HomeCrimeDEBUNKED: Cliven Bundy Cattle Not Seized by BLM for Fracking or Chinese Solar Panel Projects

DEBUNKED: Cliven Bundy Cattle Not Seized by BLM for Fracking or Chinese Solar Panel Projects

Okay, let’s be fair right out of the gate: This isn’t the exact sort of “debunking” we usually do. Normally, when a bunch of TeaNuts post some insane meme designed to present a false narrative, we’ll break it down, and rip apart its half-truths and outright lies with the little piranhas of fact. No, this one’s a little different — more of an appeal to reason — if there is such a thing anymore.

Libertarians and teanuts far and wide have gathered unto Cliven Bundy’s sacred sheath of land for one purpose: LIBERTY! Or something. Nevermind that said liberty comes by way of simply ignoring federal claims on land that their hero doesn’t own. This isn’t about a bunch of people simply crying because they don’t like the law, or having to obey it. Nor, is it about using threats of violence to affect government policy — i.e “terrorism.”

Nope…this one’s all about Harry Reid, the Chinese, Fracking, and Illuminati Lizard Men cunningly disguised as desert tortoises.

Claim No. 1 — That’s Cliven Bundy’s LAND!

Rebuttal No 1: NO IT ISN’T! Despite his claims of owning a piece of America simply because his family’s cows ate there, Cliven Bundy never owned one inch of that federal property. Not a single inch of it. He never “owned the rights” to graze his cows there, because the BLM doesn’t “sell” grazing rights. They lease them, and Cliven Bundy just didn’t want to pay his lease. Why? Turtles.

This is a letter written by former Lake Mead Recreation Area Superintendent Alan O’Neill — he sums it up well:

I have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

You’ll find the case rulings on Bundy HERE and HERE.

Claim No 2 — The Turtles Are Just a Smokescreen!

No, they’re really not. Back in 1993, the BLM established that area as a protected turtle habitat, because the turtles were disappearing. Even Cliven Bundy himself acknowledges that the turtles have disappeared, their populations dropping by more than 90 percent in his lifetime. Granted, he uses some folksy wisdom about how the decline of the turtle population has something to do with the decline of ranching in the area. In an amazing example of putting the cart before the cow, Bundy sees the non-native sheep and cow population as somehow having a positive effect on a reptile that’s been there for millions of years — and which has suddenly begun to die off, apparently because it couldn’t get along without the sheep and cows that it managed to survive 60 million years without.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqWm-LWWjQ&w=640&h=480]

The rationale for calling the tortoise itself a smokescreen is similarly bass-ackward. According to the teanuts, the BLM suddenly decided to swoop in and grab Bundy’s land for fracking or solar panels, and used the turtles as a pretext. We won’t argue that the turtles in modern mention, right now, may be something of a pretext for removing Bundy’s cows. They have moved the lines of the protected area in recent years.

But they weren’t a pretext in 1993, when Bundy decided to stop paying his rent. You might remember, back in the 90s, we actually CARED about that silly “environment” stuff. There was a thing on the news about it. It absolutely WAS for environmental reasons that the BLM cut Bundy’s grazing allotment down to 150 head of cattle; and it absolutely was for his own profit that Bundy ignored them. For the next 20 years.

During this time, the turtle population in the area kept dropping, and turtle habitat funds were running out. The turtle habitats had been established during the 1990s housing boom, and drew their fees and operating costs from housing in the area. When the housing bubble burst during the Bush recession, the turtles ran out of money and time. In 2012, hundreds had to be euthanized because they weren’t healthy enough to be released into the wild, and because the turtle habitat program ran out of money.

The rest is a sad story of an animal not protected the way it should have been, suffering at the hands of the American economy. But don’t say the turtles were just a smokescreen for a land-grab. Say that Bundy didn’t like the fact that endangered reptiles were becoming more important than his edible mammals.

Claim No 3. — Harry Reid’s Grabbing it For Chinese Solar Fracking!

Uhhh…no, he’s really not. For several reasons, but mainly because the BLM didn’t have to “grab” anything. It was land they already owned, and always had. Bundy never had the land of his own to sustain 1,000-plus cattle, and his family had always been dependent on use of fed land to raise cows. But the BLM didn’t NEED to “grab anybody’s land.” It was their land to begin with. And after Bundy stopped paying his lease, he was effectively gone as far as they were concerned. With nobody leasing the land, the BLM closed his former allotment for grazing permanently.

With their former tenant no longer paying his bills, the BLM started looking at other uses for the land. They have included exploratory drilling and yes, even leasing or selling the area to the Chinese to start paying down our $5 Trillion tab.

Maybe some of those connections and political insider-ing are a little shady, but that really isn’t the point here.

The point is that the BLM didn’t need to drive out cows to drill for oil. Invoking an endangered reptile would only make it that much harder to get approval for drilling or dastardly Chinese solar panels. Harry Reid’s plans for the area, his son’s, the Chinese…those are all completely irrelevant, and have nothing to do with moving cows. They could have done all those things without paying to impound four-legged feces factories.

Claim No. 4 — The Gummint’s Comin’ to Take Ever’thang From Independent Men Like Cliven Bundy!

First, Cliven Bundy was never “independent.” His Mormon ancestors might have had some cows there, but they wouldn’t have if the United States FEDERAL GOVERNMENT hadn’t been ceded that territory by Mexico. Cliven Bundy’s Mormon grandpappy didn’t capture that territory…the American government did. And it has belonged to them ever since. Bundy’s family was permitted to graze cows there for a fee, and Cliven forfeited his right to that allotment when he stopped paying. The federal government, who owned the land and always had, started looking for another use for it. Simple as that.

Or…it MIGHT have been as simple as that, had one self-entitled old man who didn’t want to pay his rent not suckered a bunch of teabillies into holding guns for him.

Make no mistake, this is, in fact, an eviction. It’s punitive, and aggressive. But (former) landlords tend to get that way when you’re still squatting on property you haven’t paid on in 20 years. But, we suspect that Cliven’s former landlords will be back after his treasonous guests finish enjoying their little spring holiday on Lake Mead. Keep an eye on those license plates, boys…you may find yourselves in Cuba this summer.


H/T: Metabunk…nice job, guys.

(PS: Thoughts on China. Listen, Teabillies…I know, as crazy as it seems right now, we’re not actually at war with anyone. We know you’ve still got that huge war-on from Iraq, the Cold War…Hell, the Civil War. But we’re not actually at war with anybody right now. Not even those commie Chinese. China is the second largest global economic power in the world right now, right behind us; it’s not a communist conspiracy for a Red Dawn takeover every time we do business with them. You do plenty of business with China…you’re probably still making payments on that flat-screen TV in your living room. Does that mean you’ve invited the communists in to steal your car and molest your dog?  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH CHINA. And the next time you go crying to anyone about the United States “selling out” to China because we owe them $5 Trillion, bear in mind that our last war was responsible for about $4 Trillion of that.)

About Richard Rowe

Richard Rowe
Richard Rowe is a full-time freelance writer who has written over 3 million words in the last four years alone -- mostly on automotive and technical subjects. He's also a seventh-generation native Floridian, and was born and raised in the Ocala National Forest. A conservative soul turned Bull-Moose Progressive, he believes that "When change becomes necessary, the once impractical ideology of progress becomes practical, and maintenance of the status quo becomes the impractical ideology." And also, that "Rustoleum Black Enamel is a primary color."
  • brandon

    Actually this is kind of funny. This “democratic” debunking here, actually confirms that the goal here was Solar Energy companies, or more simply, money. You also confirmed that the tortoise has a lot to do with the story, which is part of the argument.

    You said it yourself here, the 1993-1994 change of allotment demanded the reduction of cattle, due to the desert tortoise.

    The argument of people who are actually thinking about this is…. Can the federal government attack an individual’s livelihood in the claims that it is protecting another animal?

    Remember, Bundy paid his fees to the State of Nevada until 1993, when the BLM demanded they he pay them from now on. He stopped paying because they demanded he reduce his cattle numbers.

    If they decided that squirrels in your neighborhood were suddenly endangered, they could invoke a new law stating that you could not have more than one dog, or no dogs, as they threaten the squirrel population and force you to sell, shelter, or kill your other dogs. That is extreme, I know, but essentially that is what happened here. It is using the same method of thinking, is what I am saying, so please don’t start barking at me about how ridiculous that example is, because that’s the very reason I used it.

    Except these cattle are not pets, they are this man’s income. He refused to pay because of this required reduction.

    Bundy did owe money, but to whom and for what? Sometimes the law is wrong, and it takes a stand against it to bring it to light. If you want to argue that point, I simply will defer you to Jim Crow laws. They were the law, but they were completely morally and ethically wrong.

    If the federal government was so worried about the tortoise, why euthanize so many?

    As you said, this was 100% about money, not tortoises, but the tortoises were used to justify that money.

    Also a couple side notes…. who in their right mind could justify “First amendment zones?”
    I was going to make a comment about war, as you (for some strange reason) decided to add that to this discussion, but I realize those who have never known evil know not of its resolve.
    Hippies, I call them.

    • Brad Smith

      Not sure what you think you’ve proven. The US government owns the land. Bundy leased it. As landowner, the United States government has a right to decide not to lease to Bundy the next year, or to change the terms of the lease, for any reason. The government decided to make a change. Bundy, like any tenant, had to get off. However, being the entitled little turd that he is, he decided that is lease was actually a deed, and that the land was his to use forever. The law calls that trespass. A court ordered him to pay damages, and get his cattle off. He refused. The landowner, the US government, asked a federal court to order Bundy off the land, and, after a lawsuit, the government won, and Bundy was ordered off the land. Which is what should have happened. But, because he is a self entitled little turd, he decided he would stay anyway. So, the government asked the court for permission to forcibly remove his cattle from the government’s land, and the court said yes. Which is what the court should have done, since it was the governments land.

      So, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether you agree with the landowners reason for changing the terms of the lease.

  • Uncle Johny the Super Ultra Patriot for Jesus

    Cliven the freeloading tea bagger traitor. Next time maybe the FBI will light him up. The sad little puke deserves it.

  • Jim
  • https://www.facebook.com/andy.barta Andy Barta

    Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870’s

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_blm_lies_fracking_leases_bundy_ranch.html#ixzz2zFqLG100

  • Bill

    My God, could you be more misinformed? You don’t even realize the most basic fact that the land in question is owned by the state of Nevada, not the federal government or the BLM; they only manage it…

    … but arguing with you is pointless. So, why don’t you argue with Anonymous, instead? They will teach you well:


    • https://www.facebook.com/candace.marley68 Candace Marley

      Try doing your own research and you’ll find out it IS government land. I have read the history of Nevada as written by NEVADA and it states clearly in THEIR own state information that the land is us government land. The land started out as government land…the government parceled it out to private owners….and the rest stayed government land.

    • http://gravatar.com/kilkee526 kilkee526

      Read the NV Constitution. By itself it concedes that the US owns that land.

      • Bill

        Read the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8.

        • Kilkee

          Ok, I’ve read it (actually I read it long ago, in law school and before). And your point is?

          • http://gravatar.com/kilkee526 kilkee526

            Oh, and if you’re pointing to it because of the “exclusive jurisdiction” over DC part, it’s clear you (like many of your friends) don’t have any idea what “exclusive jurisdiction” means. And you might want to look at Article IV, Section 3, which discusses other Federal lands.

          • Bill

            Article I Section 8 defines the scope of the federal government’s legislative power. Where in that article do you see anything that gives the federal government the right to control property within a sovereign state? Also, how do you justify the Federal Government’s control of 80% of the state of Nevada, and it’s imposing of “grazing fees” in most of these areas, when the Article states that such fees can be imposed …”to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Uniform? Not even close.

            As for Article IV Section III, can you show me how Congress can confirm borders of a sovereign state while maintaining ownership or control of 80% of it without compensation to the state?

            And as for DC, which is a completely different issue but demonstrates overstepping as well, can you show me, in the Constitution, hope it could possibly be legal for real property within “such a District” to have ever been sold to a citizen?

          • https://www.facebook.com/candace.marley68 Candace Marley

            No where in Article 1 Section 8 does it forbid the U.S. government from owning land. Now the control of the 80% of land….that was not something taken by force from the people of our country. The U.S. owned that land and then allowed homesteading within certain areas of the state. Ownership of the area later to become Nevada was already owned by the U.S. after attaining it from Mexico. When Nevada went on to become a state of their own it was agreed by them to let these particular areas to state in the ownership of the U.S. government.

            So tell me oh bathroom constitutional scholar exactly where it says in the constitution that the government CANNOT own land? Article I Section 8 does not forbid it.

          • Bill

            I’m going to make a long, detailed post here, in the hopes that this thread will bring some context to the legal and historical issues involved in this and other cases throughout the Western States. I hope it is well-received.

            First, please understand that Bundy is not the focus of this problem. Before the standoff ever occurred, more than 50 lawmakers from the Western States scheduled a summit to plan how they would take control of their public lands. And this conflict between Federal and States rights to public lands throughout the Western States has been going on for a very, very long time. Bundy’s ranch is a tiny entry in a much larger history book. Here are my Cliff’s Notes:

            The Enabling Act of 1864 is what Congress passed to enable Nevada to become a state. The Act declares itself to be, “An Act to enable the People of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission of such State into the Union on an equal Footing with the original States.”

            On equal footing with the original states. No Eastern state is “owned”in the majority by the Federal Government. Do you know why? Because the issue of whether the State or the Federal Government should own Public Land was fought over and decided to the favor of the State over the Fed in 1802 when Ohio’s own Enabling Act set the precedent, resulting in only 1.1% of the land in Ohio being controlled by the Federal Government.

            Fast Forward to 1864, when Nevada adopted its Constitution. In planning for its expansion, primarily as a farming and mining State, Nevada understood that it had challenges: There was little water, so farmers, homesteaders, and townships had to share those Public Resources for the betterment of the State. But since there would need to be passages for them to do so, roads would also have to be built. Here’s the really important part to understand: The Homestead Act of 1862 had already been extremely active in the Nevada Territory for 2 years by the time Nevada would draft its Constitution, and homesteaders were assured of patents and deeds to lands on which they had settled for 5 years. So, to nullify any private claims against the Natural Resources that would need to be shared by the people of Nevada in order for the State to be viable, the Constitution included this waiver: “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.” PLEASE read those first six words carefully. The disclaimer applies to people already inhabiting the territory in 1864, and the reason for this was so that they could not make homestead claims to all of the water sources, oil reservoirs, etc. three years later. Textualists like to read one line at a time and apply universal meaning to those few words without reference to their context or history. In this case, textualism results in a lie; the context and history show you the truth. Part of that history is that in 1956, Nevada amended the “ORDINANCE” of its Constitution, which is the part in which the above Public Land disposition appears, to specify that the Ordinance is only “[Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary].”

            From 1864 onward, the future appropriation of viable lands that did not contain scarce resources and were not necessary for ingress and egress to and from those resources, was expected, as it had been the SOP when new states were formed of how land control would be transferred from the Fed to the State and/or individuals or corporations at the time. You can see this reflected in the Enabling Act of 1864: Sections 7-9 describe how unappropriated lands would be appropriated to the State without fee, either by pre-determined tracts or through the direction of the State Legislature. That was state land that ended up being something like 2 million acres altogether in the end, that the State was permitted to appropriate to itself. Section 10 describes how the United States would sell additional unappropriated lands and give the state 5% of the proceeds so that it could build its infrastructure. Again, this was the way new states were made, and the continued appropriations of public lands from the Fed to the benefit of the State and its residents was expected. And it happened a lot! Soldiers returning from war would often be paid in notes (can’t remember what they were called) that they could use to appropriate public lands controlled by the Federal Government to themselves; “checkerboard grants” were made to railroads to promote the mining industry; and private sales also happened, as they were expected to happen, in Nevada…for a while.

            The problem came about when the Federal Government began tightening its hold on vast amounts of land in the Western States. The history of escalating regulatory roadblocks to States’ rights to these lands, and the court and legislative filings that they have prompted, goes back all the way to the 1870’s, but things really started to come to a head around 1933. Since then, there has been a pretty steady push for the Fed to loosen their stranglehold on the States’ public lands, but those in opposition have held back the movement by insisting that (paraphrasing, here, obviously), “If Federal Land is to be turned over to the States, then the States have to take over the responsibility and the budget for what are now National Parks. Yeah…the National Parks Act. Remember that? It’s all or nothing for you Western States, and you can’t afford these huge financial obligations we’ve taken on, so go pound sand.” In 1976, when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act created the BLM, the Western States launched fierce objections to what they knew was to be an abusive authority. Their efforts came to be known as the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” and led to extensive negotiation and multiple revisions of bills proposed in 1979 and 1981. The proposals, supported by the Utah Wilderness Commission, would have left the National Parks in the hands of the Feds, since it was their federal programs that created them, while releasing much of the public lands in the West to their respective States. But once Reagan was elected, his administration relaxed the stranglehold enough to stifle the enthusiasm of the bill-backers. By the way, during that period between 1976 and 1981, the Homestead Act was repealed by Congress during the Carter Administration. The outcry from the west was a pretty major deal at the time.

            So, the would-be bills from ’79-’81 were shoved in a drawer somewhere in favor of forging a new level of cooperation while Reagan, who was obviously sympathetic to the cause of the Sagebrush Rebels, was in office. There was a major movement during this time to win back the States’ rights to these lands. For example, The mission of the Nevada Land Use Planning Agency was tasked to increase State control of Public Lands through cooperation with the Federal Government. The “Nevada Statewide Policy Plan for Public Lands” (http://lands.nv.gov/forms/chapter1.pdf) describes this task, and it doesn’t leave much to the imagination regarding the State’s standpoint on how its public lands are controlled by the Fed. Just look at the list of meetings between 1983 and 1986 that appears at the end of the above-linked document to see how serious an issue this has been the Nevada, not just Bundy, since long before this standoff headline. The State, and other states, and other citizens, and not just Bundy, have been fighting for these rights for over a century, and there are still ongoing cases and very few relevant Constitutional precedents have been decided beyond the Appeals lever by SCOTUS. My point is that the Constitution issues have yet to be settled, and the legislative processes are far from over.

            Finally, looking back to that “Equal Footing” provision of the Enabling Act, and how that provision aligns with Nevada’s Constitution, section 13, in which the state declares that its “Representation shall be apportioned according to population.” I ask you this: What hope does the 7th largest state in the Union have of ever increasing representation of its interest in the United States Senate if the state is not permitted to appropriate the use of more than 80% of the land within its borders? How can anyone possibly contend that Nevada and other Western States are on anything near “Equal Footing” with such a disproportionate level of control over their states and such a hinderance to their potential for increased representation in Congress?

            Again, I hope my time and effort in explaining just some of these problems is well-received and not met with childish name-calling such as “bathroom Constitutional scholar.” Frankly, if more people would use the time they spend in the bathroom to read the Constitution and a bit of U.S. History instead of Facebook, then perhaps these issues would not require so much explanation.

  • Brodie McBride

    Awesome story Richard, keep writing.

  • karen503

    I suppose Richard Rowe could have called them a “screaming profane mob of paranoid survivalists seeking martyrdom”, or “religious fundamentalists attempting to reenact Tienanman Square but having to settle merely for YouTube fame and attention from Fox News”.

    “Teabillies” was too kind.

  • Pingback: MUST WATCH: Chris Hayes on Why the Feds Backed Down to Bundy and His Right-Wing Terrorist Militia (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Pingback: Homegrown Terrorist Rancher Cliven Bundy Calling On Sheriffs To ‘Disarm’ Feds! (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Pingback: U.S. Navy Makes Gasoline from Seawater for $3 Per Gallon! | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Lampie

    Yea, Bundy’s argument is starting to look weak.
    There may be something to the grandfathering, since he was grazing on the land before there was a BLM, but that’s probably weak too.

    Let’s face it though. The government isn’t exactly clean in this. The fees Bundy was paying were supposed to go to making the lands better for grazing. Instead they went to turtle habitats and policy that ruined his family business. Hell, it ruined all of the ranchers business.

    But that’s not an issue, is it?
    The government has the right to ruin people’s business and save turtles, if that is what our leaders choose.
    It is well within their rights to abuse, starve, and cruelly run down till they die exhausted, over 100 cows and calves that were grazing on federal land.
    It has the right to create “free speech zones” miles from where the action is, and arrest people who protest out of the box.
    It has the right to taze protesters.
    It has the right to lie about it’s motives. To mislead about it’s plans.

    There is no question the government is and has been completely within it’s rights on this issue.

    And when it pisses off enough people that they take arms up against it, the government has the absolute right to kill those people where they stand.

    Thank God for rights eh?

    • karen503

      There is no “grandfathering” of a right to land that never belonged to the Bundy family in the first place. And nevermind about when the BLM came in to existence, our federal government WAS in existence and that’s the entity that acquired the land in the first place. “The government” = We the People, you know — so Clive Bundy has essentially been stealing from the rest of us for the past 20 years.

      I guess the former sheriff who said the survivalist/militia tactic of putting their women and kids in the front lines of the mob that was screaming foul epithets at the patrolmen and BLM agents was supposed to enrage “the government” to the point where they mowed the women and kids down, hm? Unfortunately for those “courageous” survivalist types, but fortunately for their women and kids, they didn’t get their martyrs.


    • https://www.facebook.com/djsoulburner David Harris

      http://archive.today/nvlzr This shows CLEARLY on the BLM website before they changed it what they were saying. This was CLEARLY about the solar. You might want to do a better job doing research

      • https://www.facebook.com/candace.marley68 Candace Marley

        My questions on that report:

        1) Is there no concern for the damages listed there that have been perpetrated by cow’s belonging to Bundy? Private land, water contamination with fecal matter, etc.

        2) I’m not understanding what is meant by “utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development”. Offsite would mean not the site of the solar project correct? But is somehow impacted by cattle including feral cows (which seem to be another large concern).

        3) “Residents of the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite have complained about the impact of cattle on city facilities. ” What were their concerns? What is the exact impact of city facilities?

        4) “Cattle have crushed artifacts at the “Red Racer” and St. Thomas cultural sites.” I’m going to have to look up those sites because I’ve never heard of them but I’m guessing they are some importance???

        5) “Damage to springs with sensitive amphibians, including the rare relict leopard frog.” There’s been a lot of talk on the turtles but what is the impact on these leopard frogs which I have not seen any mention of in the discussions regarding the cattle impact or lack thereof.

        6) “Unauthorized reservoir constructed with bulldozer twice.” Wouldn’t this still be breaking the law if he had no authorization???

  • TeXan1111

    Hey Greta didn’t say any of this on her show.. are you sure you got your facts right?

  • Pingback: Glenn Beck’s The Blaze Admits: ‘Cliven Bundy is Lying and Breaking the Law’ | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Pingback: VIDEO: BLM - Cliven Bundy - Issues Examined - Exploring the News()

  • [email protected]

    See i am Native American and the white man came in and destroyed the land. Before the white man my people lived in peace with the earth. All the parties of this country are wrong. My people never had land rights, the land was shared. Before the white man my people did not have fences around “their property” No one owned the land, we are to protect and nurish the land and mother nature. Fighting over land on both sides is wrong and sick. People are murdered over land, the greed which encompasses it is disgusting! The US government also has no rights to land either. Its like going to another country killing those people, then drawing up a document saying the USA owns this land. Ha the earth will always be free. It just shows how greedy, corupt and vile our government is. You cant own mother nature!

  • Tuck R.

    AATTP has a no tolerance policy for comments containing personal attacks and threats yet Richard Rowe continuously makes comments including both of those things. Seems very hypocritical and since Richard Rowe hates hypocrits as stated above, I assume he will now wish to not be associated with himself. Sometimes I think these types of American hate groups like AATTP are started by foreign enemies of America to stir the pot.

    • https://www.facebook.com/KABarry1901 Kevin A Barry

      Yet it’s ok for you to do it. Glad to know we bother you so much, We are growing in strength and you neo fascist, will not win.

  • https://www.facebook.com/james.r.olson.1 James R. Olson

    Richard Rowe, I’m ashamed to say I have never heard of you, but that is one excellent piece of writing, done in the kind of passive aggressive style I am fond of. Nice job.

  • Richard Rowe

    @ Rob: “Good lord, with criteria like that you’ll be standing out in a field by yourself!”

    LOL…wouldn’t be the first time, Rob. Probably will be the LAST one of these days, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first.

  • Danny

    The land was acquired in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo -1847 by the USA.
    Nevada did not exist nor was Bundy family there.

  • Rob

    And nobody’s concerned that the BLM sent TWO HUNDRED ARMED AGENTS to deal with one recalcitrant rancher? I don’t hear any of you government-dependent types going on about THAT. The militia didn’t go out there to stop the BLM, although the mission creep that devolved into it was a nice bonus. They went out there to provide a counterpoint against out of control overboard government tactics, to prevent another Waco or Ruby Ridge. There was no need for that large an assault force, and the presence of the militia prevented a(nother) government-sponsored mass murder, a(nother) that would have seen no one punished for their wrongdoing, and forced a settlement in which everyone walked out alive and well. Mission success in my book, and a clear message sent to government: behave yourselves. We’re watching you, and we WILL rein you in if you make it necessary.

  • https://www.facebook.com/mickwest Mick West

    I updated the map to show the actual scale of the Bundy ranch. 160 acres of Bundy land vs. 158,000 acres of public land. https://www.metabunk.org/sk/bundymapwithranchkeyed.jpg

    • ebontail

      They originally only sent “professional cowboys” to gather up the cattle, they only sent in the armed agents after pussy cliven called in the redneck mafia.

  • Richard Rowe

    @ Aaron Myers: Of course they’re not using that money to protect the turtles. If they were, the turtle habitat right up the street wouldn’t have closed down, and they wouldn’t have had to euthanize so many of the turtles there. But that really isn’t the point here…since when was the Right so concerned about environmentalism? Cliven Bundy could have called in the militias to mount a “Save the Turtles” campaign back in 1999, but he didn’t. Nobody voted for politicians who cared about saving turtles, or were willing to allot funds to them, because everybody was so worried about who was screaming about blacks, gays or abortion this week. These people lost the right to whine about how their money was being used when they decided to elect people whose sole purpose was to keep them from paying it. That’s how a democratic republic works.

    But ultimately, no…he doesn’t have to keep his cows off that land to save a turtle. He doesn’t have to do it because of oil fracking, solar panels, or the wrath of God…he has to do it because the law applies equally to everyone. Or, it’s supposed to. I seem to recall the right pitching a fit about Obama’s “unconstitutional selective enforcement” when he and Holder said they weren’t prosecuting pot offenders — now, Bundy and his people have decided that the law should selectively not be enforced upon them? Oh, well Hell…I’ve just decided that the cops should selectively not enforce laws pertaining to grand theft for me, because my neighbor just got a new PS1, and I want it. Man, that 15 year old cheerleader down the street is looking tasty, too…I think that laws on statuatory should selectively not be applied to me, because my grand-grandfather probably banged a couple of 15 year olds back in 1890.

    Cliven Bundy needs to move his fn cows because United States law applies to EVERYONE in the United States. Period. And we damned sure don’t fail to enforce it because some nutjobs threaten us with guns…oh, HELL no. Representative democracy…not fascism. Not ceding lands to a guy whose ancestors were probably involved in the massacre of 140 unarmed women and children the LAST time they decided to “appropriate” federal lands. This guy can bite it.

    People who don’t want to obey US laws are free to move anywhere else they choose. World’s a big place, and airplanes go everywhere. If you, or Cliven Bundy, or Alex Jones, or every parasite on Wall Street don’t like our laws, feel free to leave for Mexico or Somalia at any time you like. But don’t expect us not to enforce OUR laws, just because you say so.

  • Pingback: Massive win for the 2A. Armed men are no cows. - Page 2 - Shooting Sports Forum()

  • Dave Wall

    Watch out! Those domestic terrorists might get you! You know, after all,those radical Islamist terrorists are to busy working for the Man in Libya, Syria and such. Geeez guys take psy-ops 101 class for goodness sake. Divide and conquer much? How come you so called Progressives are on the side of authoritarian control freak psychos anyway. Ditch the false left right paradigm, grow up and be real human beings.

    • Richard Rowe

      @ Dave Wall: Divide and conquer has already happened. Frankly, I think we should finish the amputation, and relegate these psychos to the useless fringes of history where they belong. Right now, we’ve got societal gangrene from a dead limb that just refuses to fall off. I used to think that these Teanuts were salvageable, And I still think probably half are. But the half who aren’t a poisoning the rest, and need to be exposed and excised for the rotten flesh they are.

      As far as choosing sides, I don’t love the douchebag authoritarian gummint. But I’ve got one guiding principle in life: If you’re any combination of stupid, racist, misogynist, homophobic, selfish or hypocritical, then I’m not standing on your side of the line. In anything. Ever. Sometimes that means having to side with people I don’t like everything about…but it sure beats siding with people I hate EVERYTHING about.

      • Rob

        Good lord, with criteria like that you’ll be standing out in a field by yourself!

        • karen503

          No, he won’t. There’s plenty of others like me who have been thinking along the same lines as Richard Rowe.

    • Richard Rowe

      @ Dave Wall: BTW, laugh if you want about our “terrorist” label. You take off the beer bellies, and put these guys in different colored skin, clothes, and churches, and they’re absolutely no different than the Muslim Brotherhood. The only difference is that they didn’t open fire because they (temporarily) got their way. This time. Next time, when the government decides to enforce a law they don’t like, we’ll see who gets labeled what.

      • Dave Wall

        More than likely the powers that be will do a Black Panthers on them. Infiltrate with agent provacatures. Possibly do a WTC 1993 type bombing where it was the FBI who supplied the controlled patsies with real explosives. If you think that the same Federal Government that uses Islamic extremists to overthrow Libyia and Syria and to threaten Russia etc. is some how the freind of the common man boy am I confused. These guys serve transnational fascists and our rights and freedom mean nothing to them. It makes me think how the Globalists forced millions of indigenous peoples off the land in Mexico and turned over that land to the corporations. If the game plan of bankrupting a nation and then looting it holds true we shall be experiencing IMF riots in America. Regardless of persuasion we all will suffer under austerity as we watch the nation sold off at fire sale prices. We have been deceived and kept from comming together in our common interests. Sad.

  • https://www.facebook.com/candace.marley68 Candace Marley

    Well Brian…God forbid that they actually do any REAL research

  • cm sals

    nobody story sounds convincing to me at all

  • Mike

    So the fact that he had grazing rights on the land way before the BLM was establish has nothing to do in this all? And the fact that the reason he stopped paying his “dues” to use land he had rights to because the BLM was using the money to fund side projects and to forcibly purchase land from his fellow ranchers, instead of right of way maintenance and the like (the reason they started collecting “dues” on the land) dosen’t factor into the equation? Or lets look at the way the BLM acted through this whole scenario. Last time I checked tazering a person multiple times when they WERE NOT acting in a threatening manner and simply trying to ask a question wasn’t procedure. I don’t think their procedure covers throwing an old woman (who is battling cancer) to the ground and neither is threatening to sick police dogs on a pregnant woman both of whom we not exhibiting any sort of threatening behavior, unless you count asking a simple question threatening. Which knowing the current government and it’s supporters mindset, y’all probably do consider that threatening. I just cannot express how much our country is nose diving because of people who have you’re mindset, open your eyes and break free of the heard of countless other sheeple.

    • JFischer

      The government owns the land. He paid for the grazing rights, then decided to stop paying because of the turtles.

    • http://Hulgan Shirley

      Sounds good…I found the name calling offensive in the first article. That eroded the entire article. Any truth in it disappeared when words like “teabillies” came into play. Its a shame that “adults” stoop to childish name calling to get a point across. The article would have had more value had the writer left off mud slinging.. .Not necessary to get his point across.

    • D. Gard

      The BLM was established in 1946. The Bundy grazing leases started in 1954.

  • https://www.facebook.com/youthzero Aaron Myers

    I have a hard time believing that they put all these resources to protecting turtles. These are the same people who blew up atomic bombs and let companies frack and spill oil everywhere. Now all the sudden this rancher has to keep his cows off some land to save a turtle? We don’t know what the real reason is but it’s not that. It’s because of some back taxes? HSBC got busted for having ties to real terrorist and nothing happens but if a rancher owes 300k for grazing rights they call in a task force. I understand why he doesn’t want to pay. fuck that, his cows have been there doing the same thing since the 1800’s now all the sudden they want him to pay. who would want to do that? it’s fucking stupid. We don’t know what’s really killing the turtles, i read that the government euthanized some because they can’t care for them. Who knows, but i doubt that cows are trampling the turtle population to death. The government clearly is being a bully and over reacting. There is something really going on here and things are not what they seem.

    • https://plus.google.com/104289312051776613190 John Sheehan

      They are not ‘all of a sudden” charging him grazing fees…he stop[ped paying 20 years ago…they have been in court many times…

  • https://www.facebook.com/drake.abbychicka Drake Abbychicka

    too bad the writer is trolling…. stick to what you know .

  • Matt

    As on of the people in “We the people”, I want the rent on the land that “We The People” own paid. If the tenant doesn’t want to pay, too bad, get out. Because, as a voter, I AM THE GOVERNMENT.

  • Brian

    Not like the Jon’s of the world would care, but the founding fathers were the one’s who set up the Northeast Territory Law and then sold said land to people to settle these areas, only after that did States form with the federal government giving some land to the states.

  • Richard Rowe

    @ Jon: And what hole did you pull that out of, John? I assume you’re referring to the Enclave Clause that the teanuts have been circulating lately, which says the government CAN create sovereign enclaves under its own jurisdiction, like Washington DC and military bases. That clause is an EXTENDING power, not a limiting one. This is why we pay federal judges to interpret the constitution, and not a bunch of rednecks from Nevada.

    That aside…who is “we the people,” Jon? Is “we the people” a pissed off mob standing around in the desert with guns? When were those people granted the right by the constitution to set policy in the United States? Last I heard, the writers of the constitution said that the power of the people, the creation of policy and the execution of that policy, would be expressed through elected representatives. That’s in the rest of the constitution. It’s really hard to read. But the one damned thing they NEVER said was that angry mobs of ignorant villagers got to make the rules around here by threatening to shoot people. That’s fascism. That’s terrorism. And it certainly is not what the framers had in mind.

    Don’t you worry, though…I’m sure a lot of people in Nevada will be getting a lesson in constitutionality, very soon, now that they’re officially on the NSA’s PRISM list.

    • Jon

      Richard- I was referring to Equal Footing. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I don’t necessarily believe that the constitution should be open to a politically appointed ( right or left) judge. I am not an advocate for violence. And I agree that this country is full of ignorance.

      We the People, Richard, are the ones left at the table, holding the bill, while ALL the right and left lobbyists and special interests and politicians dine-n-dash.

      Richard, you seem intelligent, so let me ask you for the answer to a question I just can’t figure out…Reid tells News4’s Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

      Did you catch what statement Senator Reid said without saying it? I’ll give you a hint…We can’t have American people that violate the law and then just walk away…

      I guess Senator Reid thinks it’s ok for Non-American people to violate US FEDERAL law and just walk away into amnesty…

    • DrJohnJGibbons

      It’s refreshing to hear your appreciation for Dubya-inspired corporate fascism, Richard. I’m glad you could finally join our side.

      Bill Kristol and the neo-con crew

  • hoz49

    Good explanation Richard, but do you really think the tbills will understand? They only see what they want to see and understand even less. Their little minds are made up that somehow right is left, up is down and Cliven Bundy is a hero instead of a manipulative thief. Why? Because ‘Murica!

    • Richard Rowe

      @ Hoz49: Thanks, Hoz. Probably not. You see the first reply on here was from Jon, who believes that A) The federal government doesn’t have the right to own ANY property, and B) there’s a legal difference between “the gummint” and “we the people.” It’s so hard to keep up with the BS trickling into these peoples’ brains, the best we can hope for is to punch a few tiny holes in their skulls so some trickles back out. Definitely, there are days when I feel like all we’re doing is making room for fresh BS. But, I suppose the nobility of all causes is a fairly relative matter lol.

  • Jon

    The federal government does not have the authority to “own” land outside of Washington DC. The BLM was created to MANAGE PUBLIC LANDS, that WE THE PEOPLE OWN…

    • Benji

      I still have to rent areas of public parks(reserve for party), pay fees on public roads(register my vehicle). Why does it not apply to Bundy? When you owe Uncle Sam money, he gets it one way or another.

    • Eli

      Manage PUBLIC lands, that are owned by the people in general, not by a corporation, and not by Cliven Bundy.

      Oh, and yes, the land of the United States of America is owned by the United States of America. Hopefully you’re able to grasp that concept.

    • enkelin

      Hey Jon, how about if I drag a cow up to Yellowstone and claim I own it. How do you think that would work?

    • Chelly

      So, your perfectly ok with someone not paying “We the People” for using “We the People’s land”.

    • http://gravatar.com/latenightlarry latenightlarry

      Jon, you are a typical delusional teabagger. BLM is part of the government. The GOVERNMENT owns the land managed by BLM, not Cliven Bundy or any other teabagger. Cliven Bundy is nothing more than another WELFARE DADDY, getting his money by STEALING the grazing rights for his cattle more than 20 years after he stopped paying for it. I fully expect that BLM and the IRS will pay him a midnight visit in a few weeks and lock his thieving carcass in a federal prison until he’s tried and sent to Gitmo for terrorism. And you should probably be in line right behind him.

    • NightfallGemini

      What Jon fails to understand is, the BLM was created to manage public lands that we the people own through a federal government that represents us through representative democracy. I wouldn’t expect anything more than a high school dropout’s understanding of civics from a Teabilly or Libertarian.

    • https://plus.google.com/+BradSmithBriefer Brad Smith

      Hey Joh…you might actually READ the Constitution:

      Art. 4, Sec. 3: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….”

      Of course the federal government has the power to ‘own’ land. And it had that power before the BLM was a glint in its daddy’s eye.

      • Constitution

        Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–

        • andyk304

          Sure, Constitution, a proviso was made in our Constitution to acquire the land for the District of Columbia- but that’s because Maryland and Virginia, out of which the District was carved, existed prior to the federal government itself. All federal land in the original thirteen states was obtained through purchase or through grants by those states.Since Texas was an independent republic prior to joining the US, federal land there was obtained in a similar manner.

          However, the other thirty-six states were carved out of federal lands. The state governments and private persons had to obtain land from the federal government through purchase or grants from the federal government. Bundy’s family neither purchased nor obtained a land grant from the federal government for the land on which they grazed their cattle.

          Shorter form: Your point is moot.

        • Kilkee

          Do you know what EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction means? No, you don’t, or you wouldn’t be among those stupidly relying on this provision to claim the US cannot own any land outside DC. Guess we need to give back the LA purchase, California, pretty much everything west of the Alleghenies.

          • Ron Weissinger

            I can’t believe that nobody has actually posted the BLM website regarding grazing fees and an explanation of AUM (Animal Unit Month). Back in the late 1800’s the government encouraged people to move and settle the “West”. Track of land were offered for ‘free’ and were generally160 acres for homesteaders. These folks, but not all, had livestock and grazed their herds (both cattle and sheep) on the land around them. All settle on creeks, rivers, or where springs offered a water source as a lot of the “West” is arid to semi-arid. When the Dust Bowl hit in the 1930’s it was decided, and rightfully so, that there be custodians of the public lands to put a damper on overgrazing and soil erosion. As per the link to the BLM website, the cost for the PRIVELEGE to graze livestock on public lands is paltry at the present rate of $1.35 per AUM. So, the folks who homesteaded and their descendants to this day had first ‘dibs’ on grazing rights. However, if they chose not to graze anymore, or sold the ranch (the original deeded land), the right to graze was offered to others. Also note that BLM is indeed public lands and therefore many uses are available to everyone including hunting, fishing, drilling, and yes, solar panels. So, Bundy not only stopped paying his grazing fees, but increased the size of his herd when ordered to cut back due to the endangered Desert Tortoise, but also no doubt the area was becoming overgrazed. Bundy also pushed his cattle to areas outside of the original boundary of his grazing rights. Not paying the grazing fees for 20+ years and also the fine accrued for not obeying the judges orders is what got his ass in a pickle. I had an outfitting business in Wyoming and had to pay grazing fees for my horses and mules when in the mountain camp during the summer and fall. Believe me when I say that $1.35 per AUM is damn cheap when feeding livestock. Bundy is out of line and has been for many years. He is a stain on the proud and generations old way of ranching in the “West”. In addition, for these unruly hoodlums to show up in camo and toting firearms as if they are backing up and agreeing with Bundy’s behavior is ridiculous. It ain’t over ’til it’s over and I think that Bundy will pay the price eventually. He has already lost his grazing rights in Federal Court so his goose is cooked anyway.

            Educate yourself and go to this link:


          • https://www.facebook.com/candace.marley68 Candace Marley

            Ron…you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. I’ve already seen accusations that the information had to have been changed to suit the governments purposes for this raid. Incredible isn’t it?

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test