From Kira Davis: “I Don’t Care if Cliven Bundy is a Racist”

From Kira Davis: “Who cares? He could believe Bette Midler is the 12th Imam, it doesn’t change the fact that the government has sent SWAT teams to collect a tax bill from a free citizen.

  • Jeremy Griffith

    Kira Davis lays down knowledge via Alfonso Rachel.

  • AM Reed

    There’s something fishy about the National Guard collecting a man’s tax bill…*strokes chin*

    • Anita C Lively

      It wasn’t the National Guard it was The Bureau of Land Management employees of the Dept of the Interior. Nor was it a Tax Bill.. It’s for Grazing Fees on the Nevada Public Property that the BLM says he owes for the last 20 years. Mr. Bundy’s family has been ranching their since 1877. They bought the Grazing Rights and Water Rights. The BLM came into being and then changed the property lines effectively ‘taking’ his grazing rights. He paid those fees to the State and County which is who he feels he owes but he does not feel he owes the Federal Government because they do not own the land. The BLM ran out 53 other ranchers in the area and he is the last one standing up to them.

    • My mistakes…

    • Anita C Lively

      Np, I’ve been following this for the last couple of weeks..

    • StreyDawg

      And yet you appear woefully uninformed.

      Why is that?

    • Jethro

      And just where did you get your Real Estate degree? Pre-emptive rights in Real Estate? Be very careful who you call uniformed.

    • StreyDawg

      This is not about “real estate.” Bundy admits he doesn’t own the land. Or does he have a “degree in real estate?”

      I didn’t call anyone “uniformed,” I pointed out she was UNINFORMED. Bundy certainly has no pre-emptive rights to land he doesn’t own.

      Try again.

    • Jason Jermaine Smith

      Apparently you haven’t been following it long enough, lol.

    • StreyDawg

      Supreme Court ruling; no one has “rights” to grazing on land that is not theirs (Public Works Council v. Babbitt). He never owned the grazing rights; he merely paid fees to lease them, and when you stop paying your fees on anything you don’t own, you lose the privilege to use it.

      The length of time his family has been “ranching” is irrelevant. There is no “birthright” clause in the Constitution.

      They did not change the “property lines” or take away anyone’s rights.

      The state and county do not own that property, and they never received a dime. The Nevada State constitution specifically defers public land to federal oversight. The reason most western states do this is because the states are more sparsely populated and the states would never be able to generate the tax revenue to maintain the land and it would all be taken over and destroyed by private interests.

      There are still over 1 million cattle producers in the US. We are not in danger of running out of beef.

    • Patriot

      You are as ignorant as the people who write and pass these bogus laws. The government is constantly creating new laws and taxes that make it harder and harder for small businesses to compete with the corporations. Unchecked spending and the continued money grabbing from the wallets of hardworking Americans is starting to wake people up to the fact that we no longer have control of this country. The corporations own the politicians and everyone sees dollar signs as long as they do their part of passing and enforcing these unjust laws that continue to dig deeper into our wallets and privacy while producing a bunch of brainwashed, spineless puppets through the schools and universities of this land to go out and spread the propaganda. You may have intelligence Straydog but you’re far from smart.

    • StreyDawg

      Bundy is a corporation. A millionaire. he has over a million dollars worth of cattle roaming on public property that he doesn’t pay for.

      The only brainwashed people I see are people who speak in talking points and platitudes about this issue without ever actually addressing the facts of it.

    • Jason Jermaine Smith

      Shh, you’ll destroy their narrative of ignorance with easily researchable facts.

    • Jason Jermaine Smith

      And it wasn’t a tax bill. Reading comprehension among “conservatives” tends to be fairly low what with their whole anti-education stance. Education is synonymous with “elitist”.

  • chasaragdy

    The “gist” of Cliven Bundy’s statement of America’s idleness is right-on! The words he used may not have be sufficiently elegant enough for many elitest PCers, but the tenor of his message is clear. It’s time that America, most of all the “slave-owning” Federal, and some State’s, control over an enormous amount of unemployeed American able-bodied workers, to stop shoveling “gifts” and “gratuities” to people to sit on their azzes idly at the behest of employeed and hard working tax-payers!

    The average American couple has, I think, 2.3 children. Aid for dependent children should be limited to the average of 2.3 children; after that additional “accumulated” children would be on the dime of the parents, and not the tax-payers. Unemployment benefits should stop at 26 weeks maximum; any one wanting a job–or even a second and/or third job–can get one, if they WANT to work (personally I have worked two jobs totaling about 90 hours a week (not including the travel from one job to the other) and my wife also worked a full-time job simultaneously, for many years!

    I’ve done, from age five (5) years, about every job conceiveable, hand-dug and shoveled new driveways, morning and evening paper routes (including homework in six (6) school subjects every night–never making less than a B- all through school), cut trees, unloaded cases of beer off rail boxcars, helped friends rebuild car engines, managed a drugstore evenings and Saturdays during my Junior and Senior years of high school, and many other varied jobs! And I still had chores that my father and mother expected me, the oldest, to do at home, including looking after my brother and two sisters so they, our parents, both could (had to) work. It’s all a matter of what one WANTs versus what one expects of others; it’s self-reliance, self-worth and pride–or not!!

    • Gregory71

      Errrrrrrrrrr……….so you agree? Blacks WERE better off enslaved to whites? If only blacks could be made to work for free they would have “better lives.” That was the gist I heard. This country…! Post reconstruction blacks WERE very self-reliant. I’m sure you have not heard of Hayti, Rosewood, and Black wallstreet. When blacks were self-reliant they were a problem. Then the government destroyed those pockets of independence and made blacks dependent. So now blacks are told to work on being independent again! I guess the old saying damned if you do damned if you don’t, is especially true if for Black Americans. God bless the USA.

    • Patriot

      Basically you just insinuated that chasaragdy is racist because your inner white guilt blocked the part of the brain used for reading comprehension. You’re so ready to be offended and embarrassed by “this country” that you probably didn’t even realize you had made the exact same point as Chasaragdy. Look in the mirror and you’ll find what’s responsible for the demise of “this country”. I feel pity for you

    • Gregory71

      You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. I feel zero white guilt. If my ancestors owned slaves or didn’t I have nothing to do with it. It’s not my fault and I bare no responsibility for it. I insinuated nothing. I asked a couple of questions. Anyone with half a brain knows that blacks ARE better off today than in slavery. 151 years latter and this is what we choose to debate. I think you’re the one that has a bit of a comprehension problem. The demise of this country has nothing to do with me. I didn’t orchestrate this countries demise from the shadows. The elite did. So while you continue to fall for the old ruse of divide and conquer by thinking I’m your enemy, the real enemy amasses more unchecked power. So don’t pity me, pity yourself.

  • Kristina Mc Guire

    Finally someone making sense on a situation I wasn’t sure about. Probably the most intelligent thing anyones said about the bundy case period.

  • Gregory71

    She was right though……….Americans are SHEEPLE! So controlled, so conditioned it’s all too sad.

  • StreyDawg

    Kira, it wasn’t a tax bill. It was a grazing fee that every other rancher pays who is using public land. Cattle producers who are relying on private land ownership to grow their product are not sympathetic to Bundy’s freeloading on public land.

    When he stopped paying his grazing fee, it then became a case of trespassing, and in the worst kind of way in this case; a business owner was using public land for personal private gain.

    The attempt to collect cattle was appropriate; the display of battle rattle was likely overkill, but since there is a history of terroristic acts and violence against the BLM and the USFS over ranching issues, they would be silly to show up for a repo action without some hardware.

    • baldy522

      That is actually a bunch of crap. His family has had grazing and watering Rights on that land for hundreds of years. He paid for his Rights to use that land by improving it for his cattle. The West has different land laws than the East. That land had been public for years. Public does not mean Federally Owned! The Federal Government is only to “own” 10 miles worth of land in D.C. as allowed by the Constitution, unless the State or Citizen willingly sells that land to the Federal Government, which they never did. The other Ranchers were bankrupt by the Unconstitutional grazing fees for the soul intent of running them off their land so Reid and his Authoritarian buddies could sell that land to China. Quit drinking the Cool aid.!/articles/1/essays/57/enclave-clause

    • StreyDawg

      Not true. There is no such thing as “grazing rights.” If it’s a “right,” then you don’t have to pay for it.

      Public Land Council vs. Babbitt; a supreme court ruling. Educate yourself.

      Land being public does not mean it can be used for personal gain without compensation, and it does not mean that the gov’t has no role in maintaining and sustaining that land which was purchased with taxpayer money from OUTSIDE the state of Nevada, and nothing in the Constitution says the federal gov’t is disqualified from overseeing the administration and stewardship of land that belongs to all taxpayers. Additionally, the Constitution of the state of NEVADA specifically defers to the federal gov’t on the administration of public property specifically because they can’t do it alone.

      No state or citizen ever owned that land.

      The only Koolaid that was consumed was by the weakminded who believed that this was a Chinese land deal exercise.

    • baldy522

      No, you don’t have to pay the Government for a Right. That is correct. That is why when his family settled the land in 1877 and started keeping it up for the cattle, they had grazing and watering rights. Not only that but it was a Federal court deciding if the Feds were in the right or not? That was supposed to go through the State Courts. Conflict of Interest. Land Rights have been done that way in the West forever. People are confused about this because they only think of Private ownership of land and the Rights that those include. The Federal Government can help manage the land at the request of the State, but Bundy is not saying that it is his land, or that he owns it. He has grazing Rights and Watering Rights for his cattle to roam on that land. And if you believe that it was about a tortoise that the BLM was actually euthanizing around 1500 of then you are drinking the Statist Kool-Aid.

      Instead of being a Statist, all in favor of a Totalitarian Government you should do some research outside of the Main Stream first. And yes, Harry Reid is using the BLM as his Mafia thugs to steal land for his own gain. The Court case below states that this was done to another rancher in the same area. Bundy just refuses to give up and the State has already said that he is within their law and they wouldn’t accept any payment because he has grazing Rights. And it was the States land that the Federal Government usurped Unconstitutionally from them. That is why there is currently multiple States out West that are now looking at taking their land back from the Federal Government.

    • StreyDawg

      Again, the SC has confirmed there is no such thing as “grazing rights.” Bundy can get grazing permission, but not rights. If it’s a right, then it’s the right of all of us; that is the nature of a right, and everyone one of us should be able to release our 1000 head of cattle on that land for personal gain. Of course that would destroy the land, so it has to be managed.

      There is no such thing as “watering rights” either, and there is nothing that ties it to any specific activity. Water is used to cool nuclear reactors, so maybe Bundy should set up a nuclear power plant based on some notion that he has “watering rights.” See how unsupportable and lame your arguments are?

      “Settling the land” is a different issue; the Homestead Act limited people to 150 acres. If you wanted more, you paid for it. Nothing in the US or state Constitution said you can just use public land for personal gain for free.

      The state of Nevada deferred obligation to public land to the federal gov’t the day they signed their Constitution, so the state has no jurisdiction over public land that is administered by the federal gov’t at the PREFERENCE of the state.

      Harry Reid is a dirtbag, but that myth has been debunked long ago. And enough with the ridiculous labels. And no lies; the state never said any such thing about jurisdiction or payment. They specifically said “we have no record of Bundy attempting to pay any fees.” Nor was this “state land that was usurped.” It was MEXICAN land that was eventually carved out of the UTAH territory and purchased with FEDERAL tax dollars, whereupon the state was formed from federal territory and the state specifically wrote in their Constitution that the federal gov’t would be the administrator of public land. You can’t argue around that unless you insist on misrepresenting the issue like you are doing.

      The theory of “western states” recovering “their land” from the federal gov’t is nonsense. If they even think of it, they will abandon the idea because they have zero ability to take care of it. They lack the tax base. They are more than happy to allow taxpayers from other states help preserve the land in their state.

      You need to educate yourself quite a bit more on this issue. Obviously you overdosed on the freeloader racist koolaid stirred up by a profiteer who is willing to use whatever free resource he can for his own gain.

    • Historical Forensics

      extinguish”The state of Nevada
      deferred obligation to public to the federal gov’t the day they signed their
      Constitution, so the state has no jurisdiction over public land that is
      administered by the federal gov’t at the PREFERENCE of the state.”

      The first public lands were granted to the federal government during the
      Revolutionary War, when Robert Morris, the man who had been funding the war, ran
      out of money. Five of seven of the newly independent states, with excess lands
      extending to the Mississippi River, agreed to transfer title to the Continental
      Congress for two purposes 1) Create new states, 2) Pay the public debt and for
      “no other purpose whatsoever”. After the ratification of the Constitution, the
      remaining two states did the same, with the same two provisions and the same
      caveat “for no other purpose whatsoever”.

      All new states joining the union entered under the exact same Enabling Act,
      with the same sovereignty, rights and privileges as the original thirteen.
      Nevada’s Constitution states that the land remains in federal control “until
      title thereby shall be extinguished.” The solemn compact, The Enabling Act, made
      between the new states and the federal government required the federal
      government to “dispose” of the land “in a timely manner” or relinquish control
      to the state. So, no. The continuation of the federal government holding lands
      in trust is not because the western states gave away any rights or sovereignty,
      nor because they can’t afford it or can’t manage it. The federal government just
      didn’t uphold their end of the bargain.

      The Constitution does not grant any authority to the federal government to
      own or hold in trust any non-territory land other than the ten square miles of
      DC and lands purchased from the states, with state legislature consent, for the
      sole purposes of forts, magazines, arsenals, ports and needful buildings. Art.
      IV instructs the federal government to dispose of excess state land and make the
      needful regulations to accomplish the task. For the federal government to
      continue to hold the land is a grave violation of the solemn compact made in
      the Enabling Act. Not long ago, SCOTUS ruled that Congress does not have the
      authority to change the uniquely sovereign acts at statehood. (Printz v.
      U.S., and the recent ACA ruling.) The federal government has no authority to
      force, coerce or enforce any regulations within a state without state
      consent. Think about that one for a minute.

      That’s why the federal government is in violation of both the Constitution
      and the Enabling Act by continuing to hold western states’ land. The
      western states are quaranteed equal republican forms of government too. So
      Nevada has the same sovereignty that Kentucky has, that New York has, that New
      Hampshire has, and so forth. It’s history. It’s documented. It’s true. This used
      to be understood and upheld, which is why there isn’t much federally controlled
      lands east of Colorado and all of those eastern lands came about after Teddy Roosevelt
      came up with the National Park system, unconstitutionally, I might add, but most
      people were willing to make the exception because they could see the value of protecting certain areas. Sadly, like most camels that stick their nose under
      the tent, the federal government has abused the good faith of the people by
      conveniently forgetting the law and creating inequality among the states.

      To quote Chief Justice Roberts from the ACA ruling, an otherwise horrible
      decision, “States are sovereign and should start acting like it.” Bundy, fees
      and remarks aside, the underlying principle of state sovereignty is a solemn
      promise made to every single state. The federal government is in the wrong

      Look up and read Andrew Jackson’s veto response in 1833 to a bill sent to
      him that was trying to manipulate the states with excess money after the public
      debt was paid. Remember, Jackson was a lawyer from Tennessee and quite
      knowledgeable about how territories became states and the compact made. Heck, he
      was young, but around when the Constitution was written and ratified. It’s a good summary of the history that reminds Congress that the
      compact made with the first five original states was never extinguished and was
      carried forward into the Constitution, then in the terms of the remaining two states
      ceding land, and later into the Enabling Acts….”no other purpose whatsoever.”
      That land, by compact and in accordance with the Constitution, belongs to the
      sovereign states. The feds are way overdue on “the timely manner” provision. The
      Park system and a few other issues will have to be worked out.

    • Historical Forensics

      Sorry about the formatting. I don’t know what happened.

    • Historical Forensics

      Allow me to add an additional remark. The reason the states most dependent
      on government subsidies are the western states is because so much of their
      potential tax base is tied up in the lands held by the federal government. In
      some counties, they have access only to 5% of the total land base that’s
      taxable. Neither do the states have access to minerals, oil, gas, fees, etc.
      Having only this small taxable base prevents them from providing the necessary
      funds to support education, infrastructure improvements, economic growth or to
      provide funding for state conservation. The western states are being harmed by
      the usurpation of their land and the wealth that’s generated by the land going
      to the federal government, instead of to the people of their state.

      There is absolutely no reason to assume that the people out west are any
      less capable of managing their lands than the people east of Colorado. Their
      best interest is dependent on careful management. Farmers and ranchers are some
      of the most careful stewards of the land because their livelihood depends on it.
      As a general rule, they love the land. That’s why we have farm bureaus
      and universities with agricultural departments who have set up cooperative
      programs between the farmers and ranchers and themselves to promote best
      practices and to put science behind it. These exist all over the country and
      pre-existed the BLM by nearly a hundred years in some areas.

      Neither are the people in the western states any more prone to corruption
      or altruism than those in any other state or are found in the federal
      government. With control closer to the people, where the managers are people
      with recognizable names and faces, the states are in a far better position to
      check corruption than are nameless, faceless bureaucrats in DC who are subject
      to political whims and winds. There are multiple states with vast natural
      resources under their control and they are capable of managing it and of doing
      it well. If any corruption is to be considered as a potential issue, then the
      feds are in a far better position to engage in it unchecked than are the states.
      Take a look at the assessor office in Clark County, Nevada to see how many times
      the name Reid pops up. That’s just Clark County. Perhaps, Harry has a stake in
      seeing certain people silenced. There may be a big story here, if there are any
      investigative reporters left who are willing to rock the Reid boat. It’s worth
      investigating and getting answers to why this humble public servant and his son,
      Rory, have so much land under their control? What resources are found on or
      under those lands? How did they acquire them and from whom?…ordSearch.aspx

      At any rate, it’s a bit insulting to imply the western states are incapable
      of managing their own resources. We have simply grown accustomed to the federal
      violations and have come to believe the lands are legitimately held in trust by
      the feds for all Americans, when a simple review of the underlying principles of
      statehood clearly shows us that it’s illogical, untrue and that it creates an
      inequality in state sovereignty and places an undue burden on states with
      excessive land control by the federal government. Public lands do not magically
      disappear just because the states have sovereign control over them. There are
      many excellent state parks throughout the country that exist without federal
      intervention or funding.

    • StreyDawg

      And yet when Bundy argued against the Nevada Constitution to support his freeloading off of the land, he lost.

      Try again.

    • Historical Forensics

      Strey, I’m not arguing for or against Bundy. I’ve never read the case, nor the decision. In the grand scheme of things, it’s irrelevant to the truth. I’m simply recounting the history of public lands, the Constitution and the Enabling Acts. Did you read the Enabling Acts? Or Andrew Jackson’s veto message? He explains well the law and the sacred obligations of entering into compacts. There are numerous old documents that support Jackson’s stance from Congress and old U.S. Code. Congress alone has never had the authority to change the Constitution, alter the binding compact made with the states, nor legislate or regulate away the sovereign nature of states. The Executive has never had the authority to alter any of the above by policy changes or executive order. The federal government is in the wrong here.

      Regardless of what the courts rendered in the Bundy case, it’s wise to remember that courts are not always proper in their rulings. That’s why so many end up at SCOTUS, also remembering that even SCOTUS delivered the horrible decision in Dred Scott. Research, then decide whether you agree or disagree.

      History is important in determining the truth about the land issue. I’m not interested in arguing with anyone about it. I’m simply encouraging you and others to look at documents from the era in which the Law of the Land was established, when the polices changed and why the western states are nearly completely controlled by the federal government.

      This isn’t merely about Cliven Bundy.The rights you protect for someone else today, may protect yours tomorrow.

    • StreyDawg

      The courts ruled twice.

      Bundy and his gunslingers can’t even be consistent in the argument they want to make to support his freeloading off of public land.

      Nothing was altered.

      No one is interested in arguing about anything, which is their copout when they realize they don’t have the platform to support their position. I already know the application of law. This is not about rights, because no single individual has the right to use public land for free. Then it’s not a right, it’s welfare.

      There are lots of things to stand up for, but locking and loading for a man who’s main argument is that he wants to use public land for free to sustain his wealth is pure nonsense.

    • Historical Forensics

      Strey, I’m not talking about Bundy. Sadly, you do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between a specific person and a principle. Nor am I a gunslinger for hire. I lock and load for myself, with rounds forged in steely truth. I may not be interested in arguing, but, if you insist, I will bury you with bullseyes of documented facts, straight from the mouth of the horse I rode in on.

      And, I was not talking about his rights, per se. I was talking about the rights of ALL people in ALL states. The unalienable rights of a free people.The western states are as equal and sovereign as any other state. THOSE are the rights I’m talking about. And despite your petulant attitude, I’m talking about your rights too. I don’t have to like you or agree with you to stand up for you so that nobody decides that your property can be seized by a force that has no authority to take it.

      Are you sure you want this showdown? I’ve got a lot of practice in document fast-draw, but feel free to ammo up with documentation proving the western states do not have the same sovereignty as other states and entered in a compact that relinquished their lands in perpetuity to the federal government, and see if you can find precedent that the original thirteen states agreed to unchecked federal land ownership for subsequent states when they agreed to the Articles of the Confederation and ratified the Constitution.

      I’ll just be over here field-stripping my documents to make sure they’re nice and shiny while I wait.

    • StreyDawg

      You made reference to Bundy and the courts; so did I.

      I can most definitely tell the difference, but it’s a waste of time and bandwidth to talk about something else in an article and thread that is about BUNDY. You posted zero “documented facts” that showed any relevance to this or that “buried” anyone.

      If you want to talk about “rights,” talk away, but this specific issue is about Bundy and a bunch of people defending his freeloading behavior and wiping of his rear end with solid and rational court rulings and abandoning common sense.

      No one said that the western states have less sovereignty, but the fact is in Bundy’s argument to the 9th circuit, he actually argued AGAINST the Nevada Constitution. And lost. The additional FACTS are that the majority of the western states do not want nor can they handle the oversight of that land, which is why their is limited movement to changing federal administration for this land for the benefit of ALL people, not just freeloading millionaire cattle ranchers.

    • Historical Forensics

      To determine whether Bundy is a ‘freeloader’ or if he is anywhere within his rights, if he has a valid contract that has passed legitimately from generation to generation, or if it is now null and void, and if it is, by what authority and under what terms were the contracts issued or terminated, the history is essential. The answer to Bundy’s claims lies there. Otherwise, we are viewing this as if it’s an isolated incident, void of historical and legal lineage. State and individual rights depend on true and accurate accounts. Rights are indeed at the center of the entire issue.

      I did provide you references that all you had to do was plug the terms into a search engine, but apparently you chose not to pursue that. So, I’ll help you out here. The fight to wrest state lands from the federal government isn’t new. The western states have been trying to hold the feds to the compact for decades and decades, ebbing and waning at times, but following the example of the Midwestern states that were successful in compelling the feds to honor the terms of statehood to relinquish their public lands. Why did the feds cede the land back to the Midwestern states? Because the states were within their rights and the federal government was in violation of the Constitution and the Enabling Acts.

      I could have saved myself a lot of time, if I had found this website before I had spent hours searching through old documents. The link below is to the website for an official coalition of western states that long pre-dates the Bundy issue, but is very helpful in determining the validity of Bundy’s argument and similar arguments playing out across the nation, especially in the west. This website is very informative, with pages and pages of articles, videos, documents and legislation.

      Now, if you want the Cliff Notes version, listen to this video, then go to the right side of the page and watch all of them from this speech. I found these videos interesting because the historical information the speaker presented was what I had just read.

      The speaker in those videos, the head of the American Lands Council, explains all the points you’ve made. I think most are addressed in the one about common ‘myths’.

      So yeah, the whole ball of wax is necessary, if you want to know the truth about the Bundy situation. If you don’t care, then you can keep repeating the same talking points and acting outraged over one man’s protest against the government, as if he exists within an isolated bubble, unrelated to anyone or anything but the fun you’re having by declaring he’s the ‘most worstest’, ‘most awfulest’, big bad meany guy with lots of really expensive cows taking grass off YOUR land, when whoops, that land may not belong to YOU after all and any violations committed by Bundy may or may not be anywhere near what you’ve been told. But if that makes you happy and you aren’t interested in doing any due diligence, then so be it. Be happy in your outrage over the welfare rancher. I understand. It’s much easier to jump onto the outrage train than it is to spend hours, if not days, pouring over old documents to find the truth or spending around an hour total watching videos that explain the land issues from the very people who are most knowledgeable and have the most invested in correcting the record. Of course, learning about the foundation of the land issue might require you do a little more research to make an informed opinion about Bundy, which would certainly cut into the precious time you could have spent in righteous indignation.

      You will note that not once have I sided for or against Bundy in any of my comments. There is more to this story than meets the eye and more information is necessary to make a final determination. Until all relevant information is gathered, including the historical record, I can’t say where he comes down. However, I do know this; his situation would not be happening, if the law had been honored as agreed upon in the statehood compacts. That may not exonerate him, but the foundation must be laid in order to go to the next step in understanding the whole of the issue.

    • StreyDawg

      I’m guessing you wrote some really smart stuff there, but I don’t have time to read all that. If you can’t make your point without writing an essay, then you are obviously struggling to make your point at all.

    • Historical Forensics

      LOL. I’m not surprised. However, my hope is for you and others to find and write about some really smart stuff, stuff you found yourself, instead of being spoon fed. It means more when you have the opportunity–the dignity–of making your own decisions based on what you’ve read in documented sources and have seen it with your own eyes. Sadly, for the ‘too busy’, history doesn’t come in sound bytes, so, I gave you what is actually a brief peek at available information. I can boil it down to a Media-Matters type talking point, if you want, but you’re smarter than to fall for something like that, right?

      You have some references to start your own investigation, if you want. If you don’t, Media Matters and others who like manipulating the narrative will provide you with one. They love it when people just really don’t have time. Keeps them in business and the ‘mushrooms’ in their place. Be well and be happy.

    • StreyDawg

      I already did. I didn’t have to make it a massive essay.

      My decisions are my own. In case you haven’t noticed, they are not the popular “GO BUNDY” chants so popular among the rest of the people who can’t articulate a solid reason why someone should be allowed to use public land for free.
      Yeah, you should just can the condescending notion that I haven’t “educated” myself; I have, and no one has been able to do anything other than insult me.

      But thanks for sharing that there is at least some version of welfare you will support.

    • Historical Forensics

      LOL. Obviously, you chose not to pursue documentary evidence. Come on…

      Here’s another link:

      Be sure to read the Congressional Acts for Nevada to become an organized territory, then later for them to create a constitution. The Nevada Constitution Convention is interesting too. For some odd reason–maybe because of the first two Acts and historical precedent…they expected the ‘disposal’ of the public lands by the federal government, just like all the Enabling Acts required.

      A tidbit: Congress does not possess the authority to redefine or alter the terms of a solemn compact, especially not one that alters or denies “the uniquely sovereign
      character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of the state’s public lands are at stake.” Hawaii v. OHA, SCOTUS, 2009.

      But, in 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

      For over 200 years, they didn’t have the authority to supplant law with “policy” and SCOTUS has reminded them of that several times, including recently, so where did Congress suddenly obtain the authority to unilaterally alter the Constitution and the compacts?

      You’re missing out on so much. It’s often easy to get caught up in being right over what is right. Everybody interested in knowing what’s going on has to check that natural tendency every now and then. It’s much more fun working the puzzle of finding the truth than it is focusing on misdirected narratives that I know you didn’t construct. Be a one-person truth revolution, because the truth is, you wouldn’t be alone. Independent, yes, but part of a company of millions who search for the truth. My invitation is sincere. You’re smart and well spoken in print. Come on. It’s so much fun, it’s nearly addictive. The truth will set you free. And it’s very satisfying when the puzzle pieces begin to fit together.

    • StreyDawg

      Obviously you chose to review only material that fits your POV.

      Interesting that you are trying to use the SC to defend your argument; it is the SC that concluded that there is no such thing as “grazing rights” and that the gov’t has a vested interest in administering public land for the benefit of all people.

      Pick and choose much?

    • Historical Forensics

      Since my opinion is informed by numerous original documents and 200 years of documented historical fact/precedent, it’s based in more than just a personal view or selective document choices.

      Whatever the Court ruled regarding grazing rights, it’s not necessarily germane to the issue of whether the federal government is in violation of the Constitution and the Enabling Acts. SCOTUS rules on the narrow issue before them. Can you provide me with links, or at least, with the case titles you’re citing? Context is everything.

      BTW, I read the 9th Circuit’s ruling. There were several interesting aspects to the judgement, but perhaps the best–the dismissal of the Equal Footing Doctrine by replacing it with the shiny new Thin-Air-Completely-Made-up-Never-Before-Seen-Gradients-of-Unequal-First-Come-First-Served-State-Sovereignty Doctrine–was the most instructive in reminding us all why the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the land.

      “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth become a revolutionary act.” ~~George Orwell

      “Question everything, even the very existence of God.” ~~Thomas Jefferson

    • StreyDawg

      Since the federal gov’t is not in violation of the Constitution in this issue, then it is “germane.”

      There is nothing in the Constitution which supports the corporate welfare freeloading behavior of a millionaire using public taxpayer land for free. If that is the case, then we might as well just eliminate the concept of private property and anyone can put their house/business/farm up wherever they want. Literally. There is no reason to have private property if anyone can just drop trou on any piece of land, even if they don’t own it, and exploit it for personal gain.

      You people don’t even understand what walking contradictions you are.

      Homestead Act.

      Land Council v. Babbitt.

      Grazing Act.

    • Historical Forensics

      In the ‘view’ of the U.S. Congress, as recorded in U.S. Code, as of, at
      least, Jan. 13, 1897, and until, at least, 1925, Sec.4949 (U.S. Code–Reservoir
      Act) Any person, live-stock company, transportation company or corporation
      engaged in breeding, grazing, driving, transporting live stock may construct
      reservoirs upon unoccupied public lands of the United States, not reserved, and
      for the purpose of watering live stock, shall have control of such reservoirs
      upon unoccupied lands and the lands upon which the same is constructed, not
      exceeding 160 acres, so long as the reservoir is maintained and water kept
      therein for such purposes, Provided, that said reservoir shall not be fenced and
      shall be open to the free use of any person desiring to water animals of any
      kind. (Though special circumstances could allow fencing, as long a free access was retained for others.)

      Any person desiring to avail themselves to this act, shall file a
      declaratory statement in the U.S. Land Office in the district where the land is
      situated…(land identifying information)…and approved by the Secretary of the
      Interior, thereafter such lands shall be reserved from sale by the Sec. of
      Interior so long as such reservoir is kept in repair and water kept

      Only an act of Congress can amend this contract. Have they? It’s not a
      regulatory decision. It’s a law.

      Grazing fees applied ONLY to National Forests. Has that been changed by
      Congress and would it apply to pre-existing contracts?

      Bundy says he has all the original documents, but I haven’t seen them, of course. Just what he said.

    • StreyDawg

      Unless there is a declaratory statement in the US land office filed by Bundy, you are continuing to waste your time. If grazing fees only applied to national forests, then explain what element of law allows people to use public land that is not a national forest for personal gain?

      It’s actually a little amusing to sit here and see you guys all trying to pin your argument on something different.

    • Historical Forensics

      Do you know that there isn’t a declaratory statement on record or that he doesn’t have original documents proving one? I don’t. I simply provided you with the law that states his claims could be true, since you’ve been so worried about his ‘welfare’. And the law I cited above clearly states the uses of Reservoir Land, and the part about fences I edited out so it wouldn’t be too long stated that with special permission, fences could be erected to keep animals IN, as long as free water access to others remained.

      Basic contract law, if he does.

      At that time, grazing fees were charged only for lands in National Forests. Sec. 5149, 1925 Cumulative Supplement to U.S. Compiled Statutes.

      However, grazing permits, with no mention of fees, were obtainable for the Hawaiian National Park, Hot Springs National Park, Lafayette National Park and Indian Reservations.

      This tidbit of info is relevant only as a guide to what may have been the law when Bundy claims the Reservoir deal was made. I think he said either the Homestead or the water contract was obtained in 1868 or thereabouts. I’ll have to find those statutes to verify, but there was no note in the statutes from 1897-1925 of any change to previous versions of the law.

    • StreyDawg

      And absolutely none of these laws, arrangements, or policies have a single thing to do with what Bundy is doing, without exception.

    • Historical Forensics

      They do matter, if he has legitimate legacy to the original permit. The point is that such contracts were indeed made and not all grazing permits required fees. The Reservoir Act didn’t require fees, just a specific process and maintenance of the reservoirs for personal and public use. Apparently, Congress didn’t share your opinion that no one should be allowed to use unoccupied public lands, since the people using them were/are also of the public and allowed, by law. Congress did require the homesteaders/permit holders be American citizens or aliens in the process of naturalization. No one in these contracts ‘owned’ the land, so Bundy rightly does not claim ownership. Bundy has said he has the original documents. If he has a permit, he has a legal contract granting usage and control over the land, as long as he maintains the water, which is what he said. Neither you nor I know for certain what he has, but it’s possible. For all we know, they may have gotten the reservoir permit in 1897. But what we do know now is that what he claims was a legal and legitimate practice that existed for, at least, decades and decades.

    • Historical Forensics

      I read the Babbitt decision. It was the result of a chain of events that began back when the feds allowed ranchers to graze their animals on unoccupied land, at will (1800s-early 1900’s). Due to a variety of circumstances, weather cycles and the Depression, ranchers joined with lawmakers to protect the range lands from overgrazing, which resulted in the Taylor Grazing Act, with specific provisions to verifying allotments and to aid in stabilizing the cattle industry, which was overall a slow process, but successful. The Clinton Admin. tried to get additional legislation passed (which H. Reid opposed) but when it failed, the admin. decided to circumvent Congress and apply the changes by regulation through the D. of the Interior. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of ranching and farming associations. The Court ruled only that the government had the authority to impose those contested regulations, but it left open the possibility of individual ranchers who felt they had been harmed to bring suit in the future. The case was never about a perceived ‘right’ to graze, but about reg. changes the coalition felt would result in placing such hardships on ranchers it would drive them out of business and destabilize the industry by negatively impact financial lending practices. I don’t see where it applies to the Bundy situation, if his claims are what they appear to be, since his claim would fall under an entirely different law and circumstances.

    • StreyDawg

      Again, the Reservoir act only applies if he made such a declaration. Did he?

      If not, then stop wasting our time, an act that has become your trademark.

      Last line in the Act; “Congress may at any time amend, alter, or repeal sections 952 to 955 of this title.”

      Bundy has an obligation for full disclosure since he demands the nation be on his side, and since he has lost in court twice using contradictory arguments, it’s going to be tough to suggest that he did so while using some of these alleged documents.

      His “claims” are as illegitimate as a welfare baby…which ironically is what he ultimately is.

    • Historical Forensics

      Do you have proof that he didn’t make a declaration? We’ve been down this path before and other than snarky replies, you’ve presented no evidence, only opinion. I admitted I didn’t know what Bundy has, but simply showed the law regarding arrangements such as he claimed. I’ve given you documentary evidence, so what’s yours that he’s a welfare baby? If he DOES have a declaration, he paid for his usage of the land through caretaking, maintenance (at his own expense) and providing water for public use.

      DARPA much? The repetitive M.O. isn’t unique, though it does include additional alphabets.

    • StreyDawg

      Logic much? Its entirely illogical to make a claim that you can’t support and then demand proof that it didn’t happen. That’s basic logic, and you epically failed.

      You’ve presented no evidence. You post a lot of nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with this, but nothing that supports a defense of Bundy.

      If he is using public land for free while knowing he is supposed to be paying fees, he is a welfaring freeloader.

      Now try a little relevance. If you are able.

    • Historical Forensics

      Please read my reply again. I have never made any claims regarding whether he has or doesn’t have a permit. In fact, I’ve covered that issue numerous times by saying, I don’t know. I have presented documentation that such permits exist and it’s possible he has one. If he doesn’t, then he has something that has left him and his family unmolested and in compliance for around a century, but if he does, then your talking points are not only irrelevant, but oddly intransigent.

      I think we’re reached the circular ‘discussion’ now. You keep twisting what I’m saying, behaving petulantly and rudely, as only a person with poor reading comprehension or an agenda would do. I think you can read just fine.

    • StreyDawg

      It’s obvious you post just for the experience of typing. I know your type; you are the guy at the social gatherings that everyone looks at with the awkward look of pity on their face because they recognize that you believe you said something interesting and useful, but they aren’t sure if you are crazy or just socially stunted.

    • Historical Forensics

      I post to point others toward facts and documents they can check for themselves and so that people like you, who never fail to comply, can reveal themselves.

    • StreyDawg

      Already reviewed, little buddy. You are a little late. Keep trying.

    • Historical Forensics

      “Last line in the Act; “Congress may at any time amend, alter, or repeal sections 952 to 955 of this title.”

      Yes, they can, however, pre-existing contracts or permits, especially the kind made under open-ended time limits, such as the Reservior Act, are grandfathered in, per basic contract law. Changes apply to new agreements after the Congressional amendments are passed into law. Private caretaking of federal lands still exists and these permits are sellable and can be willed to subsequent generations.

      Do you have proof Bundy doesn’t have one of these? I don’t.

    • StreyDawg

      Show your proof. Show that this even has a shred of relevance.

      Where is this “reservoir?”

      So far you’ve shown proof of NOTHING. And your comments defend a racist freeloading hypocrite.

      There is a reason why the Nevada Cattleman’s Association is not supporting Bundy.

    • Historical Forensics

      The last two lines of my last post: “Do you have proof Bundy doesn’t have one of these? I don’t.”

      Your first line: “Show your proof,”

      Read them slowly.

      The news reported that the BLM destroyed the reservoirs. Bundy stated they did. He stated they were maintained at his expense. He stated in interviews he had done all required of him by maintaining the water. Reports from the ranch stated the same about the BLM destroying the structures. His and reporter statements strongly suggest the Reservoir Act is what he’s talking about.

      You’ve provided no proof that he doesn’t have a legitimate permit, nor provided anything that may suggest he could not possibly, under any circumstance, have a legitimate permit. All you’ve done is repeat the same talking points over and over.

      Send someone over to the Dept. of the Interior to check for a declaration on file. I’m sure they’ll be glad to oblige. Avoid emails that may be FOIA’d later.

    • StreyDawg

      Holy crap, I see you are responding to your own posts in addition to repeating illogical notions. It makes no sense to say that someone has to prove a negative to make a point.

      This is not about the “reservoir act.”

      You send someone to the DOI. You don’t make a valid argument by making unsupported allegations and then telling other people they need to go verify the presence or lack of something.

      You’ve truly gone off the deep end. I’m going to find some sane grownups to chat with.

    • Historical Forensics

      I agree you should engage with some sane grownups, but I encourage you to listen when they present ideas that expand beyond your narrow talking points. At least, operatives should appear open minded enough to not summarily hang a guy without investigating additional information. It lends more credibility. A good disinformation operative, who by definition does not have truth to rely on, will maintain character integrity, then subtly manipulate the conversation back toward his desired goals.

      Earlier you chastised “you people” for twisting in the information winds in defense of a “racist” (just one example of contradictions) then later, in a new thread, stated, “We all know what he meant…”…”but we conservatives…”. Remember, it’s important to maintain character consistencies within each role you’re playing. You must know who your character really is and not act in caricature. Some people use index cards or a file containing the specifics of each character and what they’ve said where. Contradictions are easily spotted, but then, that’s what happens when you use amateurs who don’t grasp the most fundamental rule in creating fiction: “You are only allowed one lie in fiction. All else must be true.” You may have to chew on that, since it requires an understanding not inherent in your model. These standards are not engrained in your work, because the operational premise is built on the faulty 3 D’s model: “Disrupt/Distract, discredit, and disseminate (talking points). Disruption is the only semi-successful element, which in turn destroys any possibility of succeeding in the other two. Each element, when used alone as a primary tactic, will destroy the other two. It’s a self-defeating strategy.

      Best wishes to you too. I’ve given you an honest and professional critique, not because I support your ideology, but because certain operational integrity in an information war is required to defeat opposition. However, by virtue of the construct you utilize, which cannot be revised and maintain its goals, as well as the personality pathologies of the hierarchy, I also know you will categorically reject what I’ve said, and so limited, your only response is ridicule. No need to trouble yourself. I’m moving on, as well.

    • StreyDawg

      When you speak, it rarely has anything to do with the topic at hand, but you say it anyways for your own attempt at credibility…because you are the most irrelevant man in the world.

      Stay curious, my friend.

    • StreyDawg

      Did you think I didn’t know about this legislation? Did bundy make declaration? Does it apply?

      Why don’t you post some reference to a law about appropriate containers for hauling gasoline or the practice of issuing a license to get married. It’s about as relevant.

    • Historical Forensics

      If you do, it makes your behavior even more bizarre, if taken at face value, which I don’t.

      I’ll post more documentary references, if you’ll try something other than repeating the coordinated talking points in the same ‘voice’ as all the other posts around the Internet that show up under different screen names, but no matter the subject, all seen to mysteriously use the same phrases and trigger words. I’ve noticed, however, over the last several years that the number of these posts have significantly declined. The friends for free must not be into it anymore. Who can blame them? They’re probably trying to get insurance to replace the policy they had before that they can’t keep. Still, even some of the narrative cliques have closed up shop or their numbers are so small now, they’re working overtime, but are still becoming more and more irrelevant as reality overtakes narrative. I guess the ‘big’ guys are having to get their hands dirty more and more, just to keep up the facade. Not that I think you’re one of the big guys. They delegate.

      Just for creativity sake, try something original.

    • StreyDawg

      Maybe you should try to post something useful…and coherent.

    • Historical Forensics

      It’s quite useful to allow operatives, aware or not in their participation, to expose themselves. Why do you think this administration has more ‘leaks’ than a sieve? The guy next to you or the one at the top of the food chain may have taken his oath seriously. You never know who is ratting you out to other intelligence agencies or networks that contain people who are completely aware. History is a great teacher. Narratives can change, adapt and even be believed for a short time, until the public can see the lie conflicts with reality. Fear and intimidation has a short shelf life, as well. Name calling, the whole Alinsky shtick, is too well known and documented for it to retain its usefulness widely. The old methods are failing. New strategies are slow forming or beyond comprehension. Too many have been taught the old method and know no other way to change it with one memo. Desperation is setting in because the world view of the people running the show from the top is distorted and dependent on nudging, shoving, then shooting, when all else fails. Their fatal flaw is the complete inability to understand human nature, despite all the professionals–with similar disabilities–they hire to war game manipulation. The bubble they live in is nearly stretched to capacity and they’re desperate for ‘something to give’, which they are perfectly willing to create themselves, if the nudging and shoving fails to elicit the desired response. History and the understanding of human nature is always a reliable road map, replete with exit signs and flashing warnings announcing the pot holes ahead. History is not the friend of tyrants and psychopaths who want to be gods of their universe (“We must change our history!”) but it is instructive for those who aid the wannabe. Aides and true believers consistently end badly.

    • Historical Forsenics

      One quick clarification: The aides and true believers end badly at the hands of those they enabled. Always. It’s necessary. People are dangerous when they find out that what they believed in enough to sink to the lowest levels of unprincipled behavior was nothing but a strategy and a lie. Only a tiny handful of the closest, most trusted, survive purges, because they’re needed. The psy-op foot soldier is no longer useful and a potential threat more destructive to the cause than the known opposition. They must be neutralized and they are. Always.

    • Historical Forensics

      Oh, and the Live Stock Act allowed for 640 acres for ranchers. Same time period as above.

    • StreyDawg

      Haha…the “livestock act.” First, there is no such thing. There was the Donation Land Act, but it did not include Nevada. Second, the Bundy’s never made a claim under the act, so it’s entirely irrelevant. Finally, that land act gave ownership of the land to the people who made the claim, and Bundy admits that the land is not his.

      What else you got hidden in your re.ctum?

    • Historical Forensics

      Stock-Raising Homestead Act, Sec.4587l1/45S7C 1925 Cummulative Supplement to U.S. Compiled Statutes

      That was just for acreage clarification regarding the Homestead Act that there were additional acres granted for raising live stock above the usual 160 acres.

    • StreyDawg

      Still irrelevant; it’s almost 50 years later than the time frame he is claiming that his family started using the land, and Bundy has never made a claim using this act (he admits it’s not his land). Not to mention that the amount of land Bundy is using is several times over the amount provided in the SRHA.

      Try again. Please make it relevant.

    • Historical Forensics

      I made no claims that the Stock-Raising Act was necessarily relevant to Bundy’s claims. As I said in my post, it was simply clarifying that there were instances where additional acres were granted above the 160 you correctly cited.

    • StreyDawg

      And once upon a time it was legal to enslave other people. Unless it has relevance, why would you waste our time? Who was it that made a comment about arguing for the sake of arguing?

      Irrelevance much?

    • Historical Forensics

      And slavery is relevant to acreage how? My comment was nothing more than expanding on your statement earlier about 160 acres. It wasn’t even as essay, plus I was agreeing with you.

    • baldy522

      This is because it was a Federal Court making a decision on a Federal case! That is no different than a criminal deciding his/her own case. The decision was made/bought before the trial had begun!

      You really don’t understand how the corrupt system works do you?

    • StreyDawg

      You missed the point.

      The “federal court” has no interest in 100,000 acres of desert. Loosen up that tinfoil cap. There are plenty of conspiracies; you don’t have to be ridiculous about it.

      Besides, the issue of personal interest is no different for Bundy, who wants to continue to make millions using land he does not own nor is paying for, bringing in free hired guns to be “patriots” for his fake notion of liberty while he suggests that slavery is good for some people.

    • baldy522

      Yes they do. Did you not watch that Judge Jeanine clip I posted? They have that solar deal going and to use the land that they want to put it on they have to move the tortoises from that land. They don’t care about the tortoises, they are just using them as an excuse to sell land to the Chinese to make millions of dollars with Mafia style tactics.

      Whatever money the Bundy’s have made, they at least made it the old fashioned way and worked hard for it. And he paid for that land by putting in the manual labor to keep it up, put in wells and water for his cattle.

      Conspiracy Theories are just the truth coming out against those in power.

    • StreyDawg

      Of course I saw it. It’s hyperbole and unchallenged rhetoric, but a talking point for the easily-persuaded nonetheless.

      The solar deal is nonsense for several reasons; first, Bundy doesn’t own the land, so Bundy’s stupid cows aren’t a barrier to any effort for a private company (Chinese, American, or Martian) to put up solar panels. In fact, the turtles are a smokescreen for all of you small-brained theorists; the turtle is actually a barrier to development, not an asset.

      Good grief, you guys are misguided and gullible.

    • baldy522

      The only misguided person here is you and your absolute loyalty to a corrupt Government filled with Authoritarian Psychopaths. The breaking of the solar deal was what got Reid to call off his jackbooted thugs. The breaking of that is also why all of those papers were pulled off the net. The only hyperbole and unchallenged rhetoric is what comes from any of the Authoritarian Progressives and their controlled media. You are the one that has no clue as to what is going on.

    • StreyDawg

      Haha. And yet you can’t even discuss this without focusing your post on insulting other people. That rather exposes who is truly uninformed here.

      It’s simply hilarious that you take such a contradictory position which says it’s OK for Bundy to become a millionaire off of public land, but someone else is not. It’s even more ironic when Bundy freeloads off of federal taxpayers while criticizing other people who freeload off of federal taxpayers, and does it in a racist manner.

      You are trying to sell a turd with flowers stuck in it. It’s still a turd. See if you can post any of the other buzzwords that you found. Maybe call me a libtard or say something about my mother. This true tea party patriot has seen it all, and has come to realize that there is nothing that some people won’t pick a fight over based on their narrow-minded urges to be hateful.

      Bundy is a freeloader. You support a freeloader.

      Shame on you.

    • baldy522

      I call it as I see it. If your being a moronic Totalitarian Liberal then I say it. You are the one taking it as an insult.

      And you calling yourself a Tea Party Patriot and backing the Federal Government like the Government shill Beck is disgusting and a true insult to Patriots. Bundy has every Right to allow his cattle to graze on that land. His family has been doing it for over a hundred years. HE is not USING the land. His cattle are free range and they are grazing on public land that is NOT owned by the Federal Government and is not even being kept up by the Federal Government. Bundy was keeping the land up. I don’t think you have a clue as to what a Tea Party Patriot is. You’re more like one of the Vichy French.

      You have shown that you have no clue as to what the Constitution say’s or what it was written for through your support of our Criminal Federal Government that over 90% needs abolished.

      Now go give your buddy Reid a big hug and kiss.

    • StreyDawg

      Pay attention. Nothing in my post backs the “federal government.”

      Bundy has no right to graze his cattle on land that is not his. That concept dismisses the intent of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines right by birth to land just because someone used it. If that is the case, then there are a lot of people that Bundy insulted that should be running the plantations in the south.

      “Free range?” You don’t even know what that means. It doesn’t mean they wander any friggin place they want; it means they aren’t kept locked in a cage. That land is owned by the taxpayer, and no single individual has special rights to taxpayer land.

      Feel free to post whatever idiotic translation you’ve made of the Constitution which supports Bundy’s freeloading. I’m a conservative; I despise freeloaders. You obviously love them, especially if they float the idea of slavery as a good idea; that puts you right in line with democrats. Now go cry on the grave of your hero Robert Bird.

    • baldy522

      Everything you have been saying is backing the Federal Government because you don’t understand what the hell is going on and are supporting the Federal Government in destroying all of those ranchers out there with Unconstitutional and outrageous fee’s ment to bankrupt them and force them off their land, by an Unconstitutional Agency that needs abolished.

      It is not a birth right you moron. It is a Right given to him by his family that settled the land and kept it up. Land ownership and keeping your freaking cows in “your fenced area” is what goes on in the east where we have nothing but private land. The West with public land, that is not owned by the Criminal Government, anyone can use, especially cattle from a family that has been maintaining that land since 1877.

      I don’t love freeloaders. They are the ones that you Liberals are allowing to come over the boarder illegally and those that could work, but live off the Government instead. And it is that Government Welfare system that is just as much a form of slavery, worse in fact, because at least during the last period of slavery they had their families, now they don’t. That is not Racism. That is telling the truth to the Evil of our Government and what they are doing for their Elitist World Banking Masters.

    • StreyDawg

      There are about a million cattle producers in the US. We have the highest levels of cattle production in the world, so enough with the “destroying the ranchers” nonsense.

      There is nothing unconstitutional or outrageous about a $1.35 per head annum fee. There is nothing unconstitutional about the existence of the BLM. In fact the same clowns who are wailing about it being unconstitutional would be dropping their poo like deranged primates if the gov’t didn’t establish some agency to oversee the taxpayer’s land.

      If it’s a right, then its for everyone. There is no constitutional condition which says “you get to use this public land because your dad did before you…” a “birth right.” If its just for one person or small group, then it’s not a right; it’s an ENTITLEMENT. WELFARE.

      There is no part of the constitution which says that people who live in the west can release their cows on any public land. Your very argument is a contradiction.

      It’s racist to suggest that the problem with a minority group is that they never learned to “pick cotton.” If you can’t see that, then you are a hopeless racist yourself.

    • baldy522

      You moron. The picking cotton reference was just in reference that they had something to do to take up time instead of so many people not having a job today! He just speaks in language that is not Politically Correct for brainwashed Sycophants. Just because he said “picking cotton” does not suggest that he hates black people. His actions towards blacks show that he does not hate them. And considering that I am Jewish, German and Black by genetics, I don’t see how I can be Racist to anyone but an ignorant Liberal that wants to Race Bait to keep all of us divided. Those who Race Bait are the true Racists.

      That fee that you say is “nothing” is what bankrupt and drove out the other 50 or so ranchers that were in Bundy area and he is the last one because he refused to pay it. And nearly all Federal Agencies are Unconstitutional and need abolished. It is in the Constitution you dipshit. Anything that is not directly stated as belonging to the Federal Government, or directly stated that the Federal Government is responsible for, then it falls to the States and the people with the PEOPLE having the most power of all! The Constitution was written as a restriction on the Federal Government! Not something that gives the Federal Government endless power like you seem to think. His cattle is allowed to graze on that land. Reid and the Feds didn’t want him their because they wanted his land. They just didn’t want his cattle off the land in question. They wanted him off of all of it so they could take it all.

      Again, you have no clue as to what the Constitution stands for or what it’s intentions were and still are.

    • StreyDawg

      If you say so, idiot. The cotton-picking reference was a reference to SLAVERY. His own words, and only a stupid douchebag like you would try to spin it another way.

      Tell us about his “actions toward blacks.”

      BTW, you just used the liberal racist card, suggesting that you can’t be racist because of your heritage…holy re,tar.dery.

      Show the evidence that any fee bankrupted the ranchers. We want evidence, because so far you’ve limited yourself to whatever unsupportable poop-encrusted nonsense you pull out of your oversized Show us where the Constitution says there can be no federal agencies. The state of Nevada Constitution specifically deferred the oversight of public land to the feds; you clowns keep ignoring that.

      No, his cattle is not allowd to graze on that land because I forbid it. I am a taxpayer, and I don’t want a millionaire rancher or a green alternative power freak to use that land for personal gain without paying for it.

      The land is not bundy’s, so it’s going to be interesting to see you try to make the case of the gov’t overstepping their bounds in removing his cows from property that isn’t his.

      You haven’t posted a shred of substance to your “constitutional” argument.

    • baldy522

      Ha! OK O’Brien. Give Winston my best. I’ll leave you with what must be your mantra.

      “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” – George Orwell

    • StreyDawg

      And you can shop for your next roll of foil with these words; grow up.

    • baldy522

      One, nothing he said was Racist. Two, the only one drinking any Kool-Aid here is you and your “Big Government is God and can do what they want” Socialist crap. There are such things as grazing Rights and Watering Rights. The Federal government can only own 10 miles of land of D.C. per the Constitution. They can act as a trustee of land that is not owned in a given State or they can purchase that land, if approved by Congress for Constitutionally sound reasons. They never have purchased it.

      The Western States are in talks right now to figure out how to get the Feds off their lands. It is not a “Theory”. Just as Dirty Harry’s deal with the Chinese is not just a theory.

      You are the one that needs to educate yourself with information that is from other sources than Government run propaganda sites. We have millions upon millions of freeloaders in this Country. The Bundy’s are not one of them, unless you are with the Totalitarian Government.

    • StreyDawg

      It was undeniably racist to suggest that any minority would be better off as slaves. It’s disturbing that anyone would even suggest that such language would be acceptable. Especially when the guy is allegedly taking a stand for liberty.

      It’s also undeniably racist to suggest that successful black Americans are the ones who “have learned to pick cotton.”

      Nothing I’ve said is “Big Gov’t.”

      There is no such thing as “grazing rights.” The Supreme Court pointed out that no such thing exists in the Constitution. If anything is a “right,” it is not designated for a single person. The federal gov’t doesn’t “own” the land that Bundy’s cows are running around on, and that is a ridiculous argument anyway. No matter how you try to assemble that mud pie, Bundy doesn’t own the land. Nothing in the Constitution says that the taxpayers are disallowed from owning land and designating our gov’t to oversee it for the benefit of all citizens. Besides, the federal govt DID purchase that land, and Nevada designed their Constitution to defer this land to the administration by the federal gov’t.

      There is “talk” among some western states to ensure protection of federal land; I live in a “western state” and they aren’t lifting a finger to take back oversight from the feds, primarily because a huge amount of it is popular among tourists nationally, and there is absolutely NO way that the taxpayers of this state can afford to maintain it. And if it is privatized, then the rest of the nation can ever forget visiting it again because they won’t be able to afford it. Nevada is even less capable because they have deferred a larger amount of land to the feds and they don’t have a state income tax to maintain this land. Additionally, I don’t think that Bundy is interested in buying this land unless he has the ability to purchase the 135,000 acres that his cows have been wandering on. And if he did, he’d be a fool when he could’ve leased it for far less than the value of the land.

      Propaganda sites? You are hilarious. Try a little common sense. You argue like a second grader at lunch time telling ‘tales’ about what happened over summer break.

    • baldy522

      He did not say that they were better off as slaves. He asked IF they were you thick headed moron. He was talking about how they, and ALL of us, are still slaves to the Government Welfare System by either being on it or paying into it and he was asking which form of Slavery were people better off under. Only childish, emotional idiots would think that what he said was Racist. Even most black people understand what he was saying and I am Jewish, German and Black mixture. You don’t seem to be able to understand the meaning of what people say. This is why you don’t understand the intent of the Constitution and actually seem to think that it gives all the power to the Federal Government to run our lives and control everything we do, just like every Progressive Authoritarian Liberal out their that is pushing their Totalitarian system. We are talking about everyone’s Rights that the Feds are stripping away from all of us. The “Courts” are corrupt and owned. They don’t matter. Any decision they make is what they were told to make to benefit some corporation/s or banks.

      Bundy did offer the money to the State of Nevada and they turned it down. They told him that he was not breaking any laws and that he had those grazing Rights that you say are mythical. The reason why he has those on public land is because his family was the first to start using that land. If you live in a western State you should know how it works, He has the Right to allow his cattle to graze on that land. He cannot build houses or any such thing, but his cows can roam on it and graze without him paying money to the Federal Government for land they don’t own, nor do they take care of. You are wanting the Bundy’s to pay an extortion fee to the freaking Federal Mafia. You really should read the Constitution and stop believing what MSNBC and all the Liberal shitheads are telling you to believe, and stop siding with the Totalitarian criminal scumbags because it is real simple. If they try and take that Ranch by force it is going to start another Civil War that we will win and when it is over, those in control will purge any form of this Progressive Liberal thinking. Progressive Liberalism is a mental illness that needs eradicated.

    • Verdes Lutz

      Dude, your over-exuberance is very telling. Consider, Bundy and his family have been using the land for generations, that establishes a right. Grazing fees came along later and have forced other ranchers to quit. The BLM came with 200 SWAT personnel to threaten, injure and damage property (they also threatened to kill people approaching them). If you don’t see the problem with this then you probably would like to see citizens massacred by federal bureaucrats with guns! Right?

    • StreyDawg

      My exuberance? Who was it that drove across the country to lock and load their guns? Wasn’t me.

      There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or ANY law that says someone earns a right because of family use over time. Please review the definition of a right; if something is a right, then it is a right for EVERYONE.

      If you don’t see a problem with a millionaire rancher using public land for personal gain and wiping his rear with court rulings over 20 years, then you are undeniably irrational. If Bundy hadn’t started running his mouth about a “range” war, the BLM would’ve shown up for the eviction with some contract cowboys and trucks and completed the eviction without incident. Never mind that no less than two BLM and USFS buildings in Nevada have been damaged by bombs since Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees.

      And enough with trying to assign characteristics to me; it’s juvenile. You guys keep pulling that 2nd grade nonsense and you need to grow up.

    • StreyDawg

      “Settled” the land? WTF are you talking about? The Homestead Act limited acreage to 160, not 135,000. There is no element in the Constitution that says someone earns grazing “rights” just because they’ve been freeloading off of it longer than anyone else. Besides, if something is a right, then it’s for everyone, not just one person. It makes no sense to suggest that a single person has more right over a piece of public property than another person. Besides, even suggesting that someone has “water” rights doesn’t mean that equates to being allowed to run cattle on that land. Water is also used to cool nuclear reactors, so obviously water rights means he can build a nuclear power plant there, right? Or maybe make a big effing lake, drown all of the wildlife. Put in a “waterpark” and sell tickets. Whatever he wants with that water. Really, use some common sense. He’s a freeloader.

      State courts do not have jurisdiction over land that the state has already deferred oversight of to the federal gov’t.

      The Nevada constitution deferred oversight of this land, purchased with FEDERAL tax dollars, the day it was written, so the state has literally done what you imply hasn’t happened.
      You guys need a better argument, and should rethink sacrificing yourself for this clown who claims he is all for liberty while arguing for slavery for black people.

      Shame on you. You are an embarrassment to Conservatives.

    • Paula James


    • “some hardware” should never include snipers in the hills aiming at American citizens. “some hardware” could include a tax lien against his property.

    • StreyDawg

      Why would they post a tax lien against his property when their primary goal is to resolve a trespassing issue?

    • Perhaps the issue could have been handled in a manner that didn’t require government agents to arrive in full battle rattle, using dogs, pepper spray, Tasers, or snipers. Maybe, just once, some mature, intelligent bureaucrat could have taken a step back and said “Whoa, this is getting out of hand.” Apparently, the Feds just dig bad press. Well, they got it.

    • StreyDawg

      I have no doubt it could’ve “been handled in such a manner that didn’t require gov’t agents to arrive in full battle rattle…”

      Now you tell me what “manner” that would be where bundy would’ve said “I like the way you handled this; go ahead and load up my cows. Never mind that there have been two terrorist attacks against BLM and USFS facilities in Nevada since I stopped paying fees, and that I announced that I wanted to start a range war.”

      Maybe they could’ve tried the court route…except Bundy had lost in court twice already. Maybe they could’ve tried patience, because 20 years of Bundy wiping his rear end with court rulings simple wasn’t enough time, right?

      Bundy is a freeloader. You are an enabler.

    • He would never say he agreed with the Federal grab of his freedom. How about sending a marshal to take him away in handcuffs? I’m sure Bundy and his family would have relished that piece of “newsworthy” attention. Of course, the BLM would not have been able to assert it’s “Big Dog” superiority by letting the system run it’s course. I can understand a federal marshal, with support,walking onto the property armed and ready for conflict. Have you ever asked yourself why the Bureau of Land Management has armed agents? What part of the Federal teat are you sucking from?

    • StreyDawg

      Federal grab of his freedom? He has no special freedom to use land that he does not own for personal enrichment.

      Since this was not a criminal action (yet), then handcuffing him was not appropriate. Eviction is a civil matter.

      And it’s hilarious that you don’t see the irony in suggesting that I’m sucking from the ‘federal teat’ while defending a millionaire who is freeloading from land that does not belong to him.

      I’m so ‘liberal’ that I despise welfare of all types, especially corporate welfare like Bundy is exercising, and I think everyone should pay their own way. How liberal are you?

    • Conservative enough to know that when the Feds barge in and change the rules that I do not have to kowtow and a’salaam. What part of the Fed coming in and changing the rules mid-stream do you not understand? If Bundy is ultimately found guilty of whatever- you still did not answer my basic question- why does the BLM have armed agents? Will you be so compliant when the Dept. of I Hate Millionaires comes to your property to monitor your water usage?

    • StreyDawg

      Make your case that “changing the rules” is bad.

      Keep in mind that slavery was once legal.

      Asking why they have “armed agents” is as stupid as asking why they have a fire suppression division.

      Maybe they should have an “angry letter-writing division” instead to send a letter to the editor to enthusiastically address the vandalism of Pompey’s Pillar, or to start typing sternly into their computers when some rich guy drives his trucks onto Cedar Mountain Wilderness area and starts clearcutting it for the timber, and knocking off wild burros and horses to export as meat to Mexico for his personal wealth-building entrepreneurial gain.

      I mean really…maybe the FBI should be investigating wholesale dumping of garbage and arson on taxpayer-owned land.

      I’m no fan of an over-eager law enforcement institution, but BLM has less than 280 officers covering an area the size of Texas and Nevada combined.

      Your water compliance comparison is idiocy because the land that Bundy is using DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. What is wrong with you people? Why can’t you make relevant comparisons?

    • Joe_ks

      Kira, I think everybody has at least a touch of bigotry and/or racism in them. I think any one who claims that they have never, never, ever made a comment that shouldn’t have been made or judgement in a moment of temper based on race (at least in their own mind) is either a very young child or would lie about other things as well. It’s kind of like hypocrisy. I think just being human is all it takes to make you guilty of it once in a while, even if you don’t know it and honestly try to avoid it. The difference between intelligent thought and the outright of blatant racism is what makes up the difference between people of integrity and people who refuse to think refusal to think = stupid) As Martin Luther King Jr. once stated: “Nothing pains some people more than having to think”. That statement is the perfect definition of racism. Having said all that, this is the first time I have seen one of your videos that I can recall. My hat is off to you. You earn respect because you think deeper than a bottle cap, you see through an obvious, deliberate distraction and recognize reality and truth. It was people like that who created the United States of America, wrote our constitution, gave us our freedom and people like you who can help us keep it. Kudos to Kira, from a red-necked old white guy, And God bless :o)

    • Joe_ks

      Sorry, StreyDawg. As you can see, I am not very good at posting on a forum like this one. The comment was meant for Kira, I clicked on the wrong link and caught the error only after it was already posted. :o(

  • Notrated

    I realize all the information was not entirely accurate, but I get your point, I agree with your point,…. I hope the media would take a lesson from you.

Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!