to survive while paying their taxes, I don't see why having a private militia at his disposal should make this guy any different.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. It's fallow ground. Annual cost to the government to maintain: $0.00

But if taxes were optional, the country would collapse.

You're absolutely right. Taxes are optional -- for the patrons of the system -- and, yes, the country is collapsing because of it.

[alarimer]

75. It's habitat for some endangered species.

He has NO RIGHT to use that land. It belongs to ALL of us, not one right-wing piece of shit who won't even pay his taxes.

If you don't pay your taxes, your land should be confiscated and you should be thrown in jail.

[AnalystInParadise]

78. Crappy argument...

tens of thousands of acres in California that protect the same tortoise have Abrams Tanks, Bradleys, Army trucks and thousands of soldiers driving and walking all over tortoise habitat every single month for the last 30 years. And the Army is far more destructive than cows eating grass.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. He hasn't declared sole ownership of the land

He isn't denying anyone the right to be on the land. That would be the BLM.

And the fees with the restrictions on herd size are nothing more than a two-pronged scheme to force the local families into bankruptcy. The policies haven't preserved the turtles, they've only destroyed people's lives. The goons forget their place as public servants.

[creeksneakers2]

105. Hurting people is not the objective

What is best for this handful of people is not necessarily what is best for the public. The land is managed for the public, not a few ranchers. If the public wants to use the land for a turtle sanctuary they have a right to.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. "The land is managed for the public, not a few ranchers."

What a pants load.

[snappyturtle]

52. I basically agree with you altho the land, way back, wasn't state owned. However,

I am confused that Clark County is now considering who to sell the land that they tentatively sold to the Chinese (ENN?)for the solar plant. Maybe Clark County bought it from the feds....it's all a bit mysterious.

I hope that in the future Nevada adopts the Desert Tortoise as it's state animal and has to endure GMO fed beef like most of us do.

[ancianita]

35. Starve to death? He's a fucking millionaire cattleman! Puh-lease.

[Timez Squarez]

45. And he should pay the damn million dollars

and go fade into obscurity.

[ancianita]

46. Agreed. But he's got 'range war' issues.

[Logical]

37. Barricade yourself in your house tonight and call the police. See how that goes for you. Starving...

would not be a concern.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. You're weird.

[Logical]

51. Nice user name. And I am weird? LOL! nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Irony is ironic. And there's actually a story behind the name.

You, on the other hand, are proposing an entirely bizarre, self-destructive course of action without purpose.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. They would be starving themselves to death.

They are free to surrender any time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. Yes, because a few hundred cattle grazing on hundreds of thousands of acres of fallow land

is such a dire threat to the union we have to surround them until they surrender or succumb. If the feds walk away and stay away absolutely no bad thing will happen.

If this was Bush pulling this fascist crap everybody would be calling this fascist crap out for the fascist crap that it is. Thankfully, Obama -- whether by intervention or declining to force the issue -- has proven himself a sensible man.

[SwankyXomb]

73. Wow.

Hey, if I need you to move some goalposts for me, which Koch brother should I call for a quote?

[snappyturtle]

22. There was an offer but no 'agreement'. Well, let's just institute martial law and

be done with it.

[ancianita]

34. No such thing happens with the Bureau of Land Management, full of hard working people like us.

They've put up with his squatting long enough, but are not equipped to drive herds of this magnitude out. This was a cheap attempt by entitled fed haters to start a land war over land that owned by we the people. I get your sarcasm, but the general public shouldn't put up with millionaire cattlemen who want to teach some guys in the BLM a lesson.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. "to start a land war over land that owned by we the people."

1. Bundy hasn't claimed ownership of the land, anyone else is free to also use the land.

2. It was the BLM goon squad that was arresting people for going onto public lands.

[creeksneakers2]

106. Everyone else is not free to use the land

The public would like it to be used as a tortoise sanctuary and Bundy claims his supposed rights trump those of the BLM.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. Define "the public"

My guess is it's a bunch of people who don't live within a thousand miles of the place and aren't having their livelihoods destroyed. I also doubt "the public" ever knew of the regulation let alone debated it. I'll wager that fewer still believe it's worth deploying militarized goon squads.

[ancianita]

130. No, they're not free. Use permits that have to be obtained; also, there are trespass laws.

Any enforcement section of a department doesn't have to be spun as a "goon squad" just because you want to support some cowboy scofflaw who can't deal as an adult with the public's own land managers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. Unless the government has a specific declared purpose for the land

They are stealing from the people. The government is just confiscating land. They have no legitimate interest. They certainly aren't protecting it for the people because they're kettling people trying to observe them.

[ancianita]

133. Cite your legal links or knock off the FOX propaganda here. The state would've claimed it

years ago and you're dissing the agreement that Nevada's capitol has with the BLM.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. Did Nevada agree to snipers and having peoples multi-generational ranches

forced into ruin? Screw the goons.

[ancianita]

137. This idiot overgrazed how own land and ruined his own business. Screw his entitled demand

for free use of the public's land and HIS goons. Get over it.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

[Nuclear Unicorn]

138. He has 160 acres. Ranches typically runs ~1,000 head to be viable.

Ranches use open range. It has ever been thus.

Screw the goons.

[ancianita]

139. Wrong. He can buy more land. You can stop screwing with "it has ever been thus." Screw HIS goons.

That scofflaw coot. And screw your ignorance of land use laws by BLM permit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

140. The ranchers graze their herds on the open range in common

It's what they do because they understand that if the land were parceled-up then everybody's ability to graze their herds would be impacted. Some ranches near where I live have 900+ acres, others use open range. In Bunkerville they have traditionally grazed on open range.

The goons lost, the people won.

[ancianita]

141. Silly win/loss theater with your nyah nyah 'I'm rubber you're glue' bullshit... you're on the wrong

side -- where scofflaws "call" a non-violent govt.response a "win" just because they've stolen for so long they think they can make up the rules now. These local goons have lost both the legal battle and the long term war. The nation's people are the winners, not these local trespassers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. If the governemnt wanted a non-violent response they shouldn't have

brought snipers to deal with cattle grazing. That is what set people off.

The ranchers operated for generations without a problem. It wasn't until a bunch of overweight, overpaid, over-armed testosterone junkies with badges and briefcases showed-up that there was ever a problem.

[ancianita]

144. Read the court order and stop looking for bullies in the wrong places. READ.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. There are all kinds of court decisions

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson
Kelo v New London
Citizens United

Is there anyone in particular you're referring to?

[ancianita]

146. The one I linked you several posts ago. Here. Again.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

Cite all the SCOTUS you want. At least each case was fought legally, and have been respected, right or wrong, without vigilante war rhetoric and guns. No, the BLM didn't "start" it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

147. "At least each case was fought legally, and have been respected"

Some things are not worthy of respect --

[ancianita]

149. Fale equivalence argument. Now you're acting like a troll. I knew the Civil Rights Era. You trying

here to equate the public land grab by an individual for his own profit asserts personal license in no way equates with basic freedoms fought for in the Civil Rights Era. Your stubborn clinging to a side and flinging anything to fend of reasoning -- just like that old coot, Bundy, is getting tedious.

You know what? You're too stuck in anti-government, 2A beliefs to use comparison/contrasts relevantly, too simple to understand competing interests, law and order, basic civics and victim/bully psychology. You're a waste of my time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. "land grab by an individual"

If you can't argue without distorting the facts you've already lost.

no way equates with basic freedoms fought for in the Civil Rights Era.

People have a right to peaceably live their lives without the goon squads charging excessive fees and limiting herd sizes to force them off their land. Nothing that the goon squads pretend to be fighting for requires pointing sniper rifles. Their military tactics are no different than the police dogs.

[ancianita]

151. Here. Tell these guys. Let's see what they think of your thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024816635


And join in here, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024816638

[kelly1mm]

38. By what authority would the US Government say that a milita person (or non-militia person)

could not travel across public lands/roads to a private property?

Let's say that I was invited there. Under what law do you believe the government could cite that would give them the ability/authority to restrict my travel there?

[ancianita]

143. Who invited you. Why would they ever restrict your travel on BLM land? It's full of roads, anyway.

What's your worst case scenario -- you think your very presence breaks a law? Heh heh...

The BLM regulates activities in hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating, hang gliding, shooting, off-highway vehicle driving, mountain biking, birding, and visiting natural and cultural heritage sites. The BLM also regulates logging, mining, fracking and other activities.


The BLM administers 205,498 miles (330,717 km) of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres (8,900 km2) of lakes and reservoirs, 6,600 miles (10,600 km) of floatable rivers, over 500 boating access points, 69 National Back Country Byways, and 300 Watchable Wildlife sites.

The BLM also manages 4,500 miles (7,200 km) of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreational Trails, as well as thousands of miles of multiple use trails used by motorcyclists, hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers.

I cross the Gila to get to family in Silver City. I've crossed all kinds of BLM lands around the Grand Canyon area and the Four Corners. Big Deal.

[CK_John]

40. To me this was a honeypot operation to scope out the the militia strength.

[2naSalit]

89. An interesting

preponderance.


It is one way to smoke 'em out of their tunnels.

But it really is about an issue that is long overdue in action.

[Taitertots]

54. If they were serious they would send enough troops to quell the insurection

[AnalystInParadise]

67. And hopefully

my fellow soldiers would refuse orders to shoot American citizens. Good Christ, do you hear yourself? The rancher is wrong and needs to be dealt with, but you want soldiers to quell the rebellion. Unreal.

[Taitertots]

71. "Dealt with" How? Asking him nicely?

I should hope our soldiers don't commit treason and support open insurrection.

[AnalystInParadise]

81. It would be treason

to shoot American citizens. Perhaps you should read the oath........Fortunately I have no doubts about my peers. Any government official of any political party that orders the military to shoot civilians is committing treason. FORTUNATELY our government knows what is right and wrong and will never order the military to do this. Local law enforcement or State Police? Yeah no problem.

[Taitertots]

93. Perhaps YOU should read the oath...

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

Suppressing insurrection is the duty of the US military. Not corrupt local officials that support this traitor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. You surely have heard of SWAT right?

And ERT? I hope

By the way, the US Army has now a unit dedicated precisely for civil insurrections. I know and you know that this is not something to relish, and that it violates Posse Commitatus, but if enough people take up arms and shoot at Federal Agents, the Governor has the option of calling the Guard in. This has been done in the past, with Posse in the books.

The Feds also have the opportunity to federalize that Guard, read the history of where the 101 ended up during the 1950s. So yes, there is plenty of precedent.

Oh and if you have an open insurrection, I expect the US army to be used. I don't relish that thought, but I expect it. It is US History...that informs this.

For the record, I think the US government made a serious mistake and you too can go visit certain well known far right places on the web to read their take on this.

[AnalystInParadise]

79. The person I responded to said troops

not cops. Cops are fine in this case. NOT SOLDIERS. The vast majority of my peers would turn their guns on anyone Republican or Democrat if that person asked them to open fire American citizens. And I know all about the unit Nadin, it is the 4th Brigade here at Fort Bliss, I train them on ethics and intelligence gathering, among other things. The U.S. military is NEVER to be used against its own citizens, I don't care who is President, that is wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Let me give you a couple links that will get you started into just one time that the Army

were used in the united states against civilians after the civil war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Coal_Wars

So I would never, ever say that this would never happen and that troops would not obey orders.

There is no doubt in my mind that a percentage of troops will disobey orders, but not enough to make a difference. If in the judgement of the Commander in Chief troops need to deploy during an internal insurrection, they will deploy. Even more if that internal insurrection leads to any of these groups declaring secession from the United States. At that point, LEGALLY, they are no longer citizens but in open rebellion.

And many folks do confuse the term troops as only applying to the military. Given that police is considered a paramilitary organization under international law, I will leave it at that.

[AnalystInParadise]

86. The AVA

is not the same as the Army in your links. You might find a few soldiers per platoon to follow these orders, but I would bet my salt that I have a good pulse on the Army after 20 years serving. Most of us would turn our guns on whoever ordered us to shoot civilians. If they engage in OPEN ATTACKS then I don't disagree. But in Nevada the only violence I saw was from the BLM, under those circumstances soldiers would never attack civilians.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. And NONE is calling the army for that

we are not talking of the same scale. I am talking of precisely what the FAR RIGHT WING wants and is working towards, an open rebellion against the government of the United States. I am not shitting you. That is what they have been working towards for a long time.

If they ever achieve it, mark my words, the United States Army will be deployed (again) inside the United States and will be ordered to shoot. Civilians will die, as collateral damage or due to the fact that some of these folks will use them as human shields, or because the army will start to see all as a potential enemy (like any good civil war)

That is why some of us are NOT looking forwards to that. What happened today was not good, at all. It just gave that group wings. Go read the sites, it is not pretty.

[AnalystInParadise]

159. The AVA

will not shoot. Until such time as I am disproven, I have nothing to change my mind about. And YES Nadin, several DUers were calling for Apaches, Abrams and Bradleys in the other threads to put this "rebellion" down. I don't give two shits what a bunch of masturbating to the potential apocalypse militia members say on their blogs, they are irrelevant. And the U.S. Army would sooner turn its weapons on anyone that asks them to shoot civilians then they would actually carry out those orders. The people are our bosses, not the politicians.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. I posted this in the wrong thread

nadinbrzezinski (132,535 posts)
160. Did you forget the part about DOMESTIC enemies?

in that oath?

Really, you did.

Open rebellion is considered treason, one of the few things that actually are.

I suspect you will be surprised if we have an open rebellion though. And that is all I have to say.

As to Apaches and Bradleys, not Apaches, but civilian forces have in their hands APCs (mostly second hand) and Blackhawks. (As per the FBI ERT), So it guess you would have no problem if the FBI ERT used all the fire power in their arsenal.

There are days.

[rudolph the red]

166. By none, do you mean no one?

Your remark is kind of confusing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Oh and I hate to give them the traffic, but here is some

of the lovely material circulating among these people

Sheriff Mack travels with other CSPOA members, Oathkeepers & State Legislators to stand with Nevada rancher against the BLM …
Many of you have called or emailed regarding the storm brewing between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. We all know how we feel about the all-too-frequent bullying of individual citizens by various Feds with their usurped, unconstitutional powers. It’s an epidemic that must be stopped.

Well, we want you to know we ARE doing something about it, and thankfully this time we’re not alone. Sheriff Mack is leaving early Saturday morning for an emergency trip to Bunkerville, Nevada, along with other members of the CSPOA posse (hopefully that’s some of you!) to stand vigil and find a peaceful resolution to this conflict (i.e., the feds going home).

State Senate President Andy Biggs and House of Reps Speaker Dave Livingston have both agreed that Arizona should be involved in supporting CSPOA and Oath Keepers in going to Bunkerville, NV to support the movement for freedom there with the Cliven Bundy family. State Senators Al Melvin, Chester Crandall, and Kelly Ward along with State Reps Brenda Barton, Bob Thorpe, Kelly Townsend and Warren Peterson are all planning to be at the Bundy ranch by Sunday morning. Furthermore, they all plan to attend the Press Conference Monday afternoon with the CSPOA and Oath Keepers along with the Bundys and other sheriffs and public officials from across the country.

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/avn-bundy-ranch-update-sheriff-mack-oathkeepers-more/

I will just give you the tittle on this one

Militias Are On Route: Is the 2nd American Revolution Starting in Bunkerville, Nevada? -

See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/militias-are-on-route-is-the-2nd-american-revolution-starting-in-bunkerville-nevada_042014#sthash.hkL8spKl.dpuf

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/avn-bundy-ranch-update-sheriff-mack-oathkeepers-more/

It is pretty self explanatory.

There is a lot more of this crap out there. The sad part is that since I have followed this crap for DECADES now, I knew what they were saying before looking for you.

[AnalystInParadise]

82. I have no issue with Cops, SWAT

or State Police doing anything. My objection is the military angle. Tanks, Bradleys and Apaches nor U.S. soldiers should ever be used in this manner. One or two here have advocated that, any order I ever receive to open fire on American citizens will result in me turning my gun on whoever gave that order. That doesn't make me less of a Democrat or a Closet Republican, it makes me an American soldier (or in my case a retired one) who will never attack my own citizens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Ironically that has happened a few times

when those orders have been issued.

And that is the stance the Oath Keepers take.

[AnalystInParadise]

87. A broken clock is right twice a day

I have no truck or sympathy for the Oath Keepers, but if they believe it is wrong to follow orders to attack civilians I won't disagree with them. Let me try again: Save your breath, there is almost no situation that could come about where soldiers followed orders to shoot civilians. There are a few caveats, but very few. Most likely anyone giving those orders would be looking down the barrels of almost every weapon in the unit that was given that order. Political party becomes irrelevant when soldiers are asked to violate their oath, their conscience and morality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. And if you have what they want, a civil war

then those folks become internal enemies, and in open rebellion and committing treason in the full legal meaning of the word.

So think about that, because that is what a few on the far right WANT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Did you forget the part about DOMESTIC enemies?

in that oath?

Really, you did.

Open rebellion is considered treason, one of the few things that actually are.

I suspect you will be surprised if we have an open rebellion though. And that is all I have to say.

As to Apaches and Bradleys, not Apaches, but civilian forces have in their hands APCs (mostly second hand) and Blackhawks. (As per the FBI ERT), So it guess you would have no problem if the FBI ERT used all the fire power in their arsenal.

There are days.

[Jesus Malverde]

55. They could also get the money when the cattle is sold at market.

Treating a civil issue with civil court remedies is novel.

Imagine if this was a dispute over an OIL lease or Fracking...

Could you ever imagine such a side show.

I think the most outrageous aspect of the whole episode is they set up a doggone "First Amendment area".

That is an one of the most disgusting creations of the Bush Era. A pox to our democracy.

[cheapdate]

57. I absolutely believe the BLM is justified

in removing his cattle which have been illegally grazing on public land for twenty years. Despite Bundy's ludicrous beliefs that the government of the United States is a fictional entity, that the federal courts have no authority over him, that Article 2 of the US Constitution -- which grants that "[t]he 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" -- doesn't apply to federal land in Nevada, whatever he believes, he can't simply go on ignoring the law and using public land as if it was solely his own without regard to what the law, the public, or the authorities have to say. There is nothing unjust about requiring someone who uses public land, public infrastructure, or public resources to compensate the public for that use. And no one can simply use public land however he wishes.

As much as I'd love to simply move into one of the empty cabins in Cade's Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and start grazing sheep there, I can't simply declare that I don't recognize the authority of the Park Service or the federal courts and then move in without expecting to be forcibly removed.

Shame on this deadbeat for trying to welch out of paying the modest grazing fees required to use public land and then trying to justify his actions with preposterous arguments. Pay the damn fee like every one else, deadbeat. It's publicly owned land -- my land.

F#ck this guy. He's like some deadbeat stealing from the power company with an illegal tap and then waving guns around at the service workers who come out to disconnect him.

[dflprincess]

69. It would be interesting to hear from the ranchers' who are playing by the rules

and paying their leases for using the land.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many trying to make this jerk into a martyr if his peer group weighed in against him.

[snappyturtle]

165. What we forget to ask is why in 1993 Bundy decided not to any longer pay

the lease fees. A lot was going on....extreme growth in Clark County and the unfortunate timing of putting the Desert Tortoise on the endangered species list. With that listing came ranching restrictions forcing many out.

There is an excellent explanation in a few short pages on a Google Books site. Pull this book up and scroll way down to page 162 and start reading. The pages are short but full of info about what was going on at the time. The second link I've posted before but it has to make one think.

As far as to what other lease paying ranchers think, I believe as long as their lease is stable and allows them to make their living as always they're probably happy enough to pay the fees as I think Bundy would have done. The BLM came into being in 1946 so he must have been paying the fees for many years or we would know it by now. It's all for $$$ on the backs of the tortoises who don't seem as endangered as we have been led to believe. imho

The book: After the Grizzly: Endangered Species and the Politics of Place in California
By Peter S. Alagona (available as an ebook for $19.99)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rdevlz-cEt4C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=Clark+County+Multiple+Species+Habitat+Conservation+Plan,&source=bl&ots=YSQaHd5Zy_&sig=vRt8KXhEhx8a3l5hSqRfjBSmYqg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rqZKU4OHGMTO2AW4qYC4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Clark%20County%20Multiple%20Species%20Habitat%20Conservation%20Plan%2C&f=false

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/clark-county-officials-lament-spending-157-million-desert-tortoises

Clark County officials lament spending $15.7 million on desert tortoises

Clark County has spent at least $15.7 million since 2001 on efforts to protect the tortoise, which is listed as a threatened species by the federal government. Those efforts run the gamut from fencing to habitat restoration to sampling efforts to gauge the population.

County officials don’t have anything personal against the tortoise. But they also point to estimates that show some 50,000 desert tortoises are kept as pets in Clark County alone and openly question if the creature is as threatened as the federal government maintains.

“We’ve got people that are starving and such massive needs that we can’t keep pouring money into this,” commission Chairman Steve Sisolak said.

more at link......

[Takket]

74. you make great points

They can ruin this crook without setting foot on his property.

[eallen]

76. Social security cannot be confiscated, just because someone is a criminal

Payments are stopped while actually serving a sentence. But not until then, and resume thereafter. That's one of the great things about social security.

[madville]

101. It can be confiscated

If you owe the federal government money like this guy does.

It can also be confiscated/garnished to pay back student loan debt, pay taxes owed to the IRS, for child support and alimony, and if you default on a federal home loan.

[Takket]

91. Is there a next step?

Does anyone know what happens now? I can't believe the feds will just let him have his way. Will there be a court case over this? Supeonas? Will they return after the militias have gone home?

[MohRokTah]

94. Not really.

This was over in the courts years ago. The BLM only just got around to enforcing the court orders Bundy ignored. Bundy dragged in the armed militia terrorists and the BLM backed down and gave in to Bundy.

So really, it's over. The armed militia terrorists won and they're now talking it up on right wing forums about where to used the armed terrorist card next.

[PoliticAverse]

158. Absolutely there is a next step. I'm sure the Feds will be coming up with another plan.

It may take a bit of time. The Ed and Elaine Brown situation took months after it began:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. But, they do have the time, money, and perseverance to go after whistleblowers.

Not to mention to spy on ordinary citizens without bothering with warrants.

[struggle4progress]

97. We'll see what they do: I think they've still got plenty of options, beyond armed confrontation

[treestar]

119. No they cannot

Even if they get a judgment against him, social security cannot be garnished. it depends on the state whether they can collect from his bank accounts. Some states don't allow civil judgment to go against those.

[vankuria]

120. Ironically...

I read it was Ronald Reagan who imposed the fees this guy is protesting, back in '86.

[ancianita]

131. Heh heh. Thanks for the tip!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. Apparently, we're supposed to be "looking forward"...again.

[DanTex]

157. Yes, I wonder the same thing.

Trying to physically confiscate a bunch of cattle from an armed lunatic with a militia backing him seems like just a bad strategy to begin with. Just seize his bank accounts, and go after him like any other tax cheat. Problem solved.

[PoliticAverse]

162. BLM Statement...

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/april/national_office__statement.html

Statement from Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze on the Cattle Gather in Nevada

As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.

[rudolph the red]

167. apparently, anyone can call themself a journalist nowadays