Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 01:35 PM Apr 2014

The Nevada Standoff Has Nothing To Do With "Tyranny," "Sovereignty," "Freedom," or Cows.

It's about money for two Billionaires with whom we're all familiar.

Two affiliates of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity are helping conservative media promote the cause of a Nevada rancher who has made violent threats against the federal government.

...

Legal scholars have largely concluded that these laws are unconstitutional. But with a fanatical, Federalist-society indoctrinated Supreme Court Majority bending over backwards to accommodate corporate interests in every conceivable manner, the Constitution has proved to be a flimsy protection against virulent greed. By milking and stoking the controversy, the Kochs seek to galvanize public opinion against the federal government, delegitimize the Bureau of Land Management that oversees public lands, and thereby impugn its stewardship of lands that Koch-run industries want to get their hands on. These include lands in Nevada, Utah and pretty much anywhere else they can dig, frack or mine. This isn't about some silly rancher's "grazing fees," to the Kochs and their business pals. It's about their desire to exploit, despoil and pollute lands that we, the public, own by virtue of our citizenship. That's not "freedom." It's greed.

In fact, it's almost tragic to see how the "militia groups" that pride themselves on their purported "independence" and "freedom" so willingly allow themselves to be duped by people whose only interest is to exploit the land for their own purposes. Whose self-serving greed wouldn't hesitate to gin up an armed confrontation in which people could conceivably die, simply for the purpose of lining their own pockets.

Did I sound like I feel sorry for the militia groups? I don't. If they were truly patriots I might feel sorry for them, but they aren't. Because true patriots would realize that the federal lands the Kochs, the oil, mining and energy industries are attempting to claim for themselves are:

Owned by every American – all 300-plus million of us. It is a peculiar property right we each have to this commons, as we acquire it simply by dint of citizenship, and what we own is spectacular. The marvel of the federal public-lands system is that it exists at all. During the 19th century and into the early 20th, much of the land was leased and sold off in a frenzy of corrupt dealings. Railroads, corporations, land speculators, mining interests, and livestock barons gorged on the public domain, helped along by the spectacularly pliable General Land Office, which from 1812 until its closure in 1946 privatized more than one billion acres, roughly half the landmass of the nation. The corruption was such that by 1885, The New York Times’ editorial page had denounced the “land pirates” whose “fraud and force” had excluded the citizen settler—the farmer, the homesteader, the cowboy—from “enormous areas of public domain” and “robb[ed] him of the heritage to which he was entitled.”


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/12/1291577/-The-Nevada-Standoff-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-Tyranny-Sovereignty-Freedom-or-Cows

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified


"Feds Turn From Landlords To Warlords": Koch Groups Back Rancher Making Violent Threats Against Federal Gov't

In 1993, Bundy declined to pay government fees that are required in order to allow his cattle to graze on the public land. In 1998 a court order told Bundy to remove his cattle as part of an effort to protect an endangered desert tortoise in the area. He refused. In July 2013, a federal court order told Bundy to remove his cattle from the land or they would be confiscated. He disobeyed the order, and confiscation has begun. The government will auction the animals and use the proceeds to pay off the $1 million in fines that Bundy owes the government.

Bundy's ongoing refusal to obey the law and court orders has become a cause célèbre for the conservative media, which has compared the situation to deadly standoffs like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

In recent comments to a conspiracy theorist's radio show, Bundy said, "I haven't called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that's where we're at." He added, "We got a strong army here, we have to fight." Previously Bundy told the Las Vegas Sun that "he keeps firearms at his ranch" and promised to "do whatever it takes" to defend his cattle being seized, adding, "I abide by almost zero federal laws."

...

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the conservative non-profit group, was founded by and has been largely funded by billionaires Charles and David Koch. The Center for Media and Democracy reported that in its previous incarnation as Citizens for a Sound Economy, AFP received $12 million of its $18 million in funding from the Koch Family Foundation.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/11/feds-turn-from-landlords-to-warlords-koch-group/198857
115 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Nevada Standoff Has Nothing To Do With "Tyranny," "Sovereignty," "Freedom," or Cows. (Original Post) SunsetDreams Apr 2014 OP
Thanks for posting. Another post ProSense Apr 2014 #1
Thanks going to read it nt SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #2
Interesting article, that and I guess Saint Ronnie must have a chink in his armor or something.... SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #6
Interesting. ProSense Apr 2014 #10
bingo glinda Apr 2014 #106
I wonder whether the government could take aerial photos of Bundy's cattle grazing JDPriestly Apr 2014 #17
Exactly lark Apr 2014 #112
Thank you for this article, PS.. I think BLM did the right thing in backing off for now.. Cha Apr 2014 #94
Repeating: Gunnutters are itching for bloodshed, just a matter of when/where. n/t UTUSN Apr 2014 #3
With billion dollar backing! Seems the Kockroaches want a civil war. Rex Apr 2014 #87
The winds are def. blowing in that direction~ blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #99
I have a couple of Skidmore Apr 2014 #4
Very true, it's a knee jerk reaction taught to them by the Koch loving media, not thinking it out. freshwest Apr 2014 #9
Progressives, really? I mean really left of center and concerned with Social Justice? Anansi1171 Apr 2014 #58
Yep. Skidmore Apr 2014 #68
Good stuff Sunset and Pro! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2014 #5
K&R Hugin Apr 2014 #7
Ranchers want to graze free libodem Apr 2014 #8
If the rancher was black he would be called a good-for-nothing freeloader. Just ask the militias to kelliekat44 Apr 2014 #76
very good point. nt Duppers Apr 2014 #80
Pretty sure you are right libodem Apr 2014 #82
If the wingnut wants to graze on taxpayers' land, he needs to pay the taxpayers. SunSeeker Apr 2014 #11
i have a feeling the government will get its money even if it has to take some of Bundy's JDPriestly Apr 2014 #20
agreed. Duppers Apr 2014 #53
Unless I misunderstood, that is exactly what BLM was doing - enforcing a court order tularetom Apr 2014 #98
Thanks for connecting this. Same station, same time: freshwest Apr 2014 #12
The term "Standoff" conjured up a Waco or Ruby Ridge situation going on in real time. 2banon Apr 2014 #13
So you agree with the federal grazing fees debunkthis Apr 2014 #14
You think cattle should graze for free? Enthusiast Apr 2014 #24
I think of eating as a right debunkthis Apr 2014 #26
The rancher refused to pay the fee for 20 years, is he not just another "welfare queen" ? peacebird Apr 2014 #36
Actually debunkthis Apr 2014 #71
The county does not own the land; the federal govt. does. Duppers Apr 2014 #81
Of course not malaise Apr 2014 #90
that's an inaccurate way to protray what's going on here! Duppers Apr 2014 #41
Perhaps why he does not respond to my post... peacebird Apr 2014 #66
Or perhaps debunkthis Apr 2014 #75
These cattle are being sold for a profit, and thousands of other Arizona ranchers pay the mbperrin Apr 2014 #104
"He's not running a shelter for homeless cows." ctsnowman Apr 2014 #108
"He's not running a shelter for homeless cows." Rhythm Apr 2014 #110
It's my land too. Show me my money. grahamhgreen Apr 2014 #107
Then you've done a good job of contradicting yourself Major Nikon Apr 2014 #109
Yes. If you don't have grazing fees and a system for determining who gets to graze, you JDPriestly Apr 2014 #25
No, the fees won't be a hardship for the ranchers debunkthis Apr 2014 #31
as it is with all businesses Duppers Apr 2014 #47
+1 SunSeeker Apr 2014 #50
"Your perspective is strange for someone posting on DU." Enthusiast Apr 2014 #65
exactly Duppers Apr 2014 #77
Fair enough. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #55
That isn't quite true. The costs of grazing are not necessarily passed on. PDJane Apr 2014 #95
The fee is $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair beginning in 1993. mbperrin Apr 2014 #105
+1. Good analogy. Many have lost sight of what is fair and the value of being fair. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #64
Exactly! Duppers Apr 2014 #79
Yes. n/t Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #27
The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #28
Please understand debunkthis Apr 2014 #33
So we should have complete anarchy? MattBaggins Apr 2014 #35
It is a constitutional right to graze animals? A Simple Game Apr 2014 #46
- Takket Apr 2014 #57
are you inviting Native Americans to reclaim your property without a fight too? lunasun Apr 2014 #73
What part of the Constitution Rincewind Apr 2014 #102
Sovereignty = Free Will DeSwiss Apr 2014 #15
Greed, but whose greed? former9thward Apr 2014 #16
You missed the entire point. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #21
And you notice it is ONLY cattle ranchers that get to graze for "free" fasttense Apr 2014 #32
It might have been stolen but not by us. We bought it from Mexico in the Treaty of Hidalgo for ancianita Apr 2014 #40
We bought the whole West from Mexico? former9thward Apr 2014 #43
Police? StarryNite Apr 2014 #45
Please check the poster I was replying to. former9thward Apr 2014 #48
Check history in general, not "mine." And I didn't say the "whole West," just the land in dispute. ancianita Apr 2014 #49
BLM policies affect the entire West... former9thward Apr 2014 #63
Oh spare us. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #69
You are comparing Natives with the Tatars? former9thward Apr 2014 #72
Ah, just so we're clear. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #74
Another non-answer. former9thward Apr 2014 #85
No strawmen at all. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #93
Well, I keep reading it here, and at least care to straighten out the history of our acquiring it. ancianita Apr 2014 #97
"You can't get good title from a thief." Brigid Apr 2014 #83
Yes it is another matter and complicated. former9thward Apr 2014 #86
Yes, that is certainly true. Brigid Apr 2014 #88
Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #18
K&R! These militia types are drowning in ignorance. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #19
I honestly can't understand... NaturalHigh Apr 2014 #22
Funny debunkthis Apr 2014 #23
That is a lie maindawg Apr 2014 #34
You do not have a constitutional right to do as you please on federal lands MattBaggins Apr 2014 #37
I agree with you. Gov mistake was to let him get away with it so long. Now he feels entitled. The Wielding Truth Apr 2014 #92
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. nt SunSeeker Apr 2014 #52
What constitutional right is Bundy fighting to protect? JDPriestly Apr 2014 #54
You're a fan of the Oath Keepers? gollygee Apr 2014 #70
So illegal authoritarians trump legal authoritarians in your book. Rex Apr 2014 #89
Which ones were the illegal authoritarians? TampaAnimusVortex Apr 2014 #114
where is OUR CUT??? fuck crapitalism. pansypoo53219 Apr 2014 #29
No federal disaster relief for him... Blue State Bandit Apr 2014 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author closeupready Apr 2014 #38
ok SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #42
okay...so his cows are on public property Horse with no Name Apr 2014 #39
If you want to travel that far, go for it. Wouldn't be the first time a trespasser's animals were ancianita Apr 2014 #51
good point! Duppers Apr 2014 #61
Thank You For Sharing cantbeserious Apr 2014 #44
this is very important G_j Apr 2014 #56
From day one of this Fraud Wellstone ruled Apr 2014 #59
Agreed! Not only that, it was media's excuse to dismiss Bernie and Harry's facts on the Kochs... freshwest May 2014 #115
We can turn our economy rightside-up and crush the Kochs! Anansi1171 Apr 2014 #60
Seems a bit creatively speculative The Straight Story Apr 2014 #62
While the alleged Koch backing of Bundy may need more info to be considered truthful, it does make okaawhatever Apr 2014 #84
Truthful or not The Straight Story Apr 2014 #91
A 'post' on DU and DK are different. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #101
BLM Statement... PoliticAverse Apr 2014 #67
This is happening in my community. WinstonSmith4740 Apr 2014 #78
when the BLM sees they are caught with "constitutional infringement" they make the case MOOT by Sunlei Apr 2014 #103
Thank you for this, SunsetDreams.. Very important to get the Facts out there regarding the Kochs Cha Apr 2014 #96
I have a couple of neighbors who graze their livestock on BLM land. They pay to do so. Autumn Apr 2014 #100
going to read this all in depth later. BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2014 #111
Same here Catherine Vincent Apr 2014 #113

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
6. Interesting article, that and I guess Saint Ronnie must have a chink in his armor or something....
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:21 PM
Apr 2014

From your article:

Now some may make the extraordinary claim that Federal Land Management that was setup through the westerns states as a result of the Civil War are invalid because those states who Lost the War were put under undue duress. They "couldn't negotiate a fair deal with a Gun to their Heads", therefore these fees are invalid or unconstitutional or icky, or something.

I mean, that argument has totally, completely, absolutely, FAILED in court - but let's just take the point for a moment.

If that premise were valid, then it would also be true that the land negotiations that took place as a result of the duress of the Mexican-American War should also be considered null and void for similar reasons. If were were assume that then Bundy's problems with the Federal Government would be over because if that were the case, the states of New Mexico, California and Nevada - wouldn't be PART of America, they'd still be considered portions OF MEXICO, and he wouldn't be in this stand-off with the BLM, it would be with the Mexican Federales.

I think that under those circumstances, Bundy would properly prefer to take his chances with the BLM than his fellow "legitimate businessmen" like say - El Chapo! - I'm just saying.


Thank you for posting it!

Did you see this one?
I thought that Reagan was a saint among the Reich Wing? They are essentially going against a judge he appointed.

On July 9, 2013, Lloyd D. George, United States District Judge, issued a permanent injunction against Cliven Bundy.

President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge George.

According to Judge George's order, Cliven Bundy continually violated an earlier injunction by running cattle on Federal land. But Bundy went even further. He started running cattle on "new lands."

Bundy claims? The Federal government did not own land ceded to it by Mexico in 1848. And maybe the cattle bearing Bundy's brand did not actually belong to Bundy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/13/1291701/-About-the-Judge-who-issued-latest-Cliven-Bundy-Order

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
17. I wonder whether the government could take aerial photos of Bundy's cattle grazing
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:31 PM
Apr 2014

and then go to court and sue for an order to take the money owed for the grazing out of Bundy's bank accounts, maybe even foreclose his properties and include in the order the right of the government to take possession of the cattle when Bundy tries to sell them.

Seems to me that the government would not have to shoot it out since the fight is about money and the government already has a court order saying that Bundy owes it.

lark

(23,065 posts)
112. Exactly
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 12:47 PM
Apr 2014

Those cows weren't grazing on HIS lands! How often does that have to be repeated? Just because his family has been stealing from the government, ie - us - forever doesn't mean he's entitled to steal. Take the MF'er to court, get a judgement and file a lien. He won't be able to buy ANYTHING on credit without paying the lien and the house can't be passed on to anyone else without the lien being paid - plus the accumulated interest. Guns are not needed here, we have a legal system to handle this thief.

Cha

(296,862 posts)
94. Thank you for this article, PS.. I think BLM did the right thing in backing off for now..
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:20 PM
Apr 2014
BUNKERVILLE, Nevada (Reuters) – The U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Saturday said it had called off an effort to round up a rancher’s herd of cattle that it had said were being illegally grazed in southern Nevada, citing concerns about safety.
“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,” BLM director Neil Kornze said in a statement.

The showdown between rancher Cliven Bundy and U.S. land managers had brought a team of armed federal rangers to Nevada to seize the 1,000 head of cattle.

We'll see what happens down the road a piece..
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
87. With billion dollar backing! Seems the Kockroaches want a civil war.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:52 PM
Apr 2014

No doubt so they can build their own private army.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
4. I have a couple of
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:06 PM
Apr 2014

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

"progressive" friends who are all over this Bundy stuff, no
questions asked. People need to put the brakes on and look for the hidden agenda. The go to assumption shouldn't always be that goverment is wrong when Koch et al are still battling for control.

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
58. Progressives, really? I mean really left of center and concerned with Social Justice?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:21 PM
Apr 2014

I dont buy any progressive would be partial to this long-sought weak ass astroturffed false flag. Perhaps they're like the 2nd A Zimmerman activists on DU, but those cant credibly be called progressive if its to have any meaning.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
68. Yep.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:55 PM
Apr 2014

They are self-identified as such and have been for some time. I just don't think either one of them had bothered to dig deeper. Once I pointed them toward more factual and less incendiary articles, they started paying attention to the role of the Koch brothers. Sometimes I do believe that in the zeal to find fault with the government, people lose perspective and just react.

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
76. If the rancher was black he would be called a good-for-nothing freeloader. Just ask the militias to
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:26 PM
Apr 2014

think of the rancher as a black man and see how much they want to support him.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
82. Pretty sure you are right
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:45 PM
Apr 2014

These types routinely seem to be bigots. I've just finished reading a couple of books that were set in the south and featured African American characters. It is a shame to know how some white people are brought up to think they are more important or even superior. I guess it must be all they've got to be proud of. It is a shame.

I wept all day during part of Cane River.

SunSeeker

(51,516 posts)
11. If the wingnut wants to graze on taxpayers' land, he needs to pay the taxpayers.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:45 PM
Apr 2014

Either that or give us a cut of his profits from the cattle we fattened up.

Reminds me of how big oil is fighting attempts to make them pay extraction fees for oil they pull out of our ground here in California.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
20. i have a feeling the government will get its money even if it has to take some of Bundy's
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:38 PM
Apr 2014

property through a court order.

This is not a matter that requires anyone to use a gun. It is a legal matter. Do the Bundys owe the government or not? That's for the courts to decide. The sheriff or some law enforcement agency then enforces the order. Seems to me anyone who helps hide the money the Bundys owe for the use of federal land could be in for some big surprises.

A shoot out is not going to happen in this case. That is my prediction.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
98. Unless I misunderstood, that is exactly what BLM was doing - enforcing a court order
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:54 PM
Apr 2014

They were removing some of Mr Bundy's cows because a judge had ruled he either had to pay the fees he owed or get his cattle off the federal lands.

The local sheriff, who apparently came along to provide protection for the BLM in case somebody decided to start trouble, took one look at the mob of armed dumbasses, decided he was more scared of them than he was of the gubmint, and proceeded to broker a "deal" which allowed Bundy to keep using the public lands free of charge in spite of the court order to the contrary, and forced the BLM to return the cows they had already removed from the site.

In some ways I can understand his reluctance to take action, after all he will still have to deal with these asshats long after the feds have gone back to Washington. However, if I were the judge who issued the order that the sheriff so blithely tore up, I'd be majorly pissed.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
12. Thanks for connecting this. Same station, same time:
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:46 PM
Apr 2014


And people think this guy has principles?

No, he's got principals who pay him to sling bull for them.

Just like the media supporting Bundy.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
13. The term "Standoff" conjured up a Waco or Ruby Ridge situation going on in real time.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:12 PM
Apr 2014

glad to read that's not quite the situation.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
36. The rancher refused to pay the fee for 20 years, is he not just another "welfare queen" ?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:16 PM
Apr 2014

Sucking at the public teat for his own gain, damn the rest of the American people who actually play by the rules?
Why should Bundy be allowed to graze FREE inorder to increase HIS PERSONAL PROFITS?

On edit: using "welfare queen" intentionally since St Ronnie did. This rancher clearly is milking the system, unlike most folks who need assistance

 

debunkthis

(99 posts)
71. Actually
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:06 PM
Apr 2014

The dispute isn't over the fees, but to whom they should be paid. Clive Bundy has offer to pay the fees to the county and let them decide if it is proper to give the money to the feds. Do some research, you might be surprised what you find sometimes.

Duppers

(28,117 posts)
81. The county does not own the land; the federal govt. does.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:41 PM
Apr 2014

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

You'd be surprised what some critical thinking skills could do for you.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
104. These cattle are being sold for a profit, and thousands of other Arizona ranchers pay the
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 12:00 AM
Apr 2014

fee. This man is simply stealing public property for private gain. He's not running a shelter for homeless cows.

His "rights" came from Mormon settlers in the area before it was annexed from Mexico into the US. They never owned it, still don't.

Major Nikon

(36,818 posts)
109. Then you've done a good job of contradicting yourself
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 08:47 AM
Apr 2014

Eating is a right of native species which are in direct competition with non-native species private income generating livestock. When you give to one, you take away from the other, not to mention the massive environmental damage that goes with it.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
25. Yes. If you don't have grazing fees and a system for determining who gets to graze, you
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:42 PM
Apr 2014

will eventually have overgrazing and destruction of federal property.

Beef prices are supposed to go record high this year. The fees will not be a hardship for those who graze their cattle on federal land.

I am a backyard gardener. My back yard is not nearly as large as I would like it to be. If I planted a plot on some federal land, say in front of the federal courthouse downtown, and sold the produce, it would only be fair for me to pay some fee or rent for the use of the federal land.

What is fair is fair. Grazing fees are fair.

 

debunkthis

(99 posts)
31. No, the fees won't be a hardship for the ranchers
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:53 PM
Apr 2014

because the cost will be passed on to the consumer. So if you eat beef, then you get to pay for this fee.

Duppers

(28,117 posts)
47. as it is with all businesses
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:45 PM
Apr 2014

These ranchers should pay for all the materials that go into their product, i.e. their cattle. They are capitalists who make a profit.

Over-grazing public land can be a problem. Besides, why do, and why should ranchers BUY land? So that they can use it without infringing on others. This society is way too imperfect, too greedy, too crowded for a utopia to work, if that's the perspective you're coming from.

Suppose I wanted to build a house. Should I be allowed to cut trees for my lumber in national parks? Or national forests without paying a fee?

Your perspective is strange for someone posting on DU.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
55. Fair enough.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:07 PM
Apr 2014

"if you eat beef," We eat very little beef. And this year, more and more Americans will be eating very little beef if any at all because the price is going up beyond the range of many consumers.

It's only fair that if you use federal property, owned jointly by all the people in the US, and you profit from your use, you should pay back some of your profit in the form of a fee to all the rest of the Americans on whose land you are making a profit.

It's just fair.

PDJane

(10,103 posts)
95. That isn't quite true. The costs of grazing are not necessarily passed on.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:23 PM
Apr 2014

The beef goes to market, the farmer sells it for what the market will bear. Feed isn't part of this equation, in the sense of the per pound price of beef. If the farmer can't feed all of his cattle, he simply hasn't got the beef to sell, or has to sell it at a discount.

The reason beef will be more costly has to do with drought, which affects the amount of cattle a rancher can feed.

So, yes, the cost of feed is factored in, but only in terms of scarcity of the commodity.

Beef is sold at auction; it doesn't really work the same way as manufactured goods.

The fact that so many seem to think it does has partly to do with a disinformation campaign, and partly to do with the fact that most people haven't any idea of how a real farm works. It's a strenuous, dirty business, with a lot of factors that the farmer has no control over.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
105. The fee is $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair beginning in 1993.
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 12:07 AM
Apr 2014

In 20 years of refusing to pay, Bundy has accumulated about a million dollars in fees. He's not a small operator.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
64. +1. Good analogy. Many have lost sight of what is fair and the value of being fair.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:36 PM
Apr 2014

Many also don't recognize that the BLM has been killing wild burros and wild horses to prevent overgrazing. Some habitat is marginal. Overgrazing will damage this land beyond recovery. I'm just saying.

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
28. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:51 PM
Apr 2014

defines the current grazing fee formula. Both chambers had a Democratic majority, under a Democratic President.

It is land WE own. Not the Koch Brothers and not some individual coming in to reap federal land for his own pocketbook. He needs to pay the Federal Government for use of the land. He has lost all court battles.

 

debunkthis

(99 posts)
33. Please understand
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:57 PM
Apr 2014

My support for Clive Bundy in this case stems from our common interest in protecting our constitutional rights. I would also fully support the Native Americans who originally lived on this land if they tried to reclaim it.

MattBaggins

(7,897 posts)
35. So we should have complete anarchy?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:15 PM
Apr 2014

So I can just grab a machete and head down to where he is legally squatting and grab me a some fresh steak?

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
46. It is a constitutional right to graze animals?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:44 PM
Apr 2014

How would you decide? First come, first served?

Who has the most cattle? Who has the most guns?

The fee out west is $1.35 per month per animal. I have raised cattle in New York and had to buy hay in the winter. For hay it cost me more than a dollar a day for each cow. These people are not being over charged, they are being undercharged.

So decide, how many cattle can the land support? If Bundy has his cattle there and I move my cattle there can the land support that many? Can the land support sheep and cattle? Sheep can be harder on land than cattle because they chew the grass lower to the ground. How many before the grass permanently dies? If there is a drought how many before we would have another dust bowl?

We have land management for a reason, a very sensible and valid reason.

Takket

(21,529 posts)
57. -
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:20 PM
Apr 2014

That isn't how we do things in a civilized society. if you don't like a law you don't get to gather up a gun toting posse and repel authorities trying to enforce the law. If the law is bad, you vote for people in favor of repealing it and you petition your representatives in congress to push for a repeal. Or you make your case in the courts.

Bundy has no constituional right to graze his animals for free

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
73. are you inviting Native Americans to reclaim your property without a fight too?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:10 PM
Apr 2014

or whom ever's basement you reside in?
or is this just against them gubermint landz?

Rincewind

(1,201 posts)
102. What part of the Constitution
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 10:49 PM
Apr 2014

gives you the right to refuse to obey the law and defy court orders? Do I have a constitutional right to sell your property and keep the money? I live near a fairly large public park, I could make a whole lot of money selling it to developers, do I have a conditional right to sell it?

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
16. Greed, but whose greed?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:27 PM
Apr 2014

This federal land "that all 300-plus million of us" own was stolen from the Native Americans. In return the survivors were forced onto the most barren spots of it. So that was the real greed and it was the federal government who did it. Yes, most of it was given away to railroads, miners, ranchers, etc. but that is the only reason the West ever got developed. I am not going to get excited about some guy grazing his cattle on land that was stolen in the first place.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
32. And you notice it is ONLY cattle ranchers that get to graze for "free"
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:55 PM
Apr 2014

or very reduced fees. Try grazing your sheep for free.

ancianita

(35,938 posts)
40. It might have been stolen but not by us. We bought it from Mexico in the Treaty of Hidalgo for
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:27 PM
Apr 2014

$15,000,000. If anyone "stole" the land, it was Mexico.

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
43. We bought the whole West from Mexico?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:36 PM
Apr 2014

Check your history. BTW you don't get to keep stolen property you bought "fair and square". Check with the police.

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
48. Please check the poster I was replying to.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:45 PM
Apr 2014

He/she said we bought stolen land from Mexico so it is ours. That is not the law.

ancianita

(35,938 posts)
49. Check history in general, not "mine." And I didn't say the "whole West," just the land in dispute.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:53 PM
Apr 2014

See that yellow in the Southwest? Bought by the Polk administration through the Treaty of Hidalgo. If you want to claim "stolen" then you'll have to blame Mexico, who claimed it from the Indians.



Here's the explanation for you. Seriously, this "stealing from the Indians" argument is getting stale.

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

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
63. BLM policies affect the entire West...
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:33 PM
Apr 2014

not just some farm in Nevada. Interesting your statement this "stealing from the Indians" argument is getting stale. That says it all ....

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
69. Oh spare us.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:58 PM
Apr 2014

When the US steals land from the Natives, you're outraged, but when the Tatars push for independence in land stolen from them by Catherine and Peter, fuck them, they bear the sins of their ancestors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4751408

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
72. You are comparing Natives with the Tatars?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:08 PM
Apr 2014

The Tatars were Europe's slave traders. Are you saying Natives did something similar?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
74. Ah, just so we're clear.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:21 PM
Apr 2014

As long as an ethnic group is sufficiently evil in your eyes, you're fine with whatever happens to them? Including having their land taken and ethnically cleansed?

You really don't want to go down that road.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
93. No strawmen at all.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:11 PM
Apr 2014

1) I pointed out your hypocrisy on stolen land.

2) You say the Tatars are different from the Natives because their ancestors were slave traders.

3) Therefore, you seem to be just fine with one group getting its land stolen and ethnically cleansed so long as its ancestors were sufficiently evil.

Which frankly is Curse of Ham level.

ancianita

(35,938 posts)
97. Well, I keep reading it here, and at least care to straighten out the history of our acquiring it.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:28 PM
Apr 2014

BLM policies do affect the entire West, and most ranchers resented that they continued to pay grazing rights while they saw Bundy getting away with paying nothing. Like most people here they're not sympathetic toward him, either.

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
83. "You can't get good title from a thief."
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:49 PM
Apr 2014

-- my property law professor.

Now, whether this land could legally be considered stolen, or who stole it originally, that is another matter.

former9thward

(31,941 posts)
86. Yes it is another matter and complicated.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:52 PM
Apr 2014

It is just my view that no one has especially clean hands here.

Response to SunsetDreams (Original post)

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
19. K&R! These militia types are drowning in ignorance.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:38 PM
Apr 2014

They are easily controlled by those that seek to exploit them, like the Koch Assholes®.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
22. I honestly can't understand...
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:40 PM
Apr 2014

why the feds haven't seized this guy's accounts. For what it's worth, though, I agree with the BLM's decision not to shoot it out with Bundy's militia buddies. There's no reason to spill blood if it can be avoided.

 

debunkthis

(99 posts)
23. Funny
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:41 PM
Apr 2014

I've followed the situation at Clive Bundy's ranch pretty closely over the last several days and did not hear any mention of 'Tea Party' until the MSM started spinning the story.

What I did see was a call to arms for the Oath Keepers, who btw stood shoulder to shoulder with Anonymous and the Occupy Movement during the Million Mask March last November in DC, including during our confrontations with the park police in front of the White House.

At this point, especially after Snowden's revelations, I stand in solidarity with anyone who is willing to fight to protect our constitutional rights, even if I do not fully agree with their politics!

 

maindawg

(1,151 posts)
34. That is a lie
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:08 PM
Apr 2014

The progressive movement does not work with the 'oath keepers'. If the Oath Keepers show up AKA the KKK or the whatever militia its because they are looking for a fight with the US Govt. They are not our brothers.They are criminal terrorists and we will not be associated with them. Move along now debunker

MattBaggins

(7,897 posts)
37. You do not have a constitutional right to do as you please on federal lands
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:18 PM
Apr 2014

I can't go down to my local park and start dumping my garbage there now can I?

Your "constitutional rights" mantra is very thin ice.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
54. What constitutional right is Bundy fighting to protect?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:04 PM
Apr 2014

I don't see any.

The federal lands belong to all of us. If one person wants to use them for his own profit, he should pay the rest of us. The rest of us means our government which represents us.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
70. You're a fan of the Oath Keepers?
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:59 PM
Apr 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason
Glenn Beck loves them. Tea Partiers court them. Congressmen listen to them. Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.

THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.

His belief that that day is imminent has led Pray to a group called Oath Keepers, one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
89. So illegal authoritarians trump legal authoritarians in your book.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:54 PM
Apr 2014

Good to know! Enjoy your stay on DU!

TampaAnimusVortex

(785 posts)
114. Which ones were the illegal authoritarians?
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 04:59 PM
Apr 2014

Anonymous, The Occupy Movement, or The Million Mask March movement? I haven't heard of any of those referred to as authoritarian before.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
30. No federal disaster relief for him...
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 03:52 PM
Apr 2014

when "his" pastures become a dust bowl, or is contaminated by Koch. As for the AFP, if shots were fired, and any BLA officers were injured or killed, would that not be considered "funding domestic terrorism" and give probable cause under the Patriot Act to round up its leaders and major fundraisers?

Response to SunsetDreams (Original post)

Horse with no Name

(33,956 posts)
39. okay...so his cows are on public property
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:22 PM
Apr 2014

why can't we just go pick us one out and head down to the meat locker with it?

ancianita

(35,938 posts)
51. If you want to travel that far, go for it. Wouldn't be the first time a trespasser's animals were
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:57 PM
Apr 2014

poached. Hope you can keep the meat cool on the way out to a main highway.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
59. From day one of this Fraud
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:23 PM
Apr 2014

I have been referring to this as a Ring Wing show and tell. All the local media, so called as it is,and being the tools of the TeaBillies,was blathering about and using well used talking points of the Libertarian Nit Wits. How many wing nut political ads were created in the last week? Check the timing of events.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
115. Agreed! Not only that, it was media's excuse to dismiss Bernie and Harry's facts on the Kochs...
Sun May 11, 2014, 08:23 PM
May 2014
By the same media that pushes everything on the Libertarian, Tea and Koch agenda, but they don't call it that. We know what's going on here:



The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
62. Seems a bit creatively speculative
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:32 PM
Apr 2014

I got no love for anyone in the whole mess but am looking at this in a more open manner.

The guy posting about this is some blogger on the net with what, 320 posts? Ok fine, might not mean much (it sure does on du though....) but the basic premise appears to break down like this:

Koch brothers suck (they do), governor of state wants land returned to state management and away from federal management, alec/koch support same said idea. Some reporters at some subsidiary of a koch owned business supported the rancher. Therefore this is being orchestrated by a couple of kochs.

Now, most all of this can easily and readily ring true - but it doesn't impact the core story nor does it implicate the rancher as being part of some larger conspiracy.

Also, worth noting, there are plenty of people who don't need the involvement of alec/kochs when it comes to holding their belief that blm was in the wrong or that lands shouldn't be eminent domained by the feds.

Does all of what I said mean I support them, etc and so on on? No. What I am saying is irregardless of koch I see this situation happening just as it did and that the issues it brought up are ones people want to address - from grazing lands to the feds/states letting companies come in and frack land and pollute it (which I am sure many would be happy to protest and want to stop even though it is deemed legal to do so).

Do they benefit? Yea, same as every time someone buys things like toilet paper/etc where they own a big chunk of stock in.

okaawhatever

(9,457 posts)
84. While the alleged Koch backing of Bundy may need more info to be considered truthful, it does make
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:49 PM
Apr 2014

sense given the Koch's numerous fines for stealing oil from federal lands. (Also, from stealing oil from Native American land). They have also sold oil refining equipment to Iran through a subsidiary company in Europe. The Koch brothers have shown nothing but contempt for federal agencies like EPA, BLM and the like. If they have supported Bundy in this, it would make sense given their history.


Phil Dubose, who worked for Koch Industries from 1968 to 1994, told the jury how the scheme worked.
“The Koch Method is to cheat the producer out of crude oil,” he said.
He testified that he was able to steal 2,000 barrels a month from one customer.
“You used every available tool to mismeasure the crude oil in Koch’s favor,” says Dubose, who is now retired.
24,587 False Claims
Two days before Christmas 1999, the jury delivered the verdict: Koch Industries had made 24,587 false claims in buying oil, underpaying the U.S. government for royalties on Native American land from 1985 to 1989. Koch paid the U.S. $25 million to settle the case in 2001.

“The record is replete with evidence Koch used unlined ditches, pits and ponds to dispose of hazardous waste at the site,” the appeals court ruled, finding that Koch had tainted groundwater. “The pollution of any Oklahoma waters, including groundwater, has been prohibited by state statute since the early 1900s -- well before Koch’s waste disposal activity at the refinery.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
91. Truthful or not
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:06 PM
Apr 2014

It skirts the core issues that are being brought to forefront. Regardless of who benefits (and they may well) that does not decide the overall moral/etc ideals at play in this particular case.

I.e. The motivation behind some of those who might possibly be involved is not relevant. Either the laws are good and make sense or they do not.

If our government has failed anywhere it is in not putting the kochs behind bars for a plethora of things they have done. Letting laws be changed is one thing, letting them be so that only a few can take advantage of them is another.

In this case - whether or not the kochs were involved - a group of people came together to protest a government action.

Now that is something we should all be doing more of so that the few aren't buying our politicians and making our votes pretty well moot on many issues. Whether one likes the group getting involved in this case or not does not matter, it is the idea of not just sitting around and complaining about it and saying we can't do anything that is the problem. That is why I liked OWS, people were out, in force, getting out a message that was hard to ignore.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
101. A 'post' on DU and DK are different.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 10:07 PM
Apr 2014

If your 'post' count is 47k or so on DU, his here would be around 17k. A DU 'post' is called a 'comment' on DK. He has over 17k of those, the 320 or so is his total 'diaries', which are far usually far longer and more researched.

But I think both the DK writer and you have good points. The libertarian type farmer didn't do what he did *because of* the Kochs. The Kochs simply jumped on the bandwagon to drum up support for him as part of their move to get federal lands out west opened up for them to exploit cheaply.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
67. BLM Statement...
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:55 PM
Apr 2014
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.




WinstonSmith4740

(3,055 posts)
78. This is happening in my community.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:32 PM
Apr 2014

I mean, this specific thing. Obviously, emotions are running high. This is rural Nevada, and these folks are hard core RW. The BLM has been around town for a while looking like they were ready for a range war. They were out in full force along the 15 yesterday up near Bunkerville, where Bundy had been grazing his cattle.

As in anything, there's two sides to this, and a few twists and turns. Government overreach in telling ranchers how many cattle they can raise, water allotments (which has more to do with Las Vegas' water grab, but that's another story), etc. vs. the fact that Bundy decided back in 1992 or 1993 to "fire" the BLM and hasn't paid any grazing fees since then. Add environmental groups threatening to sue the BLM if they don't protect the desert tortoise out on the open range, and you've got a nice little range war cooking.

The BLM backed down yesterday before it became a shooting confrontation, so the neanderthals are beating their chests today. This, of course, is not over.

There is a voice of reason in the wilderness...this letter was posted in our local newspaper. Bruce lays out just how easy it would have been to stay in compliance with BLM rules, which is what everyone seems to be missing. It didn't have to come to this. When you're done, check out the hair-tearing-out over Free Speech Zones. As long as they just rounded up "lefties" so Junior didn't have to see that people disagreed with him, fine. Now? Time to set their hair on fire.
http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/09/open-forum-there-are-other-ranchers-with-grazing-allotments-out-there/

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
103. when the BLM sees they are caught with "constitutional infringement" they make the case MOOT by
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 11:24 PM
Apr 2014

canceling the round-up. They have done this before and was stated by the district court.

The BLM has had several court cases over "constitutional infringement" 9 cases are now pending,most brought by Laura Leigh. She has spent years, many times alone vs the BLM through the Federal courts. Many of the court actions are over BLM-Nevada- actions. http://wildhorseeducation.org/legal-action/what-the-silver-king-suit-asks-for/

The 9th court has ruled BLM public observers have a “fundamental constitutional right, which serves to ensure that the individual citizen can effectively participate in and contribute to our republican system of self government.” http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2012/02/Decision021412.pdf


I was also out maneuvered by the government who, upon seeing a case which for the first time challenged the BLM on a constitutional infringement, chose to halt their horse roundup before finishing the job, to cause the case to become “moot,” according to the district court.

Cha

(296,862 posts)
96. Thank you for this, SunsetDreams.. Very important to get the Facts out there regarding the Kochs
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:24 PM
Apr 2014

greedy prints all over this..



Autumn

(44,984 posts)
100. I have a couple of neighbors who graze their livestock on BLM land. They pay to do so.
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 09:43 PM
Apr 2014

This guy is a thief, plain and simple. If he's not paying for his lease to graze his cattle he's stealing. What they ought to do is take his livestock and put it on his land, let him pay to buy feed for his 500 head of cattle.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Nevada Standoff Has N...