Apr 132014
 

RepublicansOnParade3

Here is the forty-sixth article in our Republicans on Parade series, featuring individuals who personify what the Republican Party has become. Today’s honoree is Republican Rancher, Cliven Bundy. He is so honored for his violent Republican solution to federal attempts to enforce a law he refuses to obey.  He called out the TEAbagger militias and their guns.

0413RoPWe provide armed response,” according to a Montana militia member named Jim Lordy. Lordy traveled to Nevada in order to support a local rancher for believes that he should not have to follow federal court orders. When he arrived there, he told a local reporter that “[w]e need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

Lordy belongs to a militia group called Operation Mutual Aid, which provides “[d]efense of public and private property, lives, and liberty to exercise God-given rights [Republicans delinked], seen plainly in the laws of Nature, and codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, at the request of such parties in need of such defense,” according to a website associated with the group. Although only three militia members had arrived at the Nevada ranch by late Wednesday, when the latest reports came out, other militia groups reportedly “inundated the [rancher’s] household with calls and pledges to muster at the site.”

The Oath Keepers, a right-wing law enforcement organization that warns about the government “disarm[ing] the American people” and “blockad[ing] American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps, [Republicans delinked]” also announced that it will send people to support the defiant rancher [Republicans delinked].

This conflict arises out of rancher Cliven Bundy’s many years of illegally grazing his cattle on federal lands. In 1998, a federal court ordered Bundy to cease grazing his livestock on an area of federal land known as the Bunkerville Allotment, and required him to pay the federal government $200 per day per head of cattle remaining on federal lands. Around the time it issued this order, the court also commented that “[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock.” Fifteen years later, Bundy continued to defy this court order… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

The article goes on to explain how authorities are attempting to enforce the laws by seizing the cattle on federal land.  Click through.

Like so many Republicans, Bundy seems to think that he should get to thrive by devaluing what belongs to all of us.  Like so many Republicans Bundy is responding to what he doesn’t like with criminal violence, the Republican Second Amendment Solution.

One might think that mainstream Republicans would distance themselves from this nut job, but he has the support of Nevada’s Republican Governor and US Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).

Share

  16 Responses to “Republicans on Parade–4/13/2014”

  1. Tom, this is a bit off topic. I am sorry for that. But i respect you as someone with great insight and this bothers me terribly. why do you think Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law?

    • Angie, in future the place for off topic comments is the Open Thread.

      Some environmentalists hsve made it seem that Obama selected this as one to sign.  That is not so  Thew only way he could veto it is to veto the entire continuing resolution budget for this year.  It was buried inside that.  It sunsets at the end of the year.  It does not prevent environmental lazwssuits over GMOs.  It prevents only getting court orders to remove crops of previously approved GMOs, while lawsuits against them are still pending resolution.

  2. Teapublicans don't have to obey they law. Doesn't anybody know that yet? Yet another great example for us, TC.

  3. Sadly, it looks as though the BLM has caved to the domestic terrorists. Citing fears of "collateral damage" – my words, theirs were a lot more weaselly – the federal agents have given in and apparantly will allow the grazing to continue. My take is that they feared another Waco.

    Too bad. The only effective way to stand these thugs down would be to show them what a real firefight is like.

  4. I have no patience with all these militant groups – either follow the rules or get out.

  5. Well, we have had a Dutch take (always very sound) and can expect a Canadian take sometime today (also sound) – here is an Australian take and if anyone can explain this intelligently please do so, since I certainly can't.  The best I can come up with is privilege gone mad.  If you can comment on TC's site you can comment here, it accepts Gravatar and Disqus: http://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2014/04/13/somebody-explain-the-nevada-situation-for-me-please/

    While the Republicans on Parade series is always well worth reading, and as effective a stimulant for the nervious system as watching a horror movie, I would like occasionally to feature a Democrat who is doing something good (harder to find, I realize).  Here is one possible nominee: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/business/media/frankens-campaign-against-comcast-is-no-joke.html?_r=0
     

    • "So, if irregular militia turn up and point semi-automatic guns at lawful officers who are simply trying to enforce multiple court orders to make a greedy rancher stop free-loading his cattle on public land, (which he’s done for 15+ years) how are those people not terrorists?

      How is defending someone's right to make money illegally about freedom?"

      Great find JD.  Good questions!

      A society must be governed by laws for the common good in order to be a civil society.  When one person (Bundy) willfully ignores the law for his own benefit, or a group of citizens (militias) decides to ignore the law in "defense of public and private property, lives, and liberty to exercise God-given rights" as they termed, then there is no civil society.  These people have placed themselves above all others and above the law where they do not belong.  In my mind, this is not about freedom but about anarchy.  It is only freedom to those few, not about freedom for a society.

      The Republicanus/Teabaggers are always going on about "entitlements" . . . people feeling that they are entitled to food stamps, are entitled to unemployment benefits, are entitled to affordable medical care, are entitled to social security, are entitled to a public education etc etc ad nauseam.  These are things written in laws yet the Republicanus/Teabaggers want to take it all away and have the people fend for themselves in a system geared to the wealthy only.

      Yet here is a situation where Cliven Bundy thinks he is entitled to graze his cattle on public lands (without payment and against the law) and an unregulated militia, support him.

      This is clearly not right.  And what is even worse in my mind, is the support of the Nevada Republican/Teabagger governor and a Republican/Teabagger senator.  These two officials swore oaths to support the US Constitution and clearly their support of Bundy and the unregulated militias is in contravention of those oathes.

      • On Friday night's Moyers (which is broadcast here on Sunday), his guest pointed out that FDR's four freedoms were freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. When Reagan was speaking at the Jefferson Memorial he made it freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free enterprise.

  6. I wonder how Bundy would feel and do if another citizen started grazing their cattle on the same parcel of land and at the same time?  And what if that citizen agreed to pay the $200/day per head BLM fee?

    Would Bundy try to run that person off claiming that person was infringing upon Bundy's rights?

    Bundy is but one citizen in a nation of 300+ million citizens.  His rights cannot supercede the rights of every other citizen.

    How very Republicanus/Teabaggerish!  Assuming and taking rights which are not contained in the Constitution. And this claim of a "tyrannical government" bullshit?  These guys are in my mind, domestic terrorists, pure and simple.  Want to bet that they also opposed the Occupy Movement?

    As for the BLM, I think they allowed the militias and Bundy to gain the upper hand when they backed off. Likewise I can see them not wanting another Waco.  Sometimes it seems like you're damned if you do, and damned if you don,t!  Would not surprise me to see the NRA and crazy Ted Nugent to weigh in on this issue.

    There are so many other issues like the drought affecting all farmers that it is too bad that Bundy is showing his Republicanus/Teabagger entitlement side.  May it explode in his face like a trick cigar!

  7. I am a stauch Democrat and really despise Republican and tea PARTY POLITICS AND POLITICINS.  however….. The land in question is owned by the state of Nevada and for the NV residents. The BLM in 1993 in order to facilitate a project on BML land adjacent to this parcel, moved the desert tortoise to this land. In the process, someone decided that the tortoise was endangered on the Federal list and thus took management from the State of Nevada and assumed management. The tortoise was over populated on this land and they took the overage off and put them in a temporary holding facility while trying to decide what to do. The cost became too much for that and they destroyed the tortoises.
    The Bundy's have in fact grazed that land since the 1800's and as tradition back in those days this was the norm. The Bundy's at some point when the land was designated NV land, they paid grazing fee's to the state. That changed in 1993 when the BLM took over management because of the tortoise.
    Whom and for what ultimate purpose decided to use the endangered act to take over management of that state land is in question. Some would suggest Harry the Reid and his ilk. Personally I think there is a concerted effort to use this means for someone's gain down the road and what's ten or fifteen years?
    This battle is two fold, one, states rights which has been a battle for many, many years, and what's really behind the endangered species act.
    States have to have a purpose, an identity and the future ability to grow. This has been abused by the Federal government for a very long time and needs to be settled.
    In Alaska for instance this is the breakdown of land ownership;

    "Once all federal conveyances are completed, the state will own
    28.5 percent of Alaska while Native Corporations will hold title to
    12.5 percent, leaving 58.6 percent to the federal government, and less
    than one percent in conventional private ownership."

    This was how NV obtained the land in question;

    "In the mid to late 1800s, Congress enacted numerous laws to encourage and accelerate the
    settlement of the West by disposing of federal lands. Examples include the Homestead Act of
    1862 and the Desert Lands Entry Act of 1877. Approximately 816 million acres of public domain
    lands were transferred to private ownership (individuals, railroads, etc.) between 1781 and 2010.
    Another 328 million acres were granted to the states generally, and an additional 142 million were granted in Alaska under state and Native selection laws.5"

    The point here is this is an unsettled land dispute that the feds have played fast and furious with, politicians have used as a political football to court the greenies vote and the Harry Reid's of this country have used for their own gain.

      Doesn't anyone wonder why Mr. Obama didn't weigh in on this? Think about that and while your at it, do some research on Federal land ownership. The East coast is private, the West coast is Federal. Fair? Hardly considering that NV gave up 87% of their land to the Federal gov. after the civil war to sell to the private sector to replenish the US government troughs. Doing so would put the land back into NV state residence ownership and bail out the government at the same time.
    Well, here we are and the Fed's didn't hold up their end of the deal.  Rancher Cliven Bundy had no problem paying the State of Nevada Grazing Fees.  He has a huge problem with the Federal Government stating that since an endangered species is on the land it is now under Federal jurisdiction and now, after 200 yers of he and hids family using the land and paying the State of Nevada to do so, the Feds come along and start charging him also.  I personally was GLAD to see citizens – Regardless of political persuasion – standing up to government excess.  It's about time.  And it would be really nice to see people actually RESEARCH these stories instead of greedily gulping down the pablum fed to us by mainstream media.  The Government is NOT the good guy in this matter!

    • Welcome Marc. 🙂

      I did research this story im multiple sources, both foreign and domestic, and this is the first time I've seen this.  Is your source reliable?  If so, government is not the good guy here.  But neither is Bundy.  He's had years to resolve this matter in the courts, and calling in fascist TEAbaggers with guns goes criminally beyond standing up to government excess.

      As for Obama, I haven't seem hem address any nut-job below the rank of US Representative.

      • Even if Marc's version is correct, armed resistance is not justified and is still sedition.  If I read everything correctly, there has been a court order in place for 15 years.  It there any record of Mr. Bundy ever having appealed it or requested a stay?  That would have been the correct procedure.

  8. I've been following this all day, and surfing as many reactions, both right and left, as I could find. Lynn has the right of it, the BLM ceded the upper hand to the militia types when they backed off and allowed the wannabe Rambos to prevail. 

    My visceral reaction is to let reason and discourse prevail to end a potentially explosive situation. In this case, that's only going to make things worse in the long run. You cannot reason with fanatics. 

    The proper reaction to this, swift, sudden and awful military action, is prohibited by law (research 'posse comitatus') but would have effectively demonstrated to the militia types the consequences of their end game.

    Unfortunately, scenarios like this will be played out over and over. The music for the dance may change, but the steps are still the same.

  9. This story has been on the news a lot in the last few days.  It amazes me that so many people think Bundy has the right to leave his cattle there.  They are not on his property, he knows this, he knew he was to remove them, he has paid no lease money, yet armed militia are willing to defend him.  What happens if someone decides to take Bundy's personal property and not pay?  He seems to have won at  this point.  I am surprised that the BLM did anything.  The round up of wild horses, the exterminaton of prairie dogs were done for ranchers who were grazing their cattle on federal land, the BLM usually sides with the ranchers.  If he gets away with this with no punishment you can bet that others will follow his example.

  10. Thanks all.  I'm in a BIG rush!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.