Age of Civil Unrest?

Whew. I definitely see some truth in there, and history DOES repeat itself. I guess we'll just have to PREPARE, and wait & see....

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

I think there is a difference between the civil unrest of yore and of now. If you were angry back then, you said something and did something. Now, if you're angry you complain on Facebook, Twitter and Hackettstownlife.

btownguy ✉
Apr '14

From Wiki: "In September 1999, Armstrong faced prosecution by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for fraud. During the trial, Armstrong was imprisoned for over seven years for civil contempt of court, one of the longest-running cases of civil contempt in American legal history. In August 2006, Armstrong pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, and began a five-year sentence"

As The New Yorker said, and I paraphrase: "Apparently none of Armstrong's models predicted the inventor's demise......."

He is a cyclist: a numeric mystic modeler who believes in patterns. I am still reading the googlelian-length article; but bottom line seems maybe yes, but wouldn't bet the farm.

The only thing I know to be true about the economy is that wherever we are in the economic cycle, and whatever our status is; while it may look familiar, we have never been here before. IE --- we may see many similarities, patterns, historical repeats, but it will always be different. For example, in Armstrong's pattern matching with the past; there has never been an internet and I guarantee it will change what happens with civil unrest --- we live in a fishbowl today, we never have before. This might even make it more widespread, might dampen the spread, might provide a "learning" tool that evolves how civil unrest unveils itself, if it does, across the world.

Likewise, in world economics, we in the States are doing some similar things, some different things, creating a current status that looks similar but at the same time is totally different than the past. Can't say whether differences are good or bad, but they are there. Thus, I take cyclists with a grain of salt, especially self-educated ones who have been imprisoned for fraud, and make big money by selling subscriptions to their theories of fear.

Here's the article; http://armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/the-new-yorker-article.pdf

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

Let me know when Thomas Malthus becomes popular again... Malthusian really rolls off the old tongue.

iPhone-imal ✉
Apr '14

I agree with JR, it had been smoldering for some time, much civil unrest, the founding fathers (while many were firebrands) continued to push for reconciliation, and suddenly a random spark of stupidity (Lexington and Concord), not the founding fathers, ignited the conflagration. Basically Massachusetts dragged us all in.

England spent a lot of cash protecting the colonies in the French and Indian War from 1754 to around 1763. Thus the taxes to cover expenses. And Americans, used to living off English military hand-outs, got pissed they were not consulted. Actually it is not all that unfair to ask for financial support, nor was the amount egregious or being used elsewhere, but it was how the King did it that ticked Americans off. The Americans were getting used to governing themselves.

So they used economic sanctions (first volley) to hurt England. Seems fair.

This caused the King to go into back-up mode and send over more soldiers to keep a lid on things. (not the best choice since this is like being occupied by foreigners).

Then the overt act against the King, the tea party but that's still more like vandalism than an act of War (back to you King) (12.73)

He gets pissed and passes the intolerable acts (1774) including the one demanding colonists to house British thugs, I mean soldiers, which is like being forced to share your house with a foreigner. Rather than diffuse, the King chooses punitive measures.

The first Continental Congress (12.74) starts the colonies thinking as one nation (except GA) and resulting in a letter of demands (not separation) being sent to the King. Not exactly stern stuff. He dismisses.

Now the pot is hot, we got foreigners with guns in our streets, in our houses; it sucks. We got a King who does not want to listen to us, does not want to talk, does not want to give us representation at the English governmental table. Americans start preparing, storing arms in places like Lexington and Concord, getting ready, the King sits on his policies, and the Congress disbands.

And here is the match. The King responds with force. Not the Continental Congress, not the founding fathers, but the bonehead King deciding to have a show of force and march on Lexington and Concord to find the arms on 4.18.1775. Paul Revere, the minutemen, and a British loss of men and face as we harassed them all the way home. We won! This is seen as an act of war by both sides, but the American Founding Fathers still sought to repair rather than succeed.

The Continental Congress gets back together in 5.1775 and sends The Olive Branch Petition to the King, not exactly calling for war. I mean it's wimpy. Then the bonehead King does not read it and says they can all hang for defying him pretty much closing the door forcing the war versus the Founding Fathers picking a fight with him.

Oooops. Declaration of Independence on 7.4.76.

Along the way you have many little skirmishes like the Boston Massacre which fan the flames but really don't ignite the fire like these other acts, not "real violence" and more like accidents, property damage, etc.

So, lots of civil unrest; the Founding Fathers trying to find compromise, a stupid King in bully mode thinking my way or the highway, tensions rising, foreign occupation in your own house, and a stupid move for a show of force forcing Americans to defend themselves. If the spark had not been thrown, history would be different. If we had lost at Lexington and Concord, all would have been different. If the Founding Fathers had had their way, we would still be English.

Instead, with civil unrest high, a tiny spark combined with a lucky victory, a King in back-up mode, forced the Founding Fathers to go for broke or be hanged. Up to that time, the Founding Fathers wanted compromise. But at that point, pretty easy choice actually to call for War (since it beats hanging).

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

As I like to say, look at the trends. If the trends are still heading the wrong way, well, what else could be expected?

justintime ✉
Apr '14

http://marketsblog.usatoday.com/2014/04/02/will-130-year-old-dow-theory-confirm-bull-trend/

Red Wing
Apr '14

Story in today's USA Today about how CEOs keep making more and more money, in the billions of dollars, while Joe Average has to scratch by with less and less ...

interesting reading.

Where is it all heading?

Andy Loigu ✉
Apr '14

Maybe on planet JR that is true, but not here in the good ole USofA. In both cases there are those who earn and those who should burn.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

Oh, agree there are good and bad of both. My point (poorly made) was at least in the case of a CEO he has a JOB, of a company that earns profit, rather than a politician who dips from the public coffers (and of course the whole lobbyist thing)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

My point is Eisenhower dipped into the public coffers and built our national highway system; he did not become rich over it.

The boys at Enron........

Lately the buzz has been all about the brokerage computers sitting next to the stock exchange taking advantage of milliseconds to make side-orders every time you place a stock. Their computers physically sit next to the exchange computers; so they get a heads-up on your order, can see price changes, and act accordingly. If it was humans, all illegal. If computers, it's f-ing skippy OK. So they do nothing, make millions and line the brokers, exchange and anyone in the payola pipeline's pockets.

New book by Michael Lewis called Flash Boys explains all but bottom line is even after 2008 melt down, they are still making money by doing nothing of value and just gaming the system.

To me, just like many CEO's who have the single innate skill to be top dog in a dog fight. No real talents except being able to claw their way over the other dogs.

Politicians come in all flavors too. Let's face it, it's one place where after you pull the wool (get elected), you really don't even have to turn up for work, for years. But if you really want the big money, you can even lobby against guns while running them on the side :>)

Meanwhile, John Boehner, while I don't often agree with him and less so since being bent over by the TParty but think if left on his own would pass laws in concert with the other side, has never taken an earmark. Never. You may not agree with Biden, or may find him funny (I do); but I think he's a pretty good Joe (pun intended) too.

I was actually hopeful for Cruz too, but that worm turned fast......and ugly.

Have a lot of respect for Jeb Bush too.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

But Bush was CEO, Mom and Dad bought it for him.

He then sold the company just before bankruptcy, bought the Rangers on stolen taxpayer land, and then avoided insider trading through SEC influence capped by, as President, halting the final SEC report on the debacle. See, business people and politicians can work together!

Fact is there are good and bad CEO's and being there does not mean they earned it by being good at their jobs. Many buy it or have it bought, others are just good at winning at office politics, etc. etc. etc.

Whether politics or business, just being there does not mean you did good works or that you work good; one, the other, or neither may be true.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

Whether CEOs were good at their jobs or not, why do they need incomes in the billions?

They're not happy with merely making millions?

Andy Loigu ✉
Apr '14

Time to flip a coin again.

fitter ✉
Apr '14

JIT --- quit it.

What's the "right thing" on immigration?
MG -- look it up, he will tell you his stand.

If common core is so fantastic, why is the previous generation considered to be so great? I mean, if they all received such substandard educations (and assuming we did as well) how did our country get to where it is today? A high number of idiot savants?
MG - OK, whatever --- all I said was it's his belief, not necessarily mine. Write to him if you want.

Centrist, lesser of two evils, cross party lines, best hope...
C'mon misterg, you can think of a few more cliched adjectives to throw in there!
MG -- sorry, but that's the consensus of most observers who I guess just are less urbane than you.

What does all that really mean anyway? It means status quo. It means the no one will make the tough choices that need to be made. It means the party continues, consequences be damned, right?
MG -- to me it means an upright guy who might actually create a consensus view, create legislation and programs, and take some positive action for our country.

I just don't know why you are seemingly trying to pick a fight over this. I didn't see anything in my post to illicit such a fiery response. Throttle it down son. Maybe you don't like him, maybe you don't like me, maybe you don't like anyone since they are all "idiot savants," but geez, tone it down a bit please.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

No misterg, I won't "quit it". You certainly won't. You continue to present your perspective, and I'll do the same with mine. And BTW, I don't want to pick a fight - you do. I just want to remind you that yours is not the only perspective in town.

All in all, we simply disagree on perspective. I say look deeper, and you continue to copy and paste what you hear on the news. Fine. But don't tell me to quit it because you don't want to delve deeper beyond the direction someone else wants the discussion to go.

For starters, here's some other high priority topics that - in MY OPINION - should trump the "news" of which candidate the RNC wants to peddle (already discussed ad nauseum in the past here):

Debt based economy, how it works, how total debt can never go down no matter how much we argue about it.
Federal Reserve system, how it's changed over the last six year and how much the debt based economy has been taken over by it, and by extension the US government, which basically means "us".
Petrodollar, and the wars that will likely stem from it, how the stakes are so high that any major disruption in petrodollar usage will harm our debt based economy, how lower petrodollar usage will cause inflation that no one is sure the Federal Reserve can mask like they have been by issuing debt.
"Gold is not currency", yet all of our "enemies" (wink wink) are moving in that direction.
The difference between "foundational" issues vs "surface" issues.

And please, only new insults. I don't think I've heard them all yet. ;-)

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Not begging, just anticipating the usual response misterg. You know me, I work the trends. But I'm happy you say that particular trend is changing though, glad to see.

Regarding Jeb Bush, since he has been pushed publicly by the RNC in the news recently, that tells me to add him to the list of "I'm going to maintain the status quo" candidates. Every president for the last half century has been the same-old same-old economically (with the exception of emotional issues, of course).

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Ok, thanks for the clarification that my "trend" comment above was indeed accurate and appropriate. Duly noted for future engagements.

BTW, does "the language of dispassionate objectivity" mean anything to you? Just asking is all.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

The Government knows it's coming, that's why they want to take your guns away and make it impossible to purchase guns and ammo.

sam ✉
Apr '14

no one has any 'need' for an armored vehicle. nobody has ever given one solid reason that makes 'common sense' as to why they would 'need' an armored vehical

if the cops can't do their jobs without armored vehicles, they need to back to cop school

no one really 'needs' a armored vehicle to hand out traffic tickets, do they?

i call for a statewide ban on armored vehicles, it's only 'common sense'

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

Well said, Jmc.

Andy Loigu ✉
Apr '14

I know bad religion but I'm not sure what you mean?

Jmc ✉
Apr '14

JMC - Simply put, we're all human beings, we all want the same things. Choosing sides in a non-existent battle just divides people. We need to come together, not continue to tear ourselves apart artificially.

GC ✉
Apr '14

guberment by the peeples fer da peeples. You know, us is them, them is us, koo koo cha choo.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

doesn't know it, that's funny right there,

civil unrest in the last couple of days --

Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Activists chanting "Russia!" broke through police lines Sunday and stormed several government buildings in eastern Ukrainian regions seeking independence from Kiev following last month's fall of a Kremlin regime.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-russians-storm-government-building-eastern-ukraine-132011839.html



Angry mob attacks Ebola treatment centre in Guinea

http://news.yahoo.com/angry-mob-attacks-ebola-treatment-centre-guinea-210334084.html;_ylt=AwrBJSAwIT9TPDMAukHQtDMD



At Least 100 Spring Break Revelers Arrested When Riot Erupts During ‘Deltopia’

A popular spring break celebration near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus turned violent Saturday, prompting officers to release tear gas into crowds.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/04/06/at-least-100-spring-break-revelers-arrested-when-riot-erupts-during-deltopia/

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

why does anyone 'need' 20 cigarettes in a pack?

no one should have a 'need' for more than 7 cigarettes in pack.

no one has ever given me a good reason for why they 'need' 20 cigarettes in a pack. so i have determined for them that they do not need 20 cigarettes at a time. it's only 'common sense' to restrict them for their own good. it's for the betterment of society

i think we 'need' a new state law that restricts the average citizens to buying packs of cigarettes that only hold 7 cigarettes. why would anyone argue with this 'common sense' regulation?

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

For JIT from The Marx Bro's Horsefeathers (Ruby/Kalmar):

"I don’t know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I’m against it!"

I dunno but sure seems like you put a target on my a.....opinions and I wish you would move it elsewhere. Once again, you argue the ridiculous when you comment on my MRAP rap as follows:

"Protect the citizens from what, exactly?
MG -- well, huge downtown bombing, cop killed, kidnapping, guys tossing bombs from stolen cars, gun play, and the unknown which apparently only you were secure in the fact it was just a mere two "individuals" not worthy of an armored vehicle.

"In Boston, martial law was declared - MARTIAL LAW - in addition to all the military vehicles that were called in."
MG -- So if you declare martial law, then you don't need equipment he asked sarcastically? It seems that martial law and equipment would go together. Yes, the MRAPs rolled according to their general disaster plan. But MARTIAL LAW was declared he screams, sorry, not quite. In Boston and the surrounding areas, Martial Law was not declared but instead it was a request to "shelter in place" was made. Not even a state of emergency was given. However, the fact that most people obeyed and stayed off the streets gives you an indication that citizens felt the need to be protected, in this case, from other citizens. So sorry, but no martial law declaration.

"All for two suspects who the police knew they had ON THE RUN. Two. Not an army, not a highly advanced enemy, but two individuals."
MG --- No, sorry, wrong again. The FBI arrested three others so it was not just two and at the point the MRAPs rolled, I don't think anyone really knew how many people might be involved.

"Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it
Or condensed it
I’m against it!

I’m opposed to it
On general principles
I’m opposed to it!
(He’s opposed to it)
(In fact, he says he’s opposed to it!)

For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night to morn
“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”
And I’ve kept yelling
Since I first commenced it
“I’m against it!”

So I am sure you are against what I have stated here but no martial law, no confirmed "only two guys," and really you should just find another but to paste your target on. I stand by my opinion, hey it's just an opinion, that "perhaps that was a good thing since they certainly looked like they were needed to protect citizens from citizens."

Feel free to differ but let's not make up the facts.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

Saturday, 20 April 2013 22:20
Boston Bombing Lessons: Martial Law Doesn't Work

Only after the curfew in Watertown, Massachusetts, was lifted and alert resident David Hanberry went outside his home to get a smoke, according to news reports, did the case of the Boston Marathon bombing manhunt for suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev crack open. That was when Hanberry saw blood on the tarp of his dry-docked boat and called the police.

Up until that time, a wide assortment of local, state, and federal officials were engaged in a dragnet that essentially shut down the city of Boston, and included house-to-house searches in the neighborhoods of Watertown, Mass. and New Bedford, Mass., the latter being near where 19-year-old Russian immigrant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had enrolled in college. Tsarnaev, a Muslim from the Dagestan area of Russia that abuts Chechnya, became a U.S. citizen on September 11 of last year.

In essence, the lessons from the Boston Marathon mean that the following procedures employed in the week-long manhunt proved to be completely ineffective in apprehending Tsarnaev:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15163-boston-bombing-lessons-martial-law-doesn-t-work

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

"included house-to-house searches in the neighborhoods of Watertown, Mass. and New Bedford, Mass."

house to house searches conducted with militarized combatants wearing armor, wielding automatic weapons and using mechanized armor for transport,

overkill ? that word doesn't even come close to describing the police state we find ourselves living in.

but let's continue to reduce the number of rounds in a clip, and ban semi-auto rifles because you have no 'need' of anything greater.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

from the linked article above:

Boston Bombing Lessons: Martial Law Doesn't Work

the lessons from the Boston Marathon mean that the following procedures employed in the week-long manhunt proved to be completely ineffective in apprehending Tsarnaev:

• House-to-house searches in a dragnet-style;

• Use of military-style helicopters across the state;

• Use of tanks and armored vehicles on the streets of Boston, Cambridge, Watertown, and New Bedford;

• Shutting down the city, except for limited coffee shops;

• Stopping all public transportation;

• Banning taxi service across the city of Boston; and

• Abandoning the federal Posse Comitatus law banning the use of soldiers in law enforcement.

Moreover, the use of curfews in a number of towns actually likely delayed apprehension of the suspect, as the curfew essentially took more than a million pairs of eyes off possible getaway scenes.

Veteran police investigators have traditionally rejected the dragnet because they see it as a waste of police resources, but in the post-bombing panic, politicians demanded that police on the beat appear to be doing everything they could to solve the crisis. In this case, that appearance included a curfew that amounted to searching and hassling people who were clearly not in cahoots with the bombing suspects. Police detained and searched anyone on the streets of Boston and Watertown, even searching famous local news reporters multiple times during the course of the manhunt. In some instances, news reporters received death threats from over-zealous police officers.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

here's part of the story:

A man was arrested on Sunday afternoon in connection with the cattle roundup currently ongoing by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on nearly 600,000 acres of public land in northeastern Clark County.

Dave Bundy, son of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, was reportedly arrested by BLM officers while he was standing along the north side of State Route 170 between Bunkerville and Riverside, taking photographs of his family’s cattle that were grazing along the Virgin River down below.

Ryan Bundy insists that his brother’s behavior along the highway on Sunday afternoon was neither a protest nor had it escalated to illegal activity.

“He was doing nothing but standing there and filming the landscape,” Bundy said. “We were on the state highway, not even off of the right-of-way. Even if they want to call [the area that we were filming] federal land; which it’s not; we weren’t even on it. We were on the road.”

Bundy said that several of his family members had gone out in four different vehicles. They were parked along the north side of the road about 200 yards apart, he said. David Bundy had gotten out of his car to film the cattle grazing on the distant landscape below.

Suddenly a large number of BLM vehicles came down and surrounded the area, Ryan Bundy said.

“I counted, they had 11 vehicles all with at least two agents in each one, maybe more,” he said. “They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area.”

None of the occupants in the four family vehicles were carrying any fire arms, Bundy said.

Over their vehicle loudspeakers, the BLM officers ordered the family to leave the area, Bundy said.

“They said that we had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that,” Bundy said.

The BLM has established two fenced areas near the City of Mesquite, that they have designated as free speech areas for members of the public to express their opinions.

“He was filming and talking on the phone, I don’t know to whom,” Ryan Bundy said. “It happened pretty fast. They came down on him hard and had a German Shepherd on him. And then they took him.”

Ryan said that his vehicle, which had been stopped several hundred yards behind that of his brother, had by this time approached close to the scene of the arrest.

“I stayed and witnessed the whole thing,” he said. “I told them that I was not going to engage them and that I just wanted to take my brother with me. But they were pushing, pushing, pushing! So I did stay there long enough to witness the whole thing, about 10 feet away from me.”

BLM officials, in response to questions submitted by the Progress on Sunday evening, stated via email that an arrest had been made. But the email gave few details.

“An individual is in custody in order to protect public safety and maintain the peace,” the email states. “The individual has rights and therefore details about the arrest will not be disclosed until and unless charges are filed.”

“We still don’t know what the charges are that they arrested him on,” Ryan Bundy said on Sunday. “They mentioned some code over their loudspeakers. I don’t know what it was, but it was something or other federal code. That is what they arrested him on, was that premise.”

Bundy said that the biggest problem is that the family has nowhere to go to report the incident or to get further information about the status of his brother.

“We don’t have any policing representation,” he said. “Our local police will not respond. The County Sherriff will not respond. NHP will not respond.”

Ryan said that his father, Cliven, had called emergency response in both Mesquite and for Metro.

“They told him to get off the phone or he would be arrested,” Bundy said. “That is the kind of support that we had from any legitimate policing power.”

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy%E2%80%99s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

Some months back, I was watching a news report about some incident or another given by a police chief who had the usual four stars on his collar just like he was Gen. Patton or MacArthur (watch for this, they all do it now) At any rate he was speaking to the situation and referring to his men as "operators" Now this is telling, operators is the term for military special ops guys who do the things "over there" that keep the bad guys "over there", permanently. Now the police (of all kinds) want to and are doing that here, if people do not see the growing threat to our liberties from the militarization of police, they are either blind, naïve or just plain dumb.

OldSam
Apr '14

What gives you that idea OldSam?




I don't know about you, but I see one police officer and four soldiers here...

Mark Mc. ✉
Apr '14

Boston was a bit of a wake up call... for those who were eyes wide open.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

ahem....

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

Well, he did technically break the law, BUT- the whole point it, it's a questionable law. Just like the gun owners who are made criminals overnight by "lawmakers" who signed a bill. We are coming to points where the people just aren't going to take it anymore, because they feel the government is crossing over into the territory of tyranny.

I know "tyranny" sounds like a "big word", and alot of people would roll their eyes at it's use, but this is serious. In the coming years, you will only see MORE of these confrontations- sooner or later, something is going to explode (no pun intended).

And I mean- COME ON- a "first amendment area" outside of which the first amendment is "suspended"?!?!?! ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?! This is (still) AMERICA!

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

there are reports that the cattle the government is rounding up are being killed.

is that true?

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

For better or worse, first ammendment areas seems to be very common. For example, they have them every year here in NJ for the people protesting the bear hunt.

As far as the video goes, I'm surprised that more of the mob weren't arrested. They were intentionally, physically blocking the federal vehicles to prevent them from executing a court order. That's not an activity that's protected by the first ammendment.

And now pickup trucks full of whacko militia men are headed to defend this criminal? It sounds like they are trying to fulfill Bundy's threat of starting a "range war".

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

"For example, they have them every year here in NJ for the people protesting the bear hunt."

Do snipers point their rifles at you if you protest the bear hunt outside of those areas?

Having a designated area for an organized/scheduled protest is different than suspending First Amendment rights outside of that area.

Mark Mc. ✉
Apr '14

"Are there actually credible reports of snipers in this case? Or is it just allegations made by the angry people in that video?"

According to some people, yes...

Mark Mc. ✉
Apr '14

"The point of the first amendment areas is that your protest is limited to that area so that your are not interfering with the activity being protested. In the example I gave, there is a professor who is arrested every year bc he doesn't stay in the protest area at the bear check station at Whittingham WMA."

Sounds like he's violating hunter harassment laws (which are fine). Doesn't negate the fact that he's still well within his rights to speak outside of any First Amendment Area.

Pre-existing natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights can't be "turned off" at the whim of the government. The results of someone using those rights can have repercussions if they infringe on someone else's rights... of course.

Mark Mc. ✉
Apr '14

"The man has not obeyed a law that been in effect since 18th hundreds or paid what's due from what I understand. You don't like it, Change the law."

The way I understand it:

The Bundy family purchased the grazing rights from the federal government in 1887. A grandson repurchased those rights in 1970 something. Then in 1993 I think they said they started being taxed for use of the land. And that's what the family is standing on. (Because they purchased the grazing rights again In the 70s)

They started taxing them because they put a law in effect for some kind of endangered species on that land. Again, the man HAS PAID FOR GRAZING RIGHTS. It's the new "tax" he is protesting, from what I understand. He paid for grazing rights, his cattle are legally allowed to graze there. Then one day, the govt passes a NEW tax on the SAME land because an endangered species lives there. He is essentially made a criminal overnight.

Just like the NY citizens with legally-purchased, legally-owned firearms, who are made criminals overnight because a NEW law was passed (with no grandfathering.)

This is exactly the kind of stuff revolutions are made of. I've been doing alot of studying on the American Revolution lately, and this is event is ONE instance- you will see more, they will become more common. Then someone fires a shot, and all hell breaks loose.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

JR Then one day, the govt passes a NEW tax on the SAME land because an endangered species lives there. He is essentially made a criminal overnight.

Change the law. You know as well as I do all our rights are slowly being taken away. Lately this kind of action was approved by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner as a parting gift.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

Sounds a little like Waco all over again.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

"The Bundy family purchased the grazing rights from the federal government in 1887"

this gives them grandfathered rights, they need better legal representation.

the feds are out of control,. and they are talking out both sides of their mouths.
why charge for grazing rights if the goal is to preserve the butte for the desert tortoise?
as usual with mindless, soulless government bureaucrats they don't know how to think clearly, they only know force,

this family has been sighted on by snipers with sniper rifles, been set upon with attack dogs, assault helicopters and thugs in body armor wielding automatic weapons. these are unnamed government agents who have no problem doing this to pregnant woman, children and other innocent bystanders.

what country are we living in again?

the BLM has tased people and set attack dogs on pregnant women and thrown people in jail for standing on the side of the road taking pictures.

what country are we living in?

finally the Governor of Nevada has come to the defense of the Bundy family.

enough already !

there is the potential here for another ruby ridge / Waco. the feds were criminally wrong in both of those tragedies and have never been held to account for it. maybe it's time that was addressed.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

in 1 video a guy kicked a K9, he's lucky all he got was tased, not even arrested. Could have been charge with assaulting an officer.

darwin ✉
Apr '14

Wow, this thread is more full of BS than the Mr. Bundy's entire trespassing herd. This people are not innocently standing on the roadside taking photos. They are actively confronting the federal workers and physically interfering with the BLM's legal and court sanctioned activities. They are physically blocking the vehicles. Their own video proves this. They have no right to do so, and should expect no less than arrest and prosecution for doing so. The same as protestors lying down in front of bulldozers or chaining themselves to redwoods. If some of these people are are children, well shame on their parents. If one of them is a pregnant woman, shame on her for violating the law and putting herself in harms way.

And now there are reports of "militia" coming from around the country to fight the government? If this thing turns violent, the blood is on their hands and particularly on Mr. Bundy's, who threatened the BLM with a "range war" at the start of this fiasco.

Mr. Bundy has been flaunting the law for over twenty years. The federal government finally standing up to him is not only right, it's long past due.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

City boy? I can't imagine you are talking to me?

You might want to watch the video the "peaceful protestors" posted again. There were about 8-10 agents in the video and about 30 protestors. The protestors were the aggressors not standing protesting but physically blocking the vehicles. They were getting right in the faces of the BLM agents. A K9 officer was brought over and the guy kicked him twice. Again he was lucky he was not arrested, had he done that to a human officer he would be facing serious jail time

No agent was wielding his assault weapon. The had tasers. They showed pretty good restraint IMO and ended up leaving. It did look like 1 agent shoved someone to the ground in the beginning

Darwin ✉
Apr '14

Why can't this rancher continue his way of life? Why are cows and turtles be killed? Why are so many people outraged? If people can stop redwoods from being cut down, why can't people protect a ranchers way of life? I want to learn the truth.
If each side of this issue was clearly explained and put to a vote, I wonder what the outcome of such a poll would be?
Maybe someone could start a new thread, clearly outline each side & we could have a vote.

Happy Guy ✉
Apr '14

this unarmed family has had sniper rifles trained on them, had military trained attack dogs set on them, assault helicopters circling their property, and surrounded by federal government thugs in body armor wielding automatic weapons. these agents are having no problem targeting a pregnant woman, children and other innocent bystanders.

what country are we living in again?

btw, what is the fate of the confiscated cattle that has been rounded up? there are multiple reports that they are being killed.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

You want to learn the truth? Unfortunately the truth isn't conducive to this story. It's all about the sizzle and not about the steak, to use a beef metaphor.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

“They’re carrying the same things a soldier would,” he told the Free Beacon. “Automatic weapons, sniper rifles, top communication, top surveillance equipment, lots of vehicles. It’s heavy soldier type equipment.”

Carol Bundy, Cliven’s wife, said hundreds of armed BLM and FBI agents are set up around their property, as helicopters circle the area, and nearby roads remain off limits.

“We’re surrounded,” Carol Bundy said. “We’re estimating that there are over 200 armed BLM, FBI. We’ve got surveillance cameras at our house, they’re probably listening to me talk to you right now.”

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

Former director of BLM was Sen. Harry Reid's adviser, Documents purged from website, Harry Reid's son heavily involved in representing Chinese Solar Farm to be built on grazing land....it's all coming together now

documentation:
http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2014/04/11/bureau-of-land-management-takeover-at-bundy-ranch-tied-to-harry-reid-and-chinese-solar-farm

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog

Darwin ✉
Apr '14

Perfectly summed up Gadfly.

But you forgot to refer to the BLM agents as thugs

Darwin ✉
Apr '14

Over 1000 protestors now.... as the story grows.... one of the militias who went say they went to "protect the protestors"....

Let's all pray this doesn't get violent, folks. And that doesn't mean the protestors backing down... it just means that whatever the outcome, it is settled peacefully. Because that means BOTH sides are willing to talk.

Otherwise, civil UNrest... but that's the nature of government.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

"Why are people supporting Bundy?"

Maybe because they feel he has a case against an over-intrusive over-controlling govt, and if some of the stuff I posted is true (in the link above), then it's total corruption- all about the MONEY. Which makes it even more wrong.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

Happy Guy,

Some may take Bundy's word that he has some right to graze the land, despite the court decisions to the contrary. Some just hate the federal government and want to believe they're in the wrong, regardless of the facts.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

From the 8 News Now article that Brotherdog posted above...

"A sister to Cliven Bundy also told 8 News NOW that a BLM ranger hit her with his car."

Sounds violent, right? It's interesting b/c this interview is actually captured at the end of the video that JR posted above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA&list=UUYr9ruxjGbBB1MOpuU6tpAQ

What the women describes is getting in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then getting on the hood rather than letting it pass. She starts to explain how she steps in front of second vehicle before the video cuts out.

This behavior is not protected by the first amendment, and it is not simply peacefully standing on the road taking pictures as the conservative media keeps repeating.

As an aside, the video also captures a man making a call to 911 for medical assistance, not bc she needs help but bc he wants to "document" the incident. He also lies to dispatcher, stating that the injured party is a reporter.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

Thank you Gladfly, I appreciate your information. I hope I learn why these people are putting their lives on the line. Protests can become deadly extremely fast. I wish they could all back off and sort this out in a court of law or mediator. It would be so nice to hear both sides of the story and see a compromise reached. I feel like I'm watching a deadly train wreck in the making.

Happy Guy ✉
Apr '14

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

, "it looks like some people

[ON BOTH SIDES]

are intentionally trying to instigate a confrontation. It doesn't matter who's wrong or right at this point. Only bad things can come from that kind of behavior."

fixed it for ya ;)


That's my point: regardless of who's right or wrong (and it appears that there is right and wrong on BOTH sides of this one, (altho you all know how I feel about big, controlling, instrusive govt), sooner or later shots WILL be fired, and if those shots come from the govt first, all hell is going to break loose.

What I object to more than anything is the way the govt is HANDLING this- snipers? Really? "First Amendment areas"? Go eff yourself.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

Is Harry Reid behind this land grab because he is involved with a Chinese energy deal? His connections with BLM (through a high ranking staff member of his team) got 'tortise sancuary moved to make room for the energy project? That the Bundy's are just collateral damage in another naked grab for power and influence by 'Dirty' Harry?


In 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.

Journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

Every person on this thread is missing one important fact...

First, my uncle is a cattle rancher in Miller, South Dakota so I understand this issue as my uncle is fighting the same thing only over government owned crops that his steer are not allowed to go near. Although he's not in the spotlight and it hasn't escalated to this point...yet. Why the FEDERAL government is planting "special GMO crops" is a whole other thread...

The problem is NOT that Mr. Bundy does "not want to pay" to have his cattle graze on the public land adjoining his property at all. He has been paying - just not to the FEDERAL government - because according to the Constitution (here we go again with that pesky document), the land use tax should be paid to the STATE.

Mr. Bundy has been paying his fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived MUCH later, changed the rules, and came up with some BS about "turtles" without talking to anybody. Then they started driving his cattle off the land (with gunshots) without any warning or discussion. Mr. Bundy refused to pay after the feds suddenly demanded he reduce his heard’s head count and stay off all public land. Also, Mr. Bundy OWNS the "water and forage rights" to this land, which he does pay the Federal gov for (as does my uncle who pays A LOT for those rights). He paid for these rights every year. He built all the fences, established all the water ways, and constructed roads and two bridges - all with his own money and with permit approval from Nevada and BLM. When BLM started to run him off the land and harassing him he stopped paying entirely. I don't blame him.

Also, the WHOLE reason this started had NOTHING to do with turtles (turtles and cows can coexist just fine), it's because they want to put solar panels up on this land (guess all that digging and big machinery and trucks are safer for turtles than grazing cows??).

This is more about the FEDERAL government once again overstepping their Constitutional bounds, abusing their power, taking the rights away from an American Citizen and for what...solar panels that are going to cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars by the time everyone gets their cut?

For those who blame the Bundy's...I'd like to know what YOU would do if the FEDERAL government suddenly assessed a "special tax" on your property (over and above your state property taxes) and then told you you could only use 1/8 of your yard - even though you are paying both state and now federal tax - so they can put a cell tower on the property. Don't be fooled, it can happen to you through imminent domain, because you have no greater right to your back yard than Mr. Bundy has over his grazing fields. None of us really "own" our property if the government wants it. Just think about that for a minute.

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2014/04/11/the-real-story-behind-the-bundy-ranch-harassment-with-dana-show-dloesch/#KuXLdhlf4HPx4ZGZ.99

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

"Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM"

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

You know nothing about ranching Gadfly. You "own" the right to graze your cattle (or in the example of a corn farm, to plant on that land). You are responsible to maintain the land, repair roads, bridges and tend to trees and waterways. My uncle just last year spent over $62,000 on dredging and re-routing a river on federal land that he uses for his cattle. And now the governemnt (the FEDERAL government NOT the state of South Dakota) is saying he can't use the land starting this season because they are planting (why are THEY - the government - planting anything???) experimental GMO crops and my uncle now has nowhere to graze his cattle after his family has grazed their cattle, maintained the peoperty, spent mega-bucks on repairs and upkeep, paid state and local taxes, grain tax, etc, etc. He's the next one you will se on TV if this thing doesn't get straightened out.

I know you always think you are right and know everything about every issue - but on this one you are just wrong.

My question (not to you...just in general) is why the FEDERAL government would even WANT to do this to ranchers and farmers. If you follow this stuff at all it appears that Washington wants to get rid of all cattle ranches and private farms by deciding they can't use public land or just taxing them out of being able to affors to use the land.

I really want to figure out WHY this is happening so much lately. Most of these ranches and farms have been around for 100's of years and suddenly they are bad and have to pay fees and fines and lose land to turtles, solar panels, GMO crops, wind mills, etc.

You can sit on here and try to "catch" people "plagiarizing," (I guess your the post police, haha!), I have seen you do it to others if they forget to put citations (who cares anyway - I don't), instead of learning something from their post you bash it.

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

Darwin...you also don't understand grazing rights. I NEVER once said Mr. Bundy owned the federal land - not once. But a rancher "owns" the grazing rights.

You should look up the laws pertaining to ranchers and how their fees, taxes and responsibilities to the land were SUPPOSED to work and have worked for 100's of years.

As an example for you about your own property...here's one: My dad owns a cabin in Montana that was built in the 1700's, it's set way back from the road (over a mile) with no road frontage. The ONLY way to get to the house is to go through a plot of government owned land (not sure if its state or federal). Even though he doesn't OWN the property he has an easment and pays every year to USE that plot. He also put in and maintains the road (by permit), takes care of the property (mows, weeds, plows, prunes trees, etc). If the government decided that all of a sudden dad could not use that land to get to his house because of some turtles or solar panels would that be right?

Why can't Mr. Bundy keep grazing his cattle AND they put solar panels up? Why would my dad have to stop using the road if some turtles were hatching or if the government wanted to put up solar panels - can't they coexist? Seems fishy to me.

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

So if emily can't cite some source to prove her "uncle story" she's a liar? Wow.... guilty until proven innocent, I guess.

But then that's apparently what the people voted for in this version of ameriKa.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

Darwin...you also don't understand grazing rights. I NEVER once said Mr. Bundy owned the federal land - not once. But a rancher "owns" the grazing rights

that is my issue, he does not own the land, yet you go to the extreme in order to rile people up with lines like this :....because you have no greater right to your back yard than Mr. Bundy has over his grazing fields"


That is so not even close to being true. Plesae stick with FACTs and leave emotions out of it. The facts are this man has refused to pay fed fees for 20 yrs.

darwin ✉
Apr '14

"We're providing facts, while you're stealing language from poorly written editorials and telling irrelevant stories."

Hmm, how often have I heard that one before? ;-)

Bottom line is that you accept the authority of the government to do whatever it is they choose. Others don't. The proper way to deal with this is through the court system, but the courts of late seem to be nothing more than a rubber stamp of the governments authority. I can fully understand the frustration, but I don't agree with their methods.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

But JIT, in this case the government has not taken anything. Its owned the land since 1848.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

Speaking of facts, here's an interesting one. The most recent judgement against Bundy was a summary judgement. This is interesting because it means that the court ruled that even if all of the matters of facts in Bundy's claim were "viewed in the light most favorable" to his his claim, his argument is not valid as a matter of law. In other words his legal argument for "rights" to graze the land are simply not supported by the law.

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

JIT, he never had grazing rights. He had (or his family had) a grazing lease, which was cancelled after he refused to pay his rent. If you stopped paying your rent, and after twenty years of nonpayment the landlord finally evicted you, would you say that something was "taken" from you?

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

Gadfly, is the timeline presented in one of the links on this thread? At this point I'm not sure what to believe, except to continue to keep an open mind.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

No, I didn't call Emily a liar. I just couldn't find supporting evidence re: her story. But now actually I probably have in that most Nevada cattlemen, pardon the pun, have some beef or another with the BLM.

Guaranteed there is conflict between the BLM, BLM rules and regs, and Nevada cattlemen including Emily's Uncle. Currently, they are debating the sage grouse future and the cattlemen fear Eastern stupidity will overrule Western pragmatism. The Nevada Cattlemen's Association leader lobbies against BLM actions in almost every one of his monthly messages as being against Western and US interests.

Those grievances are real and continue to be debating and decided through government process and legal cases. That is right. Bundy's real grievance at the heart of the matter, is that he is a thief and he got caught.

I would gather Nevada cattlemen, of which Bundy claims he is the last, both revere Bundy in his fight with BLM and hate his thieving ways at the same time. For Bundy is a thief, not a Tortoise killer, who steals from the people and his neighbors as well. While the public money is a drop in our national coffers, the theft from his neighbors cuts a little closer to home. While other Nevada cattlemen, most of whom graze on public lands, pay grazing fees and have to include said fees in the cost of their cattle, Bundy does not. He steals it and has been stealing it since 1993. He does not have to incorporate those grazing costs when he sells his beef giving the thief an unfair advantage over his competition.

He was found guilty --- twice, and now his cattle are being confiscated. He claims he can steal because he does not recognize the Federal Government since Nevada and he were there first. Strange, the Indians made that same claim.... But he has been found guilty, he is a thief, and now his property is being seized for restitution.

The rest is just hoopla and agenda.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

Ok Gadfly...I guess you're one of those who actually believe the government. I guess that's why we will never agree on anything. Every single article, judgement, lawsuit, statistic, etc you use to prove your point is FROM THE GOVERNMENT or is on the side of the government. Personally, if I recieved a memo from Obama himself that the sky is blue I would have to look out the window, just to make sure.

I have in the 16 years I have been alive seen my family (and me) pay more taxes, have rights taken away, are in a fight for my guns to be left alone, have witnessed the government encroach on farmers, ranchers (my uncle included - sorry he's not on the national news yet -- but wait, I thought you said that's not the way to go about it? Now you want him to do what Mr. Bundy did??) and businesses.

I guess the fact that we are coming from two different mindsets (you trust the government and probably accept stuff from them and me, not so much - I don't trust them and don't want anything they have to offer, thanks). I cite facts and examples and you post government propoganda and the lawsuit against this guy as your "proof." Sorry, but I don't believe anything in any of it. They have filed bogus suits against many people over the years.

I wish I had some rose colored glasses too - but I see what I see.

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

BLD? Say what? A little more detail please...

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Here's the 1998 Judgement with more information. If you search the site for "cliven bundy", you'll find a lot of the documents.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/217770195

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

Just an FYI Gadfly, I can file a lawsuit against you today and say you trespassed on my property, you assaulted me, that you raped me -- doesn't have to be true. I can file and post the complaint online saying, "See Gadfly did this, heres proof." Not proof.

The government has been known to file lawsuits against their enemies with trumped up, even made up charges. Still using the governments own words. If you want the real truth don't listen to the government. That's where (in my opinion) witnesses and some of the people who are privy to this case come in.

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds

LVMom
Apr '14

Yay! And BTW someone said my uncle from Nevada - my uncle is a rancher in South Dakota. He is having issues like this too, only for a different reason. But federal government BS as well. He has NO problems with the state or county and pays.

What they are trying to do to him will make him have to give up his ranch because he will have nowhere to graze his herd. He's been fighting this since last October.

Now that he saw this, maybe he will be then next one on TV with a militia!

emily1 ✉
Apr '14

He did not win; he is still a convicted thief; the government just ceased operations for now in light of public safety. Shouldn't shoot each other over cows and tortoises. Too many guns coming in with too many different agendas. My goodness, they even kicked a dog.

I am not sure who this is a victory for.

What should they do when someone refuses to pay for use of public lands especially when that person talks guns and threatens to use them?

I mean what should happen to this guy? Should he just keep using the land for free when everyone else pays for the common good?

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

is harry reid's solor pwer deal part of the reason the BLM decided now was the time to clear the cattle?

"In December, Clark County commissioners voted unanimously to sell up to 9,000 acres of public land to the subsidiary at pennies on the dollar"

from a 2012 reuters story-

(Reuters) - U.S. Senator Harry Reid recognized nine years ago that connections between his official duties and the lobbying activities of his relatives could lead to ethical questions.

In 2003, the Nevada Democrat publicly banned relatives from lobbying him or his staff after newspaper reports showed that Nevada industries and institutions routinely turned to Reid's sons or son-in-law for representation.

Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.

Reid has been one of the project's most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the non-partisan advocacy group Public Citizen, said the senator is dealing with "an iffy ethical landscape" because of the family connections and should recuse himself from the project. "Is this just happening because ... it benefits the Reid family, or did Harry Reid actually believe in this?" Holman said.

The senator has supported numerous clean energy projects in Nevada. Rory Reid cites energy as one of his specialty areas at the law firm.

The two Reids deny discussing the ENN project.

"I have never discussed the project with my father or his staff," said Rory Reid. Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for the senator, said he had not discussed the project with his son.

The Langfang, China-based ENN Energy Group hopes to build what would be the largest solar energy complex in America. The site chosen with Rory Reid's guidance is in tiny Laughlin, Nevada, a gambling town of 7,300 along the Colorado River, 90 miles south of Las Vegas.

County officials have said that they were so thrilled to recruit a company to the area, with the prospect of thousands of new local jobs, that they were eager to negotiate.

ENN is headed by Chinese energy tycoon Wang Yusuo, who made a fortune estimated by Forbes at $2.2 billion distributing natural gas in China. Wang escorted Reid and a delegation of nine other U.S. senators on a tour of the company's clean energy operations in Langfang, and Reid featured Wang as a speaker at his 4th annual National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas last year.

NEVADA'S LARGEST LAW FIRM

To advance the Nevada project, ENN retained the state's largest and most prestigious law firm - Lionel Sawyer & Collins, where Rory Reid works. It is headed by Richard Bryan, a former Nevada attorney general, governor and member of the U.S. Senate.

Rory Reid faced a one-year cooling off period from lobbying the Clark County commission after leaving his post in January 2011, and Bryan took the lead on ENN's negotiations with the county.

Since the one-year ban expired, Rory Reid has been ENN's primary representative before the county, according to Steve Sisolak, the board's vice chairman.

Rory Reid acknowledged representing ENN at both the county and state levels since January. He declined to discuss the project otherwise.

Two months after Harry Reid's China trip, Lionel Sawyer registered ENN Mohave Energy LLC as an American subsidiary of the Chinese company. The firm negotiated with the county to buy the land rather than lease it, as the county's staff had recommended.

.In December, Clark County commissioners voted unanimously to sell up to 9,000 acres of public land to the subsidiary at pennies on the dollar

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

Emily1 - Obviously you have never heard of a triple net lease. Google it.

BLD
Apr '14

Like I said , Brother Dog. Follow the money.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

That one site show's he is not a very responsible neighbor.
http://archive.is/

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

Gadfly, the Gold Butte area is a supposedly very similar habitat to the Dry Lake area. Although I didn't read the exact words, my take is that wildlife would be moved from Dry Lake to Gold Butte because of how severely the Dry Lake landscape would change due to the installation of the solar farm. The "mitigation" is from Dry Lake to Gold Butte. I assume, again, that the cattle may be changing the habitat in Gold Butte, making it less attractive for the mitigation of Dry Lake.

Yes, there were other areas being considered but Gold Butte was at the top of the list. Page 4 in the last link I posted discusses this.

I'm only posting this as a possible basis for Bundy's position, not as any type of justification. I have no idea if any of it is related at all.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Actually Bundy's position is that he does not need to pay for grazing rights; he tried to pay the state in 1994 a less-than-fair amount instead of the Fed and they sent the check back: he kept it.

While the turtle may come back into play now, really it's just a regulatory nuisance as is the sage grouse and many other protected species that farmers have to deal with especially to use public land. Public land is multiple use by definition and must be shared at the supposed optimum benefit to the people. Frankly when the laws went in place the tortoise was threatened (and thus the laws), it is now over populated in some areas (thus the euthanasia stories).

So now, due to civilian jack-booted thugs with guns, he saves the $1M in back fees, we lose a million or so in sunk cost failing to confiscate his cows for lack of payment, and, for now, Bundy continues to get a free handout from the government essentially living on the government dole. Ironic for a constituency that abhors taking things from the government. Guess cattlemen welfare cheats are OK if done by the barrel of a gun.

And the lesson learned: if you don't like it and you can get others to agree, just break out the guns to get your way. Wonder who's next to try to get their way due to friends with guns.

So what's it all about? Tortoises -- not really. State's rights --- not really. He who gets there first owns it --- not really. It's about money. The fee charged: $1.35 per month per cow/calf pair. That's best case, $607.50 per month or $7,290 per year for Mr. Bundy, worse case $1,215mth/$14,580yr. (how the government gets to $1M is beyond me since 20 times (for 20 years) the worse case = $300K....)

Using a North Dakota Ranch Guide, cows are worth about $900 per cow and pasture costs about $216 per year ---- per cow/calf pair on the open market. Winter feed would run $504 per year....per cow. Feedlots are cheaper at about $200 per year per cow. So if Bundy does not need winter feed, he's at $16 per year per cow/calf pair for grazing or since that's too much for him, free-grazing.

So a man sitting on roughly $800,000 of cow can't pay bargain rates to graze them on public land.

http://www.farmandranchguide.com/news/livestock/what-s-a-cow-worth-determining-the-value-of-a/article_94e22c5a-4601-11e1-8214-0019bb2963f4.html

Sure it sounds like nothing, but after over 20 years it's between $300,000 (Bundy's number) and $1M (Fed number) that we are really talking about so suddenly state's rights become the mantra of the day.

From the 1998 ruling, the Bundy's paid BLM for grazing from 1954 to 1993 so apparently the state's rights epiphany was a later thought. In 1993, Bundy claimed "vested rights" so he didn't have to pay anymore. That's the initial battle cry which is clearly a "I am not paying you the cash no more" argument. In the summer of 1993, Bundy claimed the federal government had no jurisdiction over public lands which is really just another twist to "I ain't payin no more." And the battle was on. BLM filing trespass notices, Bundy ripping them up and accusing harassment, Bundy sending $2,000 to the County a year and a half later (covers 85 cows for one year, he has 900 today and he was over 18 months in arrears).

In court in 1998 Bundy claimed to be a citizen of Nevada and not the United States but, of course, this is not a valid argument for the court. Bundy then goes to the tortoise saying it will end ranching in Nevada (apparently proven not true over a decade later). The court remind Bundy that grazing, with tortoise, is allowed and that's not what is being decided, and that IF tortoise does restrict grazing, then he is not charged for grazing. Bundy then alleges the BLM does not have authority to make a full force and effect decision, the judge says the law says otherwise.

The judge issues a summary judgment basically concluding that none of Bundy's arguments have legal merit. Not enough merit to go to trial by jury. There is much said about allegations without supporting facts.

So, you be the judge. Are we citizens of our state, the United States or both? If we pay for something for awhile, and use it for even longer for free --- is it ours? If the Fed buys land, does it belong to the State? If you don't like a regulation, should you stop paying for services? Do you see a patriot or a thief?




.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

I think the Bundy case was not a good issue to be rallied around. It dose show the underlying civil unrest in the country that's not a very hopeful condition.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

just follow the money and the influence peddlers, Harry Reid, his son Rory Reid the Chinese billionaire and the solar farm project,

poor families with few resources and little influence are easy to brush aside, if you look hard enough there are enough laws on the books to bring up anyone of us on some kind of Federal 'beef'.

the power brokers in Nevada know this, Harry Reid using the BLM (by using his son Rory Reed as his proxy) to further his own personal agenda needs to be fully vetted

there seems to be a federal war on ranchers, farmers and other small town folk who cannot defend themselves in court,

we have more government than is good for us.

for the record i do think this Bundy guy is kind of kooky, but last i checked that's not against the law, yet.

also the ruby ridge guy was an odd duck, and the Waco guy was a little bit off the norm, seems like the government is not tolerant of people who are different than 'normal'

and i'll say it again, city boys don't understand these people, and they don't want to. i'm tired of the elitism and intolerance they display on a daily basis.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

JIT, i don't believe the federal government was granted injunctive relief with authority to seize the trespassing cattle until a few months ago, no?

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

Gadfly, OK. I'm not understanding the point you trying to make.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Gadfly, right, we agree. Still not sure what the issue is.

Is it because I said the impetus for finally pursuing the order *may* (yes, speculation but based on what Bundy supporters have said) be due to the desire to use the Gold Butte land for another use, the mitigation area for Dry Lake?

justintime ✉
Apr '14

BLM has stated that the delay was a combination of using the courts and really not wanting to create a dangerous situation by forcibly removing the cows given Mr. Bundy's violent speeches about gun play. As to the current timing, there does not seem to be any linkage to a Reid/energy conspiracy; that's the one the article and I were alluding to. As to other pending developments causing the timing, what does the Fed have to gain there? But sure, perhaps, maybe others have brought pressure as well. Could even be other cattlemen tired of the scofflaw while they follow the law. Why not.

I think I have listened, heard his words and it seems to be about some guy wanting a free ride, i.e. money. Clive's father always paid for grazing. Suddenly, Clive stops paying and blames a litany of things in order of their failure in the courts including: state's rights, his own eminent domain (since he paid for years, that's weak), the non-existence of the United States, the tortoise and open spaces multi-use doctrine, and a number of other things. The one constant in this barrage of babble is he is not paying the normal freight that all the other farmers pay. And when he did try the end run to pay the county (not the state even); he mightily shortchanged them.

At the root of this thing is a guy stealing, plain and simple. Just because he thinks he is justified does not make it anything different than stealing.

As to other folks, I have said many different agendas are on tap causing that migration but Bundy is just the red herring they are hanging their hats on. I can understand non-violent protest. Seen it, felt it, been there. I can never condone protest by gun; we are better citizens than that. Much less growing group of armed civilians each potentially there for a different reason and perhaps some just there for a good (or not so good) time. This was a very dangerous situation.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

If it's not about cows, than what?

Gadfly ✉
Apr '14

I agree JIT; my point was that if a scofflaw standing on shaky principles can bring out guys with guns itching for a fight for various unrelated agendas, then indeed we are in for some interesting times.

To me this just did not seem like a protest worthy of guns and would like to see nonviolence rule the day. Myself, I protest all forms of violence as a form of expression.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

From what I've been reading the tension is more palpable now than before the government (temporarily) backed down. I fear this is going to get really, really ugly. Senator Reid (one of the top Senators always willing to use force to solve "problems") was pretty blunt about it today.

justintime ✉
Apr '14

Bundy is a freeloader not a hero. He knew what buttons to push and here comes all the anti-govt people out of the woodwork to blow this out of proportion. This is some rich rancher scamming the people to make more money. I guess I should stop recognizing the federal govt and stop paying taxes. Wow what great idea!

Redwing
Apr '14

Divide and Conquer works all the time. Harry Reid has a whole career in Politics. How did he become so wealthy? He lives in a swanky Hotel. The NRA even supported him because he built them a shooting range.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

why does the US Postal Service need to buy ammunition?


US Postal Service Joins in Federal Ammo Purchases

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/USPS-ammo-purchase-federal/2014/04/14/id/565541#ixzz2yxS11DLt

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

A lot of you people can say what you want about people in the Democratic Party. But you have to admit Republicans are worse. In 26 of the 27 states that Republicans run they are doing everything they can to suppress voter turnout. Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent less than 1000 of 1% yet the Republicans act like it's an epidemic. And passed law after law to stop people from voting that my friend is un-American. For instance in Wisconsin there were 4 cases of voter fraud in the last eight years. A lot of these people wait up to 7 hours just to vote and the Republicans are trying to make it harder. Here's a new one the Republicans are trying in Florida Dade County you know that's the County where there was so much trouble in 2000. it's not enough Republicans cut early voting and cut the number of voting machines where people already wait hours to vote. Now in their wisdom the Republicans will not make any restrooms available to Voters only people with disabilities will be allowed to use restrooms while standing in line to vote how is that for conservative compassion. Republicans have very hard time winning national elections so instead of changing their stance on issues it's just easier to stop and discourage people from voting

oldred
Apr '14

Old Red, We in NJ already have a voter registration card. Just put a hollow gram in and bring it to the poling place to be scanned. It could be a different one for each county. Don't put any numbers on it, Just a name. Show a birth certificate like we did for a drivers license or other proof once in a lifetime. If you move, turn the old one in to get a new one. Your wallet is already full of ID's for many things in life. I grant you they are coming up with many crazy ideas.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

"The House of Representatives (based on population) is skewed towards the Republican side (233 vs. 199)."

Actually, the total House vote received by the Democratic candidates was 1.4 million higher than the total for Republican candidates, in the last election. Gerrymandering of election districts accounts for a large percentage of the win by Republicans. Gerrymandering is another form of legal corruption of the system that both parties do whenever they can.

jd2 ✉
Apr '14

"Any politician who speaks like this should be thrown in jail ....."

If I didn't know the writer better, I would almost think he succumbed to emotion when he wrote this. :-)

jd2 ✉
Apr '14

maybe not thrown in jail, but at least censured in the house by the house,

and then thrown out of office next election,

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

I wouldn't wait that long to vote either but in many states you can vote for a week before hand. If you had a card as I suggested you would not need as many pole workers.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

we need a corollary to godwin's law for racism (Leroy, you got a term for it? educate me please)

whenever the racism charge comes out, all other conversations stop dead in their tracks.

and to call things racist when they are not diminishes the meaning of racist when it does exist and needs to be identified as such, this is wrong of course.

the overuse of the charge cheapens it's meaning, becuase there are times when it needs to be used legitimately.

it's wrong to use this baseless charge in almost every political debate, when discussions don't go their way, the Democrats/liberal 'progressives' just throw out the word.

and using it ad nausem lately just proves they have no real response to the legitimate points they are presented with..

i'm calling BS on it right now.

BrotherDog ✉
Apr '14

As of now voting is a state's right to control. They want it to become under federal control. I don't want my SS Number for the world to see.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

I think the County Clerks could handle it fine like they do the voting card. You only need it twice a year, unless Christie in control.

Old Gent ✉
Apr '14

voter registration cards?

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

I probably misspoke when I said Republican websites, should have stuck to Conservative as in Conservative = Republican, but I didn't. Sorry, the article was clear, I was not. Also, most sanctioned Republican party sites do not allow comments so the hatemongers can't use them. And before you all blow a gasket, I invite you to bring citations for Al Sharpton and others. We can have a racist race.

Actually I never said politician, they are usually too slick for that, but it's the fact that they don't speak out about it when it is used on these conservation website is shameful until you note that many of those sites contain donors to those same silent politicians. And when liberals point it out, we throw the flag for illegal use of the race card, even though the racism is right there, in front of you, in black, white and color too.

If I did start naming names, then I could start with Rick Perry. Didn't he run for President at the top of the party? Now I am not saying he is a sheet-wearing anti-minority player, but he does condone it. He not on frequented the awful named site his father leased, but he brought donors, legislators, etc. by and no one seemed to mind, at least not publically. So maybe not an overt card carrying KKKer but certainly does not speak out and often votes against: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/texas-governor-rick-perry_n_992712.html

And here's a sampling of a number of those politicians caught in cyberspace: http://republicanracism.blogspot.com/2012/03/republican-racism-example-32-federal.html as well as internet citations. You'll find the database on the right hand column.

As far as conservative cyberspace conservative/republican racist rhetoric, the Heritage Organization is a leading conservative think tank supporting the Republican platform. Here's a sample of their researchers moral fiber; this guy holds a doctorate: http://republicansareracists.com/

And then there's FOX, which I will say bravely pulled the plug on the entire comment section. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39912_Fox_News_Commenters_Respond_to_Whitney_Houstons_Death_With_Deluge_of_Hatred_and_Racism But find where FOX spoke out about the incident versus just pulling the plug and hiding it. Speaking about it might affect ratings.

Again, to be clear I am saying: "If you are a racist, which party are you probably going to align with? The Republicans seem to accept racism much more readily than most, it's in their party, on their websites, and they seem to condone much more of it." That is not saying Republican politicians are mostly racist or even racist; I am just saying that the party seems to accept and condone them versus calling them out and sanctioning them. If they want to become more inclusive, they need to take a stand versus hiding behind the illegal use of race card defense.

And sure, folks can claim the racism card is a Democratic ploy to stop the conversation, but it's like bees in your bonnet; you can say they're not there, but the buzz continues until you do something to make them leave.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

What, are you asking for a FREE handout from the government? Or perhaps that background checks and driver's licenses are not necessary? Perhaps you should pull a Bundy posse protest.

I don't think paying the freight for services rendered is worthy of discussion unless said prices are excessive or said services are unnecessary.

In regards to voting, IMHO, using driver's licenses, state-issued, or whatever the airports use would be sufficient IMHO. I think in the last Presidential election, one of the problems was the timing of the implementation of new Voter Identification Laws where people who did not have the necessary credentials just didn't have a proper interval to get them. However, here's the NYT basically saying while the effect may be anti-democratic party that the effect is "in the noise" and that democrats would be better served by getting out the vote since higher turnouts benefit them. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

"I don't think paying the freight for services rendered is worthy of discussion unless said prices are excessive or said services are unnecessary. "

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! They are both excessive (ANY fees to exercise a fundamental right are excessive) AND unnecessary (as we've seen in cases like the Naval Yard and Arapahoe HS shootings, background checks don't stop crime and I challenge you to find any gang member who has bothered to get an FID card).

Mark Mc. ✉
Apr '14

Harry Reid and his thugs are behind all of this. Here's one of his buddies and why didn't the democrat Congress censure Reid at the time and recommend prosecution?

Frederick Harvey Whittemore[1] (born 17 August 1952) is an American lawyer and businessman in the Reno, Nevada area.[2] As an influential lobbyist[3] for the gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries, and for his own ventures,[4][5] Whittemore was called "one of Nevada's most powerful men."[2] In 2012, Whittemore came under grand jury investigation, initiated by the Federal Election Commission, to determine whether he should be indicted for breaking federal campaign contribution laws. He was charged with four felonies with convictions on three of the counts, and sentenced September 2013 to two years in prison. He was also given a $100,000 fine, along with two years supervision after his incarceration and 100 hours community service.[6][7]

Whittemore was the president of Coyote Springs Investment, LLC, the land-development company behind Coyote Springs, a controversial[8][9] $30 billion planned golf course community of 160,000 homes on 43,000 acres (17,000 ha) in the rural Nevada desert.[10][11] Whittemore's close relationship with Senator Harry Reid came under scrutiny because of perceived legislative and political pressure favors allowing Coyote Springs to overcome regulatory problems.

Beaver ✉
Apr '14

I don't hear a buzz misterg, but you apparently do. Should I assume you're racist because you see it everywhere you look, kinda like "it takes one to know one"?
MG --- hmmm, guess that makes you one by the same token (pardon the oblique pun).

Seriously, I know it happens but to make blanket statements like you have to be conservative to be a racist is absolutely ridiculous and is nothing more that political name calling.
MG: I agree. But I think you twisted it exactly backwards to make your point if you are accusing me of that at this time. Speaking of generalizations, what I said was "That is not saying Republican politicians are mostly racist or even racist; I am just saying that the party seems to accept and condone them versus calling them out and sanctioning them." In other words, not that you have to be conservative to be a racist, but that if you are a racist, chances are you are a conservative, chances are you are a Republican. The converse of if you are a Republican, chances are you are racist would not be true. But the real point is the relative acceptance of it with very few, although it does happen, but very few calling it out. This is not a condemnation, but an opportunity for improvement.

Honestly, this is just one more reason why our society is so screwed up - blanket accusations made for political gain.
MG: What political gain? What I said was "If they want to become more inclusive, they need to take a stand versus hiding behind the illegal use of race card defense," a suggestion for improvement of the party versus looking to gain from the current situation. After all, some of my best friends are conservatives :>) The political gain to be gained is to take a stand and rout it out of the conservative talk tracks. The examples shown above just should not stand, should not be accepted.

For jd2's sake I'll refrain from letting my emotions show again, but it's really hard when this kind of thing is peddled for political reasons, especially because many people will take it to heart and use it to maintain the "my team vs your team" mentality. How so very sad.
MG: I agree totally but do not think I am guilty of this at this time.

Hope the clarification helps.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

That same theory can be easily applied to the liberals/democrats who crucify anything "tea party", "bush", "gop", Republican", "palin", "fox news", the list goes on & on.

Nothing new here.

The bottom line is, "racism" is still a highly charged word, so people play that card whenever they think it will work to their advantage, whether any actual racism exists or not. The word "intolerance" should be substituted for "racism" from now on, as that's all it is... then intolerance for another race would be equal to the intolerance of another political party, or religion, or age group, or demographic.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Apr '14

Her term expires this year along w/ Len Kunz & Eric Tynan. It is definitely time for change.

Ignatz ✉
Apr '14

FYI Mark:

After just reviewing the first two entries, I would say this list is fraught with errors.

The list: Sheila Dixon – Baltimore, MD
Convicted of perjury
and embezzling funds
meant for charity

The reality: convicted of one misdemeanor felony for $600 misuse of funds.

The list: Eddie Perez – Hartford, CT
Convicted of bribery
and extortion

The reality: conviction overturned, sentence vacated, Judge found guilty of abuse of discretion and Constitutional rights violations.

Unfortunately, the membership list is down so can't tell if they are still even members but if the first two entries on your list were this error prone, can't imagine it gets better.

mistergoogle ✉
Apr '14

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bundys-son-las-vegas-shooters-210104738.html

So is this what the OP and others had in mind? These are "your" people. Right?

Darwin ✉
Jun '14

Remember, that is just what the Bundy's said.

mistergoogle ✉
Jun '14

I don't associate murdering local police officers with "anti-government" activities. The victims were members of the community, not interlopers from the federal government. This was simply the result of two random whackos who happened to meet and fall in love.

iPhone-imal ✉
Jun '14

BD - Non Main Stream Media aka alternative media.

justintime ✉
Jun '14

just so i am clear: those 2 were wackos, who even though they shared the sames beliefs as the Bundys and others that supportted the Bundys, do not represent ALL of the people the OP and others talked about..... So 2 people that carried out a horrific act do not represent ALL the others that may share the same beliefs.... ok got it

But all Muslims are still terrorists, right?

darwin ✉
Jun '14

agreed gc, thanks for the clarification

darwin, really?

BrotherDog ✉
Jun '14

oldred,

Rachel Maddow is to journalism what The Onion is to actual news.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Jun '14

JR, does that mean that you can't tell the difference between Rachel Madcow and a real journalist? (-;

iPhone-imal ✉
Jun '14