Nevada Rancher: “I did not graze my cattle on United States property”

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Glenn will give additional analysis on this interview on tonight’s Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV.

Over the weekend, the ongoing conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a federal agency that administers public land, came to a seeming conclusion when the BLM stood down and released Bundy’s cattle over safety concerns for their people on the ground. Some fringe media sites had been promoting the conflict as the possible beginning of a second American Revolution or the start of the “American Spring”. Glenn, however, has refused to do more than report the facts as he understood them until he could speak with Bundy. He did, however, author a letter denouncing any supporters of Bundy who were calling for armed conflict and violence, imploring people to follow the example of Martin Luther King and Gandhi and protest peacefully.

This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Bundy about the escalating conflict and why Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees associated with his use of the public land.

“The story of Cliven Bundy, and his ranch in Nevada, is one that I think is captivating many Americans. And it may indeed go down in American history as  more than just a quick footnote. I hope that it would go down in history as a positive footnote. But it is one of those situations where we could face another Waco or another really bad situation, a Ruby Ridge,” Glenn said.

During the interview, Glenn tried to understand Bundy’s perspective on the dispute. Was this conflict over ranching and grazing fees? Or was it over an issue of state sovereignty or disarming the BLM?

Glenn said, “I have people that graze on my land. And there is national land behind my ranch as well. And I know if anybody runs cattle on that, they also have to pay for grazing fees. Grazing fees are normal. And you stopped paying them. Your daughter said you did pay them for a while and then you stopped paying them. There are some people that would say that you are, if I may quote, a ‘welfare rancher’ because you’re not paying the fees that other ranchers do have to pay.”

“Let’s make sure we get this straight. I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government and I did try to pay my grazing fees to the proper government. I do not have a contract with the United States because I will not sign that contract with the United States,” Bundy explained. “I have no contract. I did not graze my cattle on the United States property. And I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government.”

Glenn asked him to clarify since in the Nevada State Constitution that land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on was given over to the federal government.

Below is a transcript of Bundy’s explanation:

CLIVEN: Let’s talk about the — Glenn, I really want to talk about that because that’s very important.  You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada.  And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada.  Let me see if I can get that straight.  What it says, it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory.  Now, let’s think what we’re doing.  We’re talking about the territory of Nevada.  People of the territory of Nevada.  As they — they do not have the Constitution.  They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations.  Okay.  The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state.  And they have a clouded title.  So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever.  It sounds terrible.  Forever?  But let me tell what you they had to do.  They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.
And what did Congress do?  It made a state of Nevada.  Which [indiscernible] a lot of them — quote Ed Presley here.  Here’s what Ed Presley said.  It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood.  What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood.  Now, if you think about that in the second.  At the moment of statehood.  What happened?  At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states.  They had boundaries around them, a state line.  And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada.  And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the peoplend we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.
I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws.

Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.

“So I think this is very clarifying to people,” Glenn said.

“It’s not BLM land. It’s Nevada land,” Bundy said.

“That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know,” Glenn said.

Based on the conversation on the radio show, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that  land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864.

Cliven did say that while he believes that Nevada is a sovereign state within the United States, he does not identify with the sovereign states movement.

Listen to the full interview in Hour 3 of The Glenn Beck Radio Program with the On Demand Audio below:

  • Chuck Davis

    well, that about clears it up. Clive’s an anarchist.

  • Bill White

    Support?

  • Not me!

    “BLM – COME AND TAKE IT” shirts!

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/141253370759

  • Not me!

    “MOO-LON LABE” shirts!

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/141253451648

  • Loren Schofield

    Stu and Pat were very disrespectful over such a serious issue. There is a time and place for levity, but a serious potentially life threatening situation was bad timing.

    I understand preaching peace and going into a situation not looking for violence. Yes we don’t need to go out looking for a gun battle, but if you aren’t prepared for one, or the threat isn’t there why would anyone listen to you? Glenn our country was founded on the principles of John Locke, and natural, or God given rights of every man. Those rights include life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the rights of ownership. Those rights are what this country was founded on, not necessarily what we are still about.

    If we have God in our hearts he will bless us, but he also expects, no demands that we stand up for our rights, and the rights of those who can’t defend themselves. You said this is different than the civil rights movement in the south, you are correct, but you missed the biggest reason. The blacks were denied their rights to keep and bear arms so they could be abused without a threat of retaliation. It’s about control, just like your book says. Without the threat of self defense, the BLM had no reason to back down. It is why the progressives are trying so hard to take away or 2nd Amendment rights, so no one can defy them. You should reread the book Control.

    Our founders tried for a peaceful resolution, for years, but finally when the British came to take our right of self defense, is when we said no more.

    “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here” Cpt John Parker.

    If they had refused to use violence the British would have fixed bayonets and made them move, and they would have taken the weapons.

    Is that what Ghandi would have done?

  • http://twitter.com/FoxieNews Debbie

    Glenn dear, do some more homework on this and then TRY AGAIN! Dude, you were SOOOOO CLOSE……….. but that only counts in horseshoes and grenades!!!!! Seriously……………

  • William Jones

    Y’all just don’t get it. Mr. Bundy also lost in both state and federal court, the latter ruling of which gave the BLM the right to seize his cattle. Mr. Bundy should apply some personal responsibility and accountability and pay the back grazing fees he rightly owes. He tried to state, in court, that the federal government doesn’t maintain the grazing land, but he lost, plain and simple. I can not support this man until he does the right thing. Jesus said that we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and in this case, it is the back grazing fees.

  • Anonymous

    I understand that Harry Reid’s, son’s company has a use for that land. Is there something to all this. Harry Reid is in the senate and represents NV. Next NV gives away the land to the federal government, that Harry works for. Can federal land be given to a private concern, so they can make a buck.

  • Anonymous

    Fox News aired a special, Saturday night called “Enemies of the State” which focused on everyday Americans who somehow found themselves in the crosshairs of their own government. Fox News reporter John Roberts talked to Wayne Hage, a rancher battling the Bureau of Land Management over his cattle farm.
    Roberts pointed out that in one 105 day grazing season, the family was visited by government employees 70 times and received an additional 40 certified letters containing various citations and notices.
    “That’s more than one visit by the government, in a sense, for every day that you are out there grazing,” Roberts said.

  • Anonymous

    Why should this man obey federal laws when Obama doesn’t follow them? He’s just following the example of the President.

  • Brian Woodruff

    The issue that I have is here is a man generating a living. does he owe money to the Fed’s for use of the land yes, But Al Sharpton owes more money to the Fed’s yet look at what the Fed’s are doing to him, they sure a sh*t not going after his Lively hood like they are doing at the Bundy ranch, http://nypost.com/2011/12/11/rev-al-deep-in-the-red/ There have been reports that this was a land grab to put up a solar power plant, that is not 100% true, the plant is not going there but they need the area for Increaseing Gold Butte Area Visual Resource Values to offset those of the power plant’s impact
    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.tmp/TN_444.pdf page 41 is where that starts ad goes till the end of the documet

  • Boknows

    Sounds like Mr. Beck is backing up! I would suggest that people that subscribe to his web site rethink it. I for one will not follow any more! Beginning to sound like a RINO!

  • Anonymous

    The same thing happened to Anne Coulter. It seems like these people are truly conservative only as long as they don’t have too much to lose.

  • Loren Schofield

    why are you even a supporter of the Second Amendment? Why did you write your book control? Why defend the right to keep and bear arms? If its not to oppose tyranny than why does anyone need those evil black scary guns or magazines that hold more than 10rds?

  • Kadie

    Bundy is right. Just because some entity comes in and declares ownership doesn’t make it so. That ranch was in place long before BLM was created.

  • I’m ready when you all are

    Some fringe media sites ? Would the BLM have stood down if the people were unarmed ? I understand when some media people get so wealthy they along with our reps get out of touch with we everyday people. It took me 5 minutes to write this. What’s wrong with this site ????

  • Brian Woodruff
  • William Fuzi

    ask your self a question. Why is he the last rancher standing? Before 1990 there were hundreds of ranchers around him, and now there is only one. the BLM came in and made it virtually impossible for ranchers to survive. This is the government strangling ranchers, and farmers so the government can take their land. In Nevada they used the Desert tortoise. In California they are using the Delta Smelt to destroy farmers. What’s happening to that land, as those farmers are losing their farms? I’ll bet Diane Feinstein is making a fortune. Hey Glenn You might look into who is buying that land, and see how many degrees of separation there is from US senators.

  • Linda Sills

    two wrongs do not make a right. You control only yourself. Make tha person the best you can be.

  • Brian Woodruff

    In the Gold butte area there were 52 Ranches before 1990

  • ken.

    glenn, if you want to drop your pants and bend over, thats your problem. when candidates lie and say everything you want to hear, then once in office they do something completely different serving themselves instead of we the people, then voting doesn’t have power or meaning anymore. in cases you haven’t noticed politicians lie, scott brown and a few others ran on the tea party ticket and once elected turned into hardcore leftists. they don’t care about us or the constitution and will do whatever it takes to screw us. if this is not the time to stand up then it never will be. you better hope you stretched enough.

  • smithmarie2010
  • Mic68

    It is amazing , the lack of comprehension people are showing on this issue. It is federal land owned by the Federal Government. The Constitution states that it can Own land, and the Nevada Constitution admits and respects the same. I do feel for the man, but he is nothing more then a squatter and has continued to break the law for 21 years. We as conservatives complain about “selective enforcement” when Obama and his ilk commit it but are blind to the fact that this is what they asking for with this issue. He was given his day in court, and an appeal. he presented no factual evidence to support his claim of ownership and was found to be in violation of the Civil law. He was given time to comply with the rulings and still refused to do so. Not one constitutional right of his was violated.

  • OBAMABLOWS

    Glenn Beck is a RINO and his website is so slow due to pop ups I no longer even bother wasting my time visiting.

    Also, I laughed when he said he has a ranch…i bet he has someone do all the work for him.

    BECK is all hat no cattle

  • truth

    Finished with Glenn Beck. Listened and watched for 13 years. Done with this guy. If you don’t tow his line, you are not a “fan”. Walk a mile in someone’s shoes Mr. Millionaire.

  • Anonymous

    clarify your response

  • Mic68

    Nice but it’s more theater then fact.

  • Mic68

    False issue.

  • swarty

    Glenn…. You own cattle too, that’s cute…. But unlike you he actually works a cattle ranch for a living. And apparently the use of land to him is a little more important since it is his livelihood, not just his hobby…. You owe him, your followers and yourself a better understanding of what he is saying. I am a bit perplexed as to why you are joking and laughing with a guy who just did what every rancher and small business owner should be doing when bullied by a federal government that is using power to push a little guy around not for the good of the people but for the good of corporations and their own special interests…

  • Anonymous

    So, Glenn said, “I have people that graze on my land. And there is national
    land behind my ranch as well. And I know if anybody runs cattle on that,
    they also have to pay for grazing fees. Grazing fees are normal. And
    you stopped paying them.”

    Does ‘bias’ or ‘conflict of interest’ come to mind?
    For connections between Reid/UN/Agenda 21/solar power, PLEASE read: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62404?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=34919d8810-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-34919d8810-297713101

    And Bundy Ranch is not the only one:http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-familys-ranch-property-owners-fight-government-land-grab/

  • Shawn Cameron

    Maybe their joking and laughing at the guy because what he’s saying is gobledygook.

  • Boknows

    No question you are right! Mr. Beck jetting around all over the country and his members paying for it! He living the High life at your expense!! He is just another talking Head! People use Common sense! He is all about the money just like his buddy Orally! But he professes to be all about the Folks!!!! Sounds like a Snake Oil salesman to me!

  • Mic68
  • Anonymous
  • Mic68
  • Jay

    I love seeing how many people are not fooled for a second by this! The governments story smells pretty fishy to me and apparently a lot of others :) It is fantastic seeing all these people trying to put out the fire Mr. Bundy started, it makes me proud to see how many people are not idiots! Glenn it is nice seeing that your just another puppet :)

  • Anonymous
  • Jay

    Exactly!

  • Patti Sullivan Brasga Radovich

    can you be specific. I ask in earnest

  • Anonymous

    So, basically, this man is a nut job. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Bundy, this is not a dictatorship. You don’t get to decide for the state of Nevada what is and is not federal land. The elected representatives of Nevada get to decide that.

    Besides, he’s just blowing smoke. He just doesn’t want to pay the grazing fees. The “It’s not federal land” argument is just the excuse he uses because he knows nobody will give him any sympathy for his real reason.

  • Anonymous

    I knew that after reading the first news article where he said he’d gladly pay to the proper local government, which he considers the county. Except that he wasn’t. Nothing was stopping him from making that payment to them as a protest, but he didn’t. Nope, this has always been about him wanting to do what he wants and everyone else can take a hike. Oh, and about finding a rationalization for not paying the grazing fee.

  • Loren Schofield

    For the record just because I completely disagree with you on this issue does not mean I will stop listening. Adults can have a civil disagreement without resorting to name calling and hatefull words. I respect you and agree more than not, but thou should let Dana Loesch ruin with the story. All the people saying they are not going to listen to you anymore need to calm down. I hope Glenn rethinks his position, but even if he doesn’t that’s fine we are adults, lets think act like that.

    We are stronger united than standing separately, let’s all remember that. But I’m not happy with Stu and Pat, and feel that they should apologize not only to Mr. Bundy but to your listeners tomorrow.

  • Anonymous

    Then where did all those people come from who supported him?

  • Boknows

    He always has been a Snake Oil salesman, he started out his career telling you what you wanted to hear and now he thinks he has become some kind of God and you will follow everything he says! Wake up people, get away from this crook! Just another lying Talking Head with money that you gave him….

  • truth

    People stop supporting mr. know it all beck. He thinks he has become the voice of the people. We the people are the voice Glenn!

  • Anonymous

    The BLM didn’t take his ranch. Bundy never owned the land he grazed his cattle on. He paid to use it. He decided he didn’t want to pay to use it anymore.

  • Randall Dunlap

    Okay, so just who does the land in question belong to? Bundy says it belongs to the people of Nevada. I have yet to see an official of the state of Nevada back up Bundy’s claim.

  • Anonymous

    I understand perfectly what he is saying. He wants to use land he doesn’t own for free. A good little liberal he is.

  • CrapsDealer

    Go away, troll. Adults are trying to have a conversation.

  • Loren Schofield

    Wrong he did and they sent his check back, so he used the money for what it was intended, he made improvements in the land.

  • Anonymous

    How exactly am I a troll? Did you listen to the interview? The man is a rambling loon. I hate the government just as much as the next patriot, but he doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. He doesn’t own the land. The federal government does and he refuses to pay his grazing fees. It’s that simple.

  • Anonymous

    That’s not his decision to make. He doesn’t own the land. It really is that simple. And he doesn’t get to decide who does own the land, because he’s not a king.

  • CrapsDealer

    And, who owns the federal government?

  • Loren Schofield

    Just correcting you when thou said he never tried to pay them. He did.

  • Brian Woodruff

    Mic pull up the youtube page, he provides links to back up what he has said but as with anything there are always different interpretations

  • Anonymous

    What else is there to know. This guy grazed his cattle on federal land. He refused to pay his rent for 20 years. He lost in state and federal court. He is refusing to obey the law. What more is there to this story? The guy is a kook.

  • Anonymous

    Because this isn’t an example of tyranny. This is an example of a guy who doesn’t like the law so he just decides to not follow it. Bundy is a loon.

  • Anonymous

    The land belongs to the Federal government. Bundy can say it belongs to the people of Nevada until he turns blue in the face. Doesn’t make it so. This guy’s just a squatter who wants to use land he doesn’t own for free. No different than the selfish cattle owners in the late 1800s who shot and killed farmers who dared to actually buy the land and fence it in.

  • Paul G

    You’re toast Glenn. In 10 hours I will delete this and theblaze and ANYTHING that is connected to you! I waited till today to hear what you had to say… You told us to do ‘our homework. WE/I did . There’s THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS that you’ve lost . GO MORMON! (Reid)

  • Anonymous

    He didn’t owe the county. He owed the money to the BLM. If I send my property tax check to the IRS do you think the county will give me credit for paying it? Use your brain. Bundy is in the wrong. I hate the government as much as anyone, but Bundy is fundamentally wrong on this issue.

  • Anonymous

    The people. What’s you’re point?

  • Anonymous

    We do. And I say he needs to pay his rent. Or should we only listen to Bundy on this. Is he a dictator?

  • Anonymous

    What is fishy about it? Bundy never owned the land. He admits he owes at least $300,000.00 in grazing fees. He’s just a deadbeat.

  • Shawn Cameron

    Why because for the first time he’s not telling you anarchists what you want to hear?

  • James Steccato

    Im very disappointed in the way Glenn conducted this interview.
    He comes across like, “well I pay and other ranches pay so you should pay”
    Its due to the ignorance of the law that Glenn and others like him get stuck paying for things they have no need to pay for. These are not laws they are statutes and the fact is that statutes only carry the “Force of Law” They ARE NOT law, and they only carry force of law if you consent to them,That goes for every American on any statute,code or ordinance and any town ,county or state.
    Glenn, you want to educate yourself bring in Winston Shrout or Dean Clifford for an interview and one of them will clear it up for you, and Pat and Stu…. the other commentors are correct this is serious stuff there is a time and place for foolishness and this is not the time. You act like Cliven is a dumb ole koot.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    This whole thing sounds more weird by the moment. First people need to stop calling for blood because the government tooks some cows. I mean come on people let’s be reasonable no one died no one’s life was in danger why call for a revolution over animals that are so stupid the sleep standing up. If they were hauling people against their will to work camps or gas chambers than I will be all like pass the ammo but not over a bunch of stupid cows.

  • CrapsDealer

    If the people own the federal government, then the people own the federal land. The Bundy’s were not living off the backs of the public, he created and provided with his own money — a water way for the land– a fence to keep his cattle out of other areas and paid for the roads to be graded and paved and paid out of his own pocket– The BLM did nothing. He paid his fees up until the point that he saw his fellow farmers get forced off of their property. He believed that after all of the money he used to pay these expenses he owed $300,000 to the BLM — the BLM claimed he owed 1 million– they spent 3 Million of tax payers money to try and run him out.

  • Anonymous

    Precisely. Just because the people own the federal government doesn’t give the people the right to use any and all federal property as they see fit. We are a nation of laws and no man gets to pick and choose which laws he will or will not obey, (unless his name is either Obama or Holder).

  • Anonymous

    That doesn’t give him the right to use federal property however he sees fit. He must obey the law. He refused to obey the law. He is a deadbeat.

  • Anonymous

    Heh! PERFECT*** WE THE PEOPLE******NEVER FORGET!

  • CrapsDealer

    You didn’t read my previous post. There are facts on both sides of this issue. You can’t disregard the facts that don’t support your opinion.

  • Maria Delaluz

    I wish Christians would stop using that verse to back up gov’t taxing. Good article on this particular verse and what it really means go to
    Americanvision dot org. Search for the “Render unto to God” piece or search “taxes”.

  • Loren Schofield

    Please learn more. Do your own research. And so the name calling. There is so much more any an out of control beauracracy. Google NV BLM misuse of power. They are bullies and got called on it. I’m not posting links, because of you are honest and look for the truth you will. If you think you know and have your opinion and refuse to be open that’s your choice.

  • Anonymous

    Glenn was correct. This guy doesn’t like the law. There are lots of laws that I don’t like but you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you wish to obey.

  • Anonymous

    Glenn is being reasonable and thoughtful in his approach. Bundy is dead wrong but Glenn gave him the respect he deserves. Just because you support a deadbeat doesn’t make Glenn wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Run mouth without understanding, common obomite trait, just can’t fix stupid.

  • Anonymous

    You claim Bundy is fundamentally wrong, and in so doing, imply that the federal government is right — so please show me where in the US Constitution the federal government has the authority to own millions of acres of undeveloped land. I can show you Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the US Constitution which authorizes the congress “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings”

    In other words, the congress may own, with the consent of the legislature of the state and of the US congress, up to ten square miles for military installations or ports or “other needful buildings”. National forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, national grasslands, grazing land, nor anything of the sort are enumerated as allowable reasons to own land.

    Amendment 10 to the US constitution says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    It seems Bundy may not be “fundamentally wrong on this issue.”

  • jesusknight

    The Constitution states that the Feds can ONLY own land under certain specific conditions, for public use buildings, etc. There are NONE there.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    So you are saying you hate the First Amendment. Yeah way to throw Constitutional principles under the bus because one guy said something you did not like.

  • Anonymous

    Bundy doesn’t own the land. He hasn’t paid grazing fees in 20 years. He lost in state and federal court. I’d say the BLM has shown enormous restraint in this issue.

  • Anonymous

    They guy owes 20 years of grazing fees. He is a squatter. He is using land illegally. How does that make Bundy a hero? He’s a thief.

  • CrapsDealer

    I’m sure a rancher like Mr. Bundy works harder every day than you’ve ever worked in your entire pathetic life. And you have the audacity to call him a “deadbeat”? You’re pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    1)The government will pay him off with a huge settlement and gag order,
    2) or they will come back with new fury and exact their pound of flesh.

    One thing is sure, this tyrannical government is going to boost those Chinese into Nevada to push forward Agenda 21 and undermine American sovereignty. Serious intervention of the American people is all that will stop them. Five billion dollars is the price for the solar farm, the money is from US stimulus, and the local greedy politicians and ole Harry are going to get a nice hunk of that. Along with that you will learn soon enough the Chinese cannot recruit enough competent Americans to do the work, so the Chinese will import their own contractors and labor. Just like the Bay Bridge in San Francisco.

    Plain and simple common sense – this is a landgrab

  • Brian Woodruff

    An issue very similar to that in Cliven Bundy’s situation was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

    Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

    Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

    This, the Court would not permit.

    “Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

    To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

    [T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Emphasis added.]
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18038-bundy-s-case-feds-do-not-own-the-land-where-his-cattle-grazes

    So, regardless of the BLM’s — and by extension, the Obama administration’s — insistence that Nevada’s land was ceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state in 1864, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

    And So the BLM is just a care taker of the land ad resources THEY ARE NOT THE OWNERS The US CITIZES are the OWERS of that land

  • Anonymous

    Idiot there got to be a life out there somewhere for you, go find it.

  • Paul G

    No. I just choose not to read this anymore. YOU want me to be FORCED to read this? YOU hate the first amendment?

  • Anonymous

    The only facts that matter are the law and the rulings of the courts. Bundy did NOT pay his grazing fees for 20 years. He deserves to lose his cattle. It’s that simple.

  • jesusknight

    No, he does not own it; he has a LEASE, and has had one for decades..

  • Anonymous

    I pay my taxes. I own the land I use. He does not. He IS a deadbeat. He brought this upon himself by refusing to obey the law.

  • CrapsDealer

    It’s really too bad you’re not as concerned about the brown shirt tactics from the BLM. That should be the main issue in this. And, since when did the BLM get the right to act like a brand of the frickin’ Military?

  • Loren Schofield

    really it used to be law that people could own slaves. It used to be law the women were not allowed to vote. There’s a difference between government law and natural rights or God given rights.

  • Anonymous

    You need to check your reading comprehension. And to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent, means the federal government can own any land a state is willing to sell it (even if such selling is at $0).

  • Anonymous

    So, if I have a lease and refuse to pay my rent for 20 years, would you fault my landlord for evicting me?

  • Paul G

    You sir. ….you are a MORON.

  • CrapsDealer

    Okay, little sheeple, you just keep bending over while the gubment wastes your tax money and have a good life. Personally, I think you’re jealous because Bundy has a bigger set than you do and proved it by standing up to the fed.

  • Anonymous

    He didn’t pay his rent for 20 years. They took him to court and he lost in state and federal court. What more do you want the BLM to do?

  • jesusknight

    BUT ONLY FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES..namely, for needful buildings and the like; NOT parks, etc. Get your facts straight!

  • Anonymous

    Then you change the law. You don’t break it. If your fellow voters don’t want to change the law, you must obey it. That’s what grownups do.

  • Brian Woodruff

    Who pays for the repairs to the white house??? Not the pRESIDENT it is the TAX Payers, BLM Bureau of Land Management, Manages all The Land in the US THEY Do NOT OWN them, the AMERICAN PEOPLE DO.

  • Anonymous

    So, by your reasoning anyone can just walk into a federal building and set up housekeeping? Can we just walk into the White House and start living in the Lincoln bedroom?

  • CrapsDealer

    So, I guess you think our founders weren’t acting like grownups in 1776 when they didn’t obey unjust British laws. You’re a fool. Are you going to comply with Obamacare? If the feds suddenly decided to confiscate your firearms, would you comply?

  • Barbara O’Connell

    I’d like to know who was using the land before Bundy…pre 21 years. If his family has been using it since the early 1900s, that seems to give him “squatters” rights. In some states, if the fence is arbitrarily on someone else’s property and has been for a certain period of time, the individual inside the fence can claim that land. I know this is different but if the family has been using the land all this time, then did they pay rental? When did the rent start? We all pay taxes so the BLM lands can be kept up…The government does nothing with this land…seems we’re wasting a valuable resource if it’s not being used. And it seems the cattle and the turtles have lived in harmony all these years….what a paltry excuse….Remember…the more cattle ranchers that are run out of business, the higher our meat bills will go…and the more imports we’ll be eating…You don’t get rich raising cattle, but you make a fair living…and I commend Bundy for continuing this practice…someone has to do it so I can have my steak…can’t eat chicken as it causes an inflammatory process in my body…so beef it will be.

  • jesusknight

    They tazed and hit his son, and took him away like a criminal for an interrogation before letting him go hours later…. HELLO..!

  • Anonymous

    No, he pretty much nailed it. What is there to understand. This guy doesn’t like reality so he has decided to reject reality and substitute his own reality. Life doesn’t work that way. Sorry.

  • Brian Woodruff

    An issue very similar to that in Cliven Bundy’s situation was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

    Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

    Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

    This, the Court would not permit.

    “Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

    To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

    [T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Emphasis added.]
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/

    So, regardless of the BLM’s — and by extension, the Obama administration’s — insistence that Nevada’s land was ceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state in 1864, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

    And So the BLM is just a care taker of the land and resources THEY ARE NOT THE OWNERS The US CITIZES are the OWERS of that land

  • jesusknight

    Well, the disinformation propaganda machine is starting to roll out the c-rap now…
    The rancher HAS to be painted evil and wrong, so we the people will stand down and do nothing.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not happy about it, but I also don’t wish to go to jail. I will do my best to fight for what is right at the ballot box. That’s the way civil adults handle problems. Grownups don’t just decide I don’t like that law so I won’t obey it. That’s not the way things work.

  • James Steccato

    There are lots of laws you are not required to follow.
    Like I said statutes are not laws and these are statutes. Do yourself a favor go get yourself a copy of Black’s Law dictionary and educate yourself on the second English language. The words you read in most government documents do not mean what you think they mean in the language of law.

  • Anonymous

    He isn’t being painted as evil or wrong. He simply IS wrong. That doesn’t make him evil, but he’s still wrong.

  • truth

    You have to understand the way these people think. I’ve listened to Beck on the radio and TV for 13 years. However most of his “followers” are just that… followers, he is their leader, and Glenn has gladly taken on that role for both power and mostly the mighty dollar.
    I can listen to someone and agree with out becoming their puppet as most Beck followers are.
    Sadly though this is the way our society is. We live in a world where people allow their leader to think for them.

  • jesusknight

    His family has been there since the 1870′s.

  • Anonymous

    Statutes and laws are the same thing. You must follow the law. Get a clue and quit pretending you’re a lawyer.

  • CrapsDealer

    So, you’re just going to comply with Obamacare. And, if the feds suddenly decide to come and confiscate your firearms, you’re just going to hand them over like a good little sheep. I don’t call that being an adult…I call that being a coward.

  • Loren Schofield

    That’s the difference between you and mr. Bundy. He is willing to put it on the line for his convictions

  • Anonymous

    I personally agree that federal land grabs for parks was thoroughly unconstitutional. But the fact is the state of Nevada and the courts have agreed to it, which makes it the law right now. What is NOT up for discussion is that Bundy doesn’t own any of that land. At present, the courts and the state of Nevada agree that the land belongs to the Federal Government. Therefore, Bundy is required to pay them to use the land. The reality here is simple. Bundy doesn’t want to pay the money.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been a long time listener and subscriber to Glenn’s show, website, and internet channel. However, for the first time in years – I had to turn him off today! I am so disappointed that he actually said that if we fight back if we push back at tyranny or government overreach that we don’t believe in or walk with God. Its interesting to me that its OK to fight and God supports those causes that Glenn Beck says are worthy. Anything that doesn’t have Beck’s sanction means we have rejected God and we have no place as his listeners. How dare he tell me that I don’t walk with God because I am tired of being abused by my government and I’m ready to fight back? When did Glenn Beck become God’s only spokesman and the arbiter of God’s will and what’s right? I also resent the increasing characterization of anyone who doesn’t believe Glenn’s soft right viewpoint as “fringe” and to be mocked and ridiculed – that’s become almost a daily occurrence on his radio show. Again, who made Glenn Beck the owner of the one truth?

    This attitude has been evolving over the last 4-6 months – I have grown increasingly frustrated with Glenn’s pivot to the progressive intolerant left – if you don’t believe the way I do – you are evil, fringe, lunatic, etc. And you are just plain old wrong, misinformed, stupid, ignorant, biased, fascistic. Glenn – you’ve wandered into that area where you believe in your own omnipotent power and you are becoming just like those you used to shine a light on to illuminate their intolerance. That’s too bad – it just proves your own thesis – no matter how good your original intent – power and money corrupt absolutely. I think you’re there.

    After today – I have to think about where I give my financial support and my time – and I’m not sure that’s here.

  • truth

    Glenn is a huge supporter of Israel right? They were there before anyone else right?

  • James Steccato

    I will reiterate my earlier statement.
    Statutes ARE NOT Laws…………They carry the force of law only when YOU Consent!
    Just because you consent to statutes that you are not required to obey (When you don’t have to) Doesn’t mean everyone else must. Just because you are lazy in standing up for your rights, I believe in your words deadbeat shouldn’t allow you to make disparaging comments about others that are willing to take a risk and stand up for themselves.

  • Brian Woodruff

    those were the farmers and cowboys from other ranches (1 cowboy for every 25 head is standard) the others were militia members from as far away as NH

  • CrapsDealer

    Spot on, Loren!

  • Paul G

    Yep You’re probably right. Thank God I’m old. I remember when America was America.

  • Barbara O’Connell

    And let’s not forget that Jesse jackson Jr is going to get $8700.00 a month in Disability, plus pension while in prison….$45,000 due to his “mood” disorder. I’ll bet Mr. Bundy doesn’t make that much money off his cattle but we can give this money to a convicted felon….what’s wrong with this picture? Oh…I forgot, Jackson is a liberal….

  • Bob

    If you wanna talk revolution, fine. But remember, the Government just bought a billion rounds of ammo and 2700 MRAP assault vehicles… and they didn’t put em on the border. I think they are anticipating confrontation over their heavy handed illegal actions and have readied themselves for it.

  • jesusknight

    Constitution TRUMPS state law.. Constitutional law is the LAW OF THE LAND. Period.
    As far as Bundy owning the land; he has and has had, a lease. The moneys for said land should go to the state, as is proper; the state owns it, not the feds.

  • truth

    we are now all dumber for having read your comment. Make it stop.

  • Anonymous

    Donning a black robe does not make one infallible. These courts are part of the same system that affirmed slavery, segregation, imprisonment (without due process or appeal) of American citizens of Japanese and German descent, and warrant-less searches without probable cause.

    Separately, we don’t have a Caesar. The government (ostensibly) is the people, so Bundy would be rendering unto himself. What I believe you aren’t grasping is the core of the argument, which is that the federal government has no authority to own the land on which his cows graze.

  • CrapsDealer

    From now on when I hear the name Kile, I’m going to hear it in an obnoxious, high, whiny voice.

  • Anonymous

    OK. And as part of the American people, I say he pays his grazing fee. What are you going to do now? Say that only your voice counts when “we the people” speak?

  • Loren Schofield

    So then we should just submit and turn in are guns and freedom?

  • truth

    As I stated before, Glenn is all 1776 this and that, making money from 1776 clothing etc…of course. But can you imagine is idiotic attempts to tell the patriots to be good, and do no harm, they are only here to help us figure this thing out. Really guys put down your muskets!

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Did they kill him as an example? No so again I ask why start a Civil War based on the government taking cows and someone getting tazed. I am sorry but that is not a healthy reaction.

  • Anonymous

    I have to pick my fights just as everyone else does.

    My fight is not about cows eating someone else’s grass. That’s silly.

    My fight is that our Govt had Sniper Scopes trained on American Citizens.
    My fight is that this Govt created a No-fly-zone over the area for the reason (in my opinion) to keep reporters from recording what might happen (a la Janet Reno and WACO)

    And finally, my fight is: IF they had Snipers aiming at American Citizens, did they also have Armed Drones targeting those same people from above, as we’ve all seen in WikiLeaks videos?

  • jesusknight

    IF what Bundy was doing was against the law, don’t you think the state (and the county) would have arrested him by now?? They have not; there is obviously more going on than you think.

  • Brian Woodruff

    That goes on all the time, Oil Lease for example, they use the land and pump the oil out once the well goes dry they cap it and clean up the area, but the gold butte area (where the cattle graze) is where they want to make improvements to the “visual resource” as so to offset the Power Plants impact

  • Paul G

    The under 50 crowd doesn’t know smoking in bars..ordering deserts in restaurants.Riding a bike WITHOUT a helmet. Hating our teacher…BUT NOT SHOOTING HER! Times our different. I sound like my father…lol

  • Anonymous

    The nation of Israel was created in 1948 by international agreement. Israel’s current borders are the result of their being attacked and later, international agreement. Nobody is calling for Israel’s borders to equal that under King David, not even Israel. Your argument is absurd.

  • mohammed epstein

    The man’s a moron. So he recognizes the state of Nevada and the state of Nevada gave the land he grazes to the federal gov’t. But he doesn’t recognize it as federal land. Really?

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    No but lets not give them the excuse to put us in cattle cars and take us to death camps. I would start burying guns tho. It is a smart thing to do.

  • Bob

    Nope, never said that. I sure won’t. But, one needs to know what one is up against to determine the best course of action.

  • jesusknight

    Its not over cows… is over CONTROL – the overreach of government that steals our property and lively hood and smiles while it does it because it knows that we will not stand up for ourselves. The turtles in question were being killed by the thousands by BLM themselves last year. The cattle are not the issue, they are just ‘in the way’.

  • truth

    Of course they did, but would you rather live a government slave or die fighting for your freedom!

  • Anonymous

    And..The supreme Court upheld Obamacare against the wishes of the majority. What’s your point? Do you support the decision of every judge? Are judges now infallible like the pope was said to be? If Caesar demanded you hand over your children to be burned as a sacrifice, would you abide? Some ‘use the scripture that we are to pray for all those in authority. well, the anti-Christ will one day be in authority. Will you pray for him?..the devil himself??..”come, let us reason together’. God never meant for His Word to be treated as the law but rather that His Word would free us from the law. Galatians: Who has bewitched you? READ Galatians 3.

  • Anonymous

    Yep. and the 10th amendment gives a state the right to sell or give its land to the Federal government. The feds own it because the state of Nevada, under the 10th amendment says they do. Therefore, Bundy must pay his fee to the rightful owner. He did not. Therefore he no longer has a lease. The land is not his, and any property he may illegally on that land is subject to seizure. It’s a very simple concept. If you don’t like it, then get the state of Nevada to claim the land back.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    You want to take free speech from others and start a war over cows but I am the moron.

  • truth

    Kile I think Glenn needs a vege burger, won’t you run along and throw one together after you finish his laundry.

  • Loren Schofield

    So what happens when they no longer need the excuse? By then it will be to late to make a stand

  • Hoodoo H

    So true…

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Why because I agree with Glenn on one thing that starting a Civil War over cows is moronic.

  • Duane Porter

    I have been listening to Glenn Beck forever and I am a Canadian and have no care for State rights or whatever. I can however see an interview with AN AGENDA. This interview to me was pretty bad and is the reason why I stopped listening to other media outlets and chose to listen to the Blaze. I am very very very very disappointed in the disrespect and attitude of Pat and Stu and Glenn Beck. They did not seem to care that they were interviewing a person and not making fun of someone who was not on the phone with them. Glenn seems so quick to hide and to protect himself so that if anything happens he won’t be blamed… but in doing that he is running over what I thought he stood for. Again I am a Canadian and I don’t care about the fight between the rancher and the government. What I care about and matters to me is that I do not understand is Glenn Beck anymore!

  • jesusknight

    If you truly think this is really over cows, you have not been paying any attention. The cows are just in the way…

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    You are talking about taking his freedom of speech away to quote you “You’re toast Glenn. In 10 hours I will delete this and theblaze and ANYTHING that is connected to you!”

  • Hoodoo H

    Take it easy.
    Glen needs time to rethink his statement.

  • Paul G

    So where have YOU picked a fight?
    Banning smoking? No
    Raising taxes? No
    Gay marriage? No
    Obamacare? No
    Land grabbing? No
    So where/WHEN are YOU going to fight?

  • CrapsDealer

    I don’t own a “musket”. I’ve kept up with the times while I’ve respected the past.

  • jesusknight

    ONLY to sell it for SPECIFIC REASONS; i.e., for buildings that are ‘needful’. NOT for parks, etc.

  • truth

    What are you 10? I guess that other thing was started over Tea?

  • Anonymous

    Come to my website and see what I fight for before saying I don’t.

  • Bob

    I’d rather the “other guy” die trying to take my freedom.

  • Paul G

    ok. I will..I’m not wearing a condemn…I won’t get a virus? OR my puter?

    here goes….

  • jesusknight

    Lol…

  • Vince Fox

    If the Federal government “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State”, as required by Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 17 of the US constitution, the land in question, it should be pretty easy for them to show when and for how much they purchased the land from the State.

  • Anonymous

    Only through kissing.

  • Anonymous

    This administration is not going away on the guns. It is just about the right time for another false flag and the poor children gambit. If they take the guns, you tell me what we will do then. Watch the recent film Captain Phillips with Tom Hanks, you really get that helpless feeling from a few armed pirates taking over that huge ship and the crew. The ones with the guns is the BOSSES!

  • Richard Stevens

    Glenn is a coward. On the one hand he wants everyone to participate in (his) parades but when its something serious like this happens, he weasels out by pretending to be above it all.The “Fringe” media as he calls it were the only ones reporting this and staying with it. If not for them and the thousands of supporters Bundy has, the ranch and cattle would have been in the feds hands a long time ago and Cliven and his family put in jail. Glenn Beck does not speak for us and I had long ago closed my account on his show. He is a sellout and fraud and i recommend everyone put your hard earned money and listening time to programs that truly make a difference.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    They been doing it for years. Well before I was even born. If I am going to kill in the name of freedom it is only going to be when every other opinion on the table is gone and I do not think we are there yet. Am I ticked off that the government would use a show of force like this for this reason yes but think about this. What if it is the Feds plan to get all of us so mad that we will start a Civil War. Don’t you see you are playing right into their hands. They want us to fight them so they can crush us.

  • Paul G

    I got nothing..
    link …

  • mudslide

    Regardless of the real issues, whether or not he owes money or he is right or wrong in his assessment, the govt’s reaction to this was knee-jerk and overblown at the least.
    Some say it’s ridiculous to risk human lives for a few cattle.
    Exactly.
    My guess is if the Bundy’s were illegal aliens the govt wouldn’t even give them a second look.
    I cringe at the thought of what will happen when people will not pay for ScamCare…

  • Sally Cronkright

    Conner, really? Those cows were not theirs for the taking. What if they came into your home and took away your cell phone? Or anything that you own. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune. We have to remember. The federal government has no right to our personal property. No matter if it sleeps standing, laying or even if it doesn’t sleep. How do you think it gets to the point of gas chambers and work camps? It starts somewhere. Wow. I’m so sure it’s not just cows that are stupid. Sorry, but wow. I don’t know how old you are but I’m guessing you must be young. I apologize for insinuating you might be stupid. More like ignorant. And that is not your fault.

  • truth

    Not quite you’re depth of thought is absurd.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong. The limit is on why the federal government can BUY the land, not why the states can SELL the land. For powers denied the states, see Article I, section 10. Selling land to the federal government is not a denied power.

    Now, the power to buy land for any reason is not delegated to the federal government, nor is it prohibited to the states. Therefore, it becomes a power retained by the state as per the 10th amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    If Nevada wants to sell or give land to the federal government FOR ANY REASON, it is constitutional for it to do so.

    Now that you have been presented with the reality of the Constitution and what States Rights really means, we will see if you actually do believe the Constitution is the Law of the Land.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    No it ended with tea but if you think the Revolutionary war was started over just Tea than you need to open a history book.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    No I will not. You turly no nothing about me and you people are playing right into the Feds hands.

  • jesusknight

    BINGO!

  • Paul G

    Yep, But at least Glenn has his gold..

  • Anonymous

    Famous words as they bend you over for a cavity search.

  • Loren Schofield

    and who’s going to make the other guy die if nobody stands up

  • Anonymous

    for the most part, the states do not want these public lands because it would cost to much to administer. That’s why the BLM was formed. The states, however, should be forced to take back most of the land like this and regulate it as they please. The people of Nevada probably wouldn’t care a wit about some dumb tortoise and could enable these ranchers to graze as they have in the past. That would probably pay for the responsibility that comes with ownership of these lands.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Agreed.

  • truth

    OK, I get it you are just a kid.

  • jesusknight

    The BLM are CARETAKERS, NOT OWNERS of this land, and the feds do not own it; the state does, according to the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution as well.

  • truth

    Correct 100%

  • CrapsDealer

    It sounds to me that you have only read one or two articles about this and have made your decision. You should really do more research.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    True but a smart group would hide and stockpile a whole bunch a weapons and ammo just for that day.

  • Sally Cronkright

    Pray tell how exactly are we playing into the feds hands? Really, I want to know. Because I don’t think so at all. And yes, I don’t know you. Nor do you know us people. So let’s have a real conversation here. We are all Americans and we all believe in Freedom. There is no way I can know everything that is going on because it’s too difficult. Information doesn’t flow freely. But here in this little chat you can at least inform me as to how I’m playing into their hands. Please enlighten me.

  • jesusknight

    Follow the money…

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    27 is hardly a kid.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Go ahead give the Feds what they want.

  • Anonymous

    Its my name with a DOT instead of an underscore.

  • Loren Schofield

    Yeah they may be smart, but they will be alone.

  • Richard Watts

    As it is in most cases, both the BLM and the Bundy family had their points. Neither side was completely in the right. This issue has been going on , unresolved since 1993. The fact that it came up now appears to be due to a scheme cooked up by Senator Reid, his son and the County Commissioners to acquire use of this land as mitigation for potential impacts of a Chinese Solar Farm elsewhere in the county is especially galling. This scheme required the BLM to remove the cattle from the Federal Lands. This was an unethical and openly dishonest effort. Senator Reid should be held up on ethics charges.
    As for, Mr. Bundy, he has been smoking some type of locoweed if he doesn’t recognize that this land, while in Nevada, is Federal land managed by the BLM. If cooler heads were to prevail, Bundy would be able to graze his cattle on this land according to an approved grazing management plan and Mr. Bundy must pay the correct authority (the BLM) his monthly grazing fee. The fact that he hasn’t paid a grazing fee means he needs to work out some deal such as a fine. If Bundy refuses to pay the BLM, the land should be leased to a rancher that will! Mr. Bundy may think he is only a citizen of Nevada but he must accept that this means he is a citizen of the United States as well!

  • Heather Sorgatz

    And the government doesn’t seem to care he hasn’t been paying until now. 20 years later they care. Has to be a reason why they didn’t care for 20 years and now they do. I’d like to see someone get away with not paying property taxes for 20 years. Not likely to get away with that for 20 years.

  • Paul G

    I could/should have written your post verbatim. I’m done. I loved Glenn. Sure, I might have not agreed with him on little things, BUT THIS is a BIG THING!. I waited until today to hear what HE had to say. HE failed. I’ll miss him.

  • Anonymous

    This has already been addressed. According to the 10th amendment of the Constitution, the federal government DOES own the land, because the state of Nevada, under the powers granted to it by the 10th amendment, have said it does.

  • jesusknight

    The Feds want land that is not theirs. No way they should have it.

  • Upland Man

    To Glenn Beck…

    I’m a paid member of the Blaze. I listened to your show today. I’m disappointed.

    I’m disappointed that you were criticizing other alternative media (i.e., Alex Jones) and their coverage of the Bundy Ranch dispute. They did far more than the Blaze to bring public awareness to the plight of the Bundy situation, to generate public support, and to bring about a positive resolution.

    Other alternative media had reporters on the ground at the event in Nevada as it unfolded. Some had reporters in the crowd, looking down the gun barrels of heavily armed federal agents, resisting federal tyranny, while Pat & Stu were in the studio making light of the situation and being their smarmy selves.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for criticizing other media outlets that are working to get the truth out and promote the restoration of a Constitutional Republic. You really dropped the ball on this one.

  • Dawn Treloar

    I can only imagine what my family would’ve done if the BLM would’ve come in to take our livestock, it wouldn’t have been pretty. We are talking a families livelihood. Maybe the BLM needs to fence in their property to keep the turtle safe from those lumbering, grazing cattle. There is no common sense here but then…

  • Waglv

    In the 1930’s, the federal government turned over to the various western states
    the responsibility of “protecting, improving, and developing public lands fit
    for grazing of livestock” within their borders. The state of Nevada passed The
    Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. This act is in effect today as NRS 568, .NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the
    customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or
    herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either
    exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by
    operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the graziers of
    the region involved.” NRS. 568 which includes 568.355 which defines the term
    “open range” as “all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which
    cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are
    grazed or permitted to roam”. NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to)
    restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock
    by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or
    predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with
    others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in
    accordance with the customs of the graziers of the region involved.”
    Don’t buy into the SMOKESCREEN story that the Tortoise is the issue as they have
    co existed with the Range Cattle, Wild Horses, Wild Donkeys, Big Horn Sheep,
    Snakes, Diseases, Weather, Man and everything else here in the state of Nevada
    and they are doing just fine thank you. If The Tortoise is such an issue ask
    why the roundup is taking place at this time of year when the Tortoise is coming
    out of hibernation and now having men on horseback stampeding cattle and various
    ground vehicles creating danger to them?
    This is simply about a citizen and
    his rights, so all I would say is be informed. don’t rely on sound bites and un
    researched articles sway your judgment

  • Anonymous

    As I stated below:

    My fight is not about cows eating someone else’s grass. .

    My fight is that our Govt had Sniper Scopes trained on American Citizens.
    My fight is that this Govt created a No-fly-zone over the area for the reason (in my opinion) to keep reporters from recording what might happen (a la Janet Reno and WACO)

    And finally, my fight is: IF they had Snipers aiming at American Citizens, did they also have Armed Drones targeting those same people from above, as we’ve all seen in WikiLeaks videos?

  • Paul G

    k…I’ll try again,,,

  • jesusknight

    Right on!

  • truth

    Glenn became a sellout somewhere in the midst of Fox news. Nothing against fox just stating IMO thats where it began. Probably had something to do with money and power.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the difference. Nevada isn’t contesting the ownership.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    It worked well in the past. Look up World War 2 Partisans. Most did that very thing when they knew the Nazis where coming and where very effective in kicking them in the face.

  • Barbara O’Connell

    Most farmers and ranchers are wonderful stewards of the land. Bundy made improvements that BLM would never have….All over the US there are people using government land…some pay paltry amounts for the use..some pay nothing. For some reason the government wanted to do something with this land…sell it? to a foreign entity? Pressure was then put on Bundy. I still want to know what’s been going on since the early 1900s….seems like that would answer many questions and until we get these answers, I’m going to reserve my vitriol and see where I need to aim it…Again…if the government allowed this land to be used for a hundred + years without collecting money, then maybe Bundy is right….If the family has paid rent for that period of time, then Bundy is probably wrong…It wasn’t very important to the government until recently when the government realized they could make real money selling it…Again…I want to know who will be purchasing the land, for what use…I prefer we not sell the good ole USA to the Chinese or any other foreign entity, for that matter. I don’t know how many of you have driven through Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, but some of the area is very inhospitable…If Bundy is using this type of land where it takes 1,000 acres to run a cow/calf pair, he’s doing us a favor. And, he’s not lining the crooked politicians’ pockets…

  • Paul G

    nothing again

  • Hoodoo H

    Awesome

  • CrapsDealer

    You mean we won’t get to read your ignorant comments any longer? Well, there goes yet another source of comedic humor down the drain.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong. The Constitution states the federal government can BUY land under specific conditions. There is no limit on why a state may choose to sell or give them the land.

  • Anonymous

    Yep. Bundy wants to graze his cattle for free.

  • Sally Cronkright

    Sorry but it will eventually get the point where the law over reaches. If the law says you need to thrown your kids into a gas chamber, do you then follow the law? So there is a time where you will eventually have to “pick and choose” so prepare yourself.

  • Sally Cronkright

    Do you follow God’s laws as strictly as you follow the government’s laws? i’m seriously wondering.

  • Anonymous

    On that, you are completely correct. The response to Bundy’s lawbreaking was tyrannical.

  • Loren Schofield

    I understand guerrilla warfare very well, but they need the support of the people.

  • Boknows

    Amen!!

  • jesusknight

    The BLM are CARETAKERS, not owners of this land. They should not get the grazing fee; the state should, according to the state constitution and the U.S. constitution.
    IF, in fact, Mr. Bundy were lawless and criminal, he would, after 20 years, already have been ARRESTED for his lawlessness. What they HAVE done is take him to court to pressure him and waste his money. NOTHING MORE.
    Apparently, there is much more than meets the eye in this story. The police, etc. do not simply let criminals run ‘amok’ without being arrested for this long. Something else is up, and it smells fishy and WRONG.

  • Anonymous

    “What more is there to this story?” The fundamental issue of federal government land ownership. Can you show me in the Constitution where it is allowed? I can show you the 10th amendment to the Constitution where any authority not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution is left to the state or the people.

    http://proliberty.com/observer/20010802.htm

  • Anonymous

    Most of these site don’t like advertising other sites. But I’ll try. Sorry Glenn. aesopsretreat.com

    Don’t click, just copy and past.

  • Anonymous

    I read that this person’s family
    had grazed on this land for many years before the feds laid claim to it.
    My government teacher in college taught me that if you have private
    land and others use it for some expressed purpose, you could not all of
    the sudden deny that use. (By the way I don’t agree with this) This situation doesn’t seem as cut and dry as you all
    think it is. BLM didn’t exist when this ranch was established. Frankly, I don’t think BLM is constitutional, but I guess libs can make anything constitutional with the commerce clause.

  • Boknows

    Such as Fox News they were there doing there job! What did Beck Do? Nothing but Run his Mouth!!

  • Workin on it

    My question is why did it take 20 years of non payment before the BLM decided to do something? If this was your land would you let someone use it for free for 20 years and then say you got to go? I would have started fees and then eviction notices after the first non payment. This would be a non issue if they pursued it immediately.

    This should have nothing to do with a desert tortoise and should have been kept simple.

    On Bundy’s side though there should have been a grandfather clause. If his family has been using the land for the past 140+ years, they should be allowed to continue to use it and just be required to maintain the land they use

  • truth

    Right on! At least AJ hasn’t sold out and is def. on the side of the PEOPLE!

  • jesusknight

    The BLM are CARETAKERS, not owners of this land. They should not get the grazing fee; the state should, according to the state constitution and the U.S. constitution.
    IF, in fact, Mr. Bundy were lawless and criminal, he would, after 20 years, already have been ARRESTED for his lawlessness. What they HAVE done is take him to court to pressure him and waste his money. NOTHING MORE. Apparently, there is much more
    than meets the eye in this story. The police, etc. do not simply let
    criminals run ‘amok’ without being arrested for this long. Something
    else is up, and it smells fishy and WRONG.

  • Jon Galt

    Lighten up! We need some levity with all the problems around us, and I for one enjoy it! Seriously, if I didn’ laugh at all the BS going on, I would probably go nuts and end up in prison for killing a politician or two… or 3.

  • mudslide

    Yep – it could have been as simple as sending out a couple of peace officers and place him under arrest.
    The govt’s level of action in this was uncalled for.

  • CrapsDealer

    It’s not about cows. It’s about turtles. The feds care SO much about those poor turtles, that they want to secure the borders on that federal land so no turtle-threatening cows can cross. Besides, if they let the cows cross…they’ll have to give the cows free food, free healthcare, and free Obama phones.

  • Anonymous

    They may have grazed the land, but they didn’t own the land. The BLM is perfectly Constitutional, since it’s job is to manage federal land. Under the 10th amendment, a state has the right to sell or give land to the federal government for any reason.

  • conservativechick

    Maybe check THIS out, too! Why would the federal government spend SO much money to basically “invade” that ranch like it was a small enemy nation? Why are all the other ranchers gone now? The feds can own land, of course, but they use powerful agencies to control the use of that land. They to control all the country’s natural resources, wherever they may be! They want this land for the ‘President’s Climate Action Plan” otherwise they would have negotiated some kind of settlement with the state.

    http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2012/october/NR_10_12_2012.html

    http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/February/Secretary_Jewell_Announces_Two_Solar_Projects_Approved_in_California__Nevada.html

  • jesusknight

    THAT is why we need to pay attention. Something else is up, and its not the fact that he is a criminal, or he would have already been arrested long ago…

  • CrapsDealer

    If you don’t like Glenn Beck, then why do come here to post? Surely you can find a soap box somewhere else.

  • jesusknight

    The BLM does not own it – they are merely caretakers.

  • Jon Galt

    And not just ranchers. Its nearly impossible to run any business other than retail any more. Earlier I read that Walgreen’s (drug stores) might move their HQ to Europe to save on taxes! If companies are leaving the US for the EU to save on taxes, we are doomed!

  • Boknows

    Well Richard that is your Opinion and you are entitled to one in this country right now!! But there is so much more to this than you are expounding on! They are concerned about grazing rights and they don’t protect the borders! Give me a Break this has become a corrupt Government in more ways then one! Surely you know that!

  • conservativechick

    They want to control all the country’s natural resources! Simple. It’s part of the progressive agenda. I’m surprised at Glenn who informed me a while ago about Agenda 21. Has he forgotten already? See my post below for 2 links to the MLB!

  • conservativechick

    Area may be included in above link. Is that also called Gold Point? http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/

  • jesusknight

    That does not surprise me in the least..

  • Todd Belanger

    Is the Government afraid the cattle is going to eat the illegal Pot that is growing on their land?

  • Paul G

    Yea. If you think this is over cows. Have at it. First they came after Christians…Smokers…Twinkie eaters..Homeowners, …Where’s YOUR ‘red’ line Conner? Yea, I thought so. You’re a wimpy dink ‘conservative repubulican’
    Another college educated wimp.

  • jesusknight

    The BLM are CARETAKERS, not owners of this land. They should not get the grazing fee; the state should, according to the state constitution and the U.S. constitution. IF, in fact, Mr. Bundy were lawless and criminal, he would, after 20 years, already have been ARRESTED for his lawlessness. What they HAVE done is take him to court to pressure him and waste his money. NOTHING MORE. Apparently, there is much more than meets the eye in this story. The police, etc. do not simply let criminals run ‘amok’ without being arrested for this long. Something else is up, and it smells fishy and WRONG.

  • Barbara O’Connell

    I so agree with you. As I said in another post, I’m saving my vitriol for later when I see who really deserves it…And…I certainly won’t lay my guns down…I own enough that i can defend myself….I hope there are lawyers really looking into this because something is very fishy….And….didn’t someone post that Bundy did not have a lease with the federal government….so years before his 21 years, who paid rent, if any….and who collected it? I hope the REAL story comes out eventually. Sometimes you cannot change bad laws by trying to vote in what’s right….you have to take a stand….And…people are getting tired of being pushed around and our rights being gradually taken away….It would be interesting to know the ages of some of the posters…When we’re young, we believe right is right and wrong is wrong. As we age and take the blinders off, we see things differently….and we don’t rush to judgment….we realize the world is not black or white….that it’s gray.

  • truth

    Glenn says he is going to give more insight on his show tonight. So all you Glenn puppets can get your thought given to you later on.

  • jesusknight

    NOT for ‘any’ reason..

  • mudslide

    I don’t know if he broke the law or not…I cannot make that judgement.
    I guess the snipers were there in case Bundy used his cow-tapault.

  • Loren Schofield

    Booooooo :D

  • Paul G

    It is. (not 50 years ago) but you are 1 year older to not be on your parents insurance…

  • mudslide

    It’s amusing the number of posts whining about Beck…
    Don’t like the guy so much you just cannot stop posting on his page.
    Lovely.

  • Anonymous

    Why don’t you tell it like it really is. Harry Reid wants his boy Rory to have that land so that they can put up the solar panels that his boy agreed to with the Chinese. Simple as that.

  • Anonymous

    You can always tell how the Left do things – by what they accuse the Right of.

  • jesusknight

    Bingo! Wonder what made them start up lately… something is not right here.

  • CrapsDealer

    No, he isn’t…and neither is our federal government. The real issue here is…are we going to accept the brown shirt tactics by these BLM mercenaries? And, since when did the BLM get the authorization to act like a branch of the Military? Using snipers over a cattle grazing dispute? Seriously?

  • mudslide

    Yeah well….slow night.

  • M.Williams

    Why is nothing being said about the BLM grabbing 90,000 acres of privately deeded Texas land from ranchers and using a similar lawsuit over a land grab 30 years ago as ammunition? They gave Henderson ZERO compensation when they took 140 acres from him, and they’re mobilizing to do it again. This is land that has held clear title for a hundred years, and all taxes have been paid accordingly.

  • Nunya

    According to the NV Constitution, the state DOES NOT own that land. Either the US Government owns it, or NV is not a state. NV is unique among the states in that way.

  • Anonymous

    On land that his family has homesteaded for 137 years. It’s their land. That the government in Washington claims it does not make it theirs. They did not purchase that land, they did not improve that land in any way. The Bundy family has a far stronger claim on the land in question.

  • Darral

    This is just the first of the people standing against an Evil Government that is not a Government of the people for the people By the people a Evil Dictator tyrant Government; WE are lucky the Shooting war did not start at this time; Under constitutional law the federal Government has no rights of Control over state lands; there is no authority for the Federal Government to own state lands; except for military purposes and even this is limited; And yes we have an evil Government that will fire on and kill its citizens;

  • Loren Schofield

    Lol

  • mudslide

    I’d surely like to know at what level and by whom this course of action was ordered….

  • Barbara O’Connell

    What is all this angst against Glenn? He’s a talk show host…he informs and entertains…just as Rush and Hannity do…None of these guys are gods, neither large or small. I agree with Glenn a great deal but I also disagree. I don’t know about his “followers”…as one of the posters says. I love listening to all the stuff that is on the programs…but as an adult, I make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions…I also listen to some of the liberal “stuff” and realize how much I am not a liberal…but you have to listen to both sides to draw your own conclusions. I’m certain that in the days to come, people will sort thru the media information and any other they pick up from other sources and draw their own conclusions…I, for one, will be one of those people. There is a man who was a radio host from Nevada and I want to hear what he has to say. He digs deep and I’m hoping he will shed some light on this that we’re not yet seeing…Whether my beliefs lead me to be for or against what Bundy has done, it certainly won’t keep me from listening to Glenn or any of the other talk show hosts…We can agree to disagree.

  • truth

    No left or right here asshat, only right and wrong.

  • Brian Woodruff
  • Paul G

    OMFG!? I’m not a teacher or preacher. I LOVED Glenn. but he failed here. I don’t know what to do. I (hope) there’s millions …thousands? like me. I’m not racist. I’m not sexist. I’m not homophobe…I’m not….I’M AN AMERICAN! I was a member of the blaze…I listen to talk radio. I am SOOO disillusioned right now…AM I the only one left?

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t work that way. They never owned the land. They grazed wilderness, then when someone did come along and buy it, they recognized that for decades, paying the fees accordingly. It’s only the current Bundy, who, 21 years ago decided he didn’t want to pay the fee anymore and came up with this silly cover story to justify his greed.

  • Anonymous

    NO! WE, THE PEOPLE decide. Our elected representatives are suppose to REPRESENT us. Their decisions are to be based on the wishes of the people who hired them and pay their wages. We are NOT to Relinquish our power/authority/responsibility to our employees/our elected representatives. We DELEGATE our authority. BUT, the authority still belongs to the people! If you own a business and hire a manager do you tell him you are now going to give him all the power to now make all the decisions for your business?

  • Anonymous

    Correct. That is the issue. The issue isn’t that Bundy broke the law. He did. The issue isn’t that the police had the right to seize the cattle. They did. The issue is the manner in which they did so.

  • truth

    This is society’s problem, you need people to think for you. Glenn jumped right in to that role and he now thinks he is the voice of the people. Cmon.

  • Loren Schofield

    Just because you disagree on one point, doesn’t mean you have to abandon him, or stop listening. Out means you’re an adult and don’t agree on everything. There is nothing wrong with that.

  • steve

    stu and pat think they are more clever and funny than they are. They are pretty good at giggling like little girls and being direspectful, they are like listining to a stupid morning radio show.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, the state may sell for any reason, per the 10th amendment. This has already been addressed in a previous reply to you. It is therefore obvious that you think those portions of the Constitution you like are the supreme law of the land, and the parts you don’t like are to be ignored. Kind of like liberals and the 2nd amendment.

  • Anonymous

    Bundy’s the one who’s a landgrabber

  • Anonymous

    But we CAN change the law! The Catholics once had a ‘law’ that you could not eat meat on Friday. Then they changed the ‘law’. Think of those poor suckers doing time hanging on the meat rack in purgatory.

  • Loren Schofield

    I agree with everything except the beginning. Can’t defeat them? Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan

  • Anonymous

    Oh, please. They are the legal representatives assigned by the owner to manage the property. Just like I can appoint an individual to collect rent on and manage my properties. And, as the owner of the land (this has been previously addressed), the federal government receives the fee. And Bundy has lost every lawsuit brought against him. When you can finally admit that Bundy broke the law, we can actually discuss the real issue here, which is the WAY the government sought to enforce the law. THAT is the problem.

  • CrapsDealer

    I’m not against Glenn at all. I was commenting about Paul G’s rant. Geez, pay attention.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Trust me if we got to that point than the people will support us. They will not if we go to war now over this. At least you are talking to me like a human being most here right now are just being jurks. So I thank you for being so civil.

  • Loren Schofield

    Lol

  • Anonymous

    As a descendant of Charles Stow, my 5th great grand father who made the Liberty Bell and my 9th GGF Ed Doty, who signed the Mayflower Compact, I agree that they would stand by you in your position as a patriot to act as a Godly man first and foremost and not a radical. I am sure that Mr Bundy is not intentionally escalating this issue but there are people who will use this for their own gain on both sides. Those patriots who died for the cause did it as a last resort.. I firmly believe in Exodus 14:14 where our Lord tells Moses to “stand still and watch what He does”.. we cannot take the reins.. He will bless us if we are the peacemakers.. no where does it say I will bless the warriors..We pray for our enemies to come to know Jesus as their personal savior. Even those who we disagree with are His children.

  • Barbara O’Connell

    I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that you were…I was just wanting a comment as to why the angst…I thought that maybe you could enlighten me….I was paying attention….I’ll try to be more specific in my postings. I just thought you had some mature answers and was hoping I’d get one from you

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    As long as we do not fire the first shot. That would be the greatest blunder in history. I can say tho I agree with you. I just do not think we are at the point someday we will be tho.

  • D…… Thornton

    WRONG idiot

  • Loren Schofield

    So Jesus didn’t get angry? True blessed are the peacemakers, but there is also standing up for what’s right. When you see something wrong you step in. Each of us have gifts that we should use. There is also Natural Law, which comes from God. When that law is broken does God want us to look away?

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    No the Feds want us to over react and attack well before we are ready. Why else would they use this much force clearly Obama wants us to fight with guns because he is losing every where else. Have some faith God has our backs and when it is time to fight we should but we should not fight on their terms. It is the best way to lose this.

  • Michael Buchanan

    WWII did not have Drones like Obama is using now I’m sorry to say

  • Loren Schofield

    There is no reason for the anger. This country needs People to think for themselves, do the research and come to there own conclusions. If they differ, have an intelligent debate, and shake hands in the end like adults.

  • ellievl

    I am saddened by this very unprofessional interview/report! Was the goal to mock an elderly man? Would you have treated your dad like that? I do believe good will come out of it. You may be a rancher Glenn but your no Cliven Bundy! Your arrogance and pride should be pointed out! It is one thing to buy a ranch and pay people to run it. Any wealty person can do that. But the multigenerational aspect to this ranch is truely spiritual and lovely to behold! The inherited and generationally passed down to children ranch is vanishing! Lets get the truth out there on the neighboring ranchers who were bought out! What about the behavior of the officers? Women were pushed to the ground. Pat and Stu think it’s funny?

    It takes years to build a good reputation, but one show like this can destroy it all.

    I hope you and your team find a way to redeem yourselves and restore your integrity! If you don’t make an effort to do this, I will be forced to believe what my 27 year old son says about you. His words, ” Your in bed with the progressives.”

    You can’t have even a little part of yourself in that system.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    No this about the Fed wanting us to start a war with them so they can kill us all.

  • truth

    Stand

  • Mark Cline

    The squatter in this story is the United States Government. The Bundys settled this land before it was part of the United States.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Look at Vietnam they did not have everything we had but yet the forced us to retreat the stronger force. Read the Art of War.

  • Loren Schofield

    Agree completely.

  • ellievl

    Amen to that!

  • Mark Cline

    The man may not be smooth with his ability to talk but he is right.

  • trying to do life right

    I read that the problem was, initially, birthed when the US government
    took state land under the guise of protecting tortoises. I read, too, that
    when the lines drawn to protect the tortoises interfered with Harry
    Reid’s development of same land, the line was moved to permit his enrichment
    .. tortoises, or not.

    Is the issue of protection of “endangered
    species a common way for the federal government to take public land, or
    usurp state rights?

    I would appreciate your insight and help to have correct information
    if I am mistaken on these points.

  • ellievl

    Thanks for that!

  • Steve

    That must be the most convoluted and totally nonsensical explanation for not not paying your fees and taking up a gun I have ever heard

  • Sue Hanson

    the land is to be sold to China for a solar power plant. Harry Reid and his son are involved in this sale. In order for the sale to go through, the Federal Government needs to have clear title to the land. The US is backing its debt with American land.

  • Barbara O’Connell

    We had someone from Arizona who is a governmental official tell those who were going to stand by Bundy’s side to make sure they left their long guns in their vehicles. A large group drove from here. They are all members of a group that refuses to back the Feds if what they order or do is against the constitution…it includes military, sheriffs and other law officials, as well as politicians.

  • ellievl

    That’s right, we just have one king in our country. He just needs a pen and phone to make adjustments to the Constitution and Bill of rights!

  • Sue Hanson

    Please read this background information on Cliven Bundy to understand what is happening, and why, from Mr Bundy’s viewpoint
    Why Clive Bundy isn’t WRONG.

    There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

    -Kena Lytle Gloeckner

    The Modern American Revolution -BB

  • Loren Schofield

    I agree, I don’t understand why if someone disagrees with tutu they are an idiot. Listen learn make your decision. If you still disagree who cares. I went in to this a week ago sceptical, but with an open mind. I studied, researched, and questioned. My conclusion, there is something going on That stinks. A good investigative reporter should dig into it.

  • CrapsDealer

    So, now my answer wasn’t “mature”? lol Okay! Bottom line, sweetie…you asked the wrong guy. Paul G. was the one flipping out on Glenn, so you should have asked him.

  • Loren Schofield

    Well they fight against them, now I’m Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • Anonymous

    Loren, all the way from occupied New York….this conservative agrees with you…..totally!!!

  • Anonymous

    Hail to the American Militia….. God bless!!!

  • trying to do life right

    I read that the rancher’s problem was, initially, birthed when the US government
    took state land under the guise of protecting tortoises.

    I read somewhere, too, that when the lines that were drawn to protect the tortoises interfered with Harry Reid’s development of same land, the line was moved so he could build his development .. tortoises, or not.

    Is the practice of claiming “protection of endangered species” not a common way for the federal government to take public land, even private land, and usurp state rights?

    I would appreciate your correction if I am mistaken on these points.

    I find myself wondering if the rancher’s grazing fees are no more the actual issue than the video was the real was the real issue in Benghazi.

    It sometimes feels as if nothing can be taken at face value anymore, especially when the federal government is involved.

  • CrapsDealer

    You can’t see the sarcasm in my post? That’s sad. And, btw…yes, the feds want us to start a war so they can kill us…and that’s why they backed off. You’re just too smart for me.

  • trying to do life right

    I support and believe Mr. Bundy. I am very proud of the folks that inconvenienced themselves to stand by Mr. Bundy, at their own expense, willing to make themselves vulnerable for a stranger. We may need people like that on OUR side some day.

  • Anonymous

    Agree with everything except “the police, etc do not simply let criminals run amok with being arrested for this long” Of course the exception being Washington, D.C. where they let them run amok, until their term is finished !

  • Anonymous

    American justice for you. Weed out the rotten cancer from Washington and America might become the land it was in the good old days.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    The only ones that took up a gun , as you say, were the feds.

  • Anonymous

    They never owned it. It has been federal land for longer than Bundy has been alive. He’s on the wrong side of the law on this one.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly what am I wrong about. If I am wrong I will admit it and apologize. So tell me, what am I wrong about?

  • Anonymous

    The facts are the facts. He hasn’t paid his fees. He’s lost in court. His appeals are exhausted. It’s over. Sorry. He loses. That’s the way it goes. There’s nothing more to read.

  • Anonymous

    No, he is not correct. Two different judges have said so. The law is not on his side. Sorry.

  • Anonymous

    There is no such thing as catholic law. Catholicism is a religion, not a government.

  • Anonymous

    And Federalist Paper 45 supports your position as well. Constitutionally, the Feds cannot just buy and hold a states land. It must be for the purposes specified in The Constitution under Article 1 as you stated.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never had a pop up on this web site.

  • Anonymous

    Article IV, Section 3, paragraph two.

  • Anonymous

    God has no laws. Nice try.

  • Anonymous

    Way to set up that straw man. So, in your world the step after a landlord evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent is throwing children in a gas chamber. You seem to lack all sense of perspective and nuance.

  • Loren Schofield

    Wrong study John Locke, and natural Law

  • Peter Giacometti

    Just a thought, IF the Feds believe he was committing a crime, why did they send over 200 Agents to arrest his cattle, instead of sending a couple to the local sheriff with an arrest warrant to arrest Bundy? It seems to me that the Feds wanted to intimidate Bundy and his Family. We are one!

  • Sally Cronkright

    We shall see. Perhaps you might be able to enlighten me as to how I lack perspective and nuance. If you lived in a rental and your landlord changed the rules on you mid stream what would you do? Go ahead and pretend this is just a landlord evicting a tenant if it makes you feel better. I think you are the once lacking perspective.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Even I can see it.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Yes they do.

  • Marilee Guinan

    I agree with you Loren. If these citizens had NOT been armed the BLM would’ve never backed down. I am thankful that a shootout did not ensue but the American people need to protect their right to bear arms and realize that any civilization that will allow themselves to be stripped of their ability to defend their families and lands will soon find themselves enslaved or like the Holocaust Jews – DEAD!

  • Loren Schofield

    The feds did not expect this response, they went in with force to intimidate. The response was not expected at all.

  • Cindy Peak

    I agree with you. Pat and Stu didn’t do their homework. And Dana has. Let her lead.

    No one is expecting Pat and Stu to be perfect, but as a Blaze subscriber, I think they do need to say “we got this wrong.” No apology. Just an acknowledgment that they missed the point.

    And lest anyone be confused, the point isn’t a tortoise or cattle, but whether the Federal gov’t has any right under the constitution to own land. I say the Constitution allows for only the District of Columbia to be owned by the Feds — that and military bases. But the rest of these lands should be state owned and managed.

    The secondary point is the extreme overreach of the Federal government when it comes to enforcement and the “troops” these small agencies control. They are armies and that is wrong. We don’t allow our military to police our states; why should the IRS, BLM, DHS, or any other agency do so. We have sovereign states that are more than capable of doing that.

    This is States rights pure and simple. And some Governors and Sheriffs better wake up and read the constitution and then DO THEIR JOB.

  • Anonymous

    This is scum like Harry Reid and his son destroying this man to enrich their sorry butts. All courtesy of the Chinese.

  • Karen

    Unfortunately, I think you are totally correct. I have been telling my friends that all our federal lands will be “given” to China as payment for our debt to them. I know it sounds crazy, but after they steal all of our money, what do we have left to pay them with? Our federal land.

  • Anonymous

    It’s ok to tell them who we are. Oath Keepers.

  • Mr J.

    Yes he did and until people understand he broke the law by doing so and refusing to pay up, he’s a criminal. The government has been very patient with this guy, why do you think it took them so long to do anything?

  • Anonymous

    Jesusknight is right, you are wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, and judges said a monstrosity called Obamacare is constitutional as well!

  • Loren Schofield

    I don’t have a price with Glenn and how he handled it. I think he’s wrong, and should look more into it, but Pat and Stu just behaved atrocious. Wrong time and wrong story.

  • Karen

    I do not know the facts in this situation so I will not say whether Bundy is right or wrong. I do know that our government curtails the freedom to use lands that we own everyday with the ridiculous EPA regulations for wetlands. My husband and I owned 35 acres which we did sell and the person we sold it to said the EPA had deemed 11 acres of the 35 as wetlands because there was standing water when it rained so they wouldn’t be able to do anything with that part of the property. Now to me, THAT is a land-grab when you cannot do what you want with the land you purchased with your hard-earned money and have paid property taxes on just because the all-mighty EPA says you can’t. It is truly sickening what is happening to our freedoms in this country.

  • Mike

    Your sidekicks need to pay him respects. Their comments would embarrass me if I were their boss. When is the last time they stood up for something they believed in? This man has more courage in his toe than Stu and the other guy will ever muster in their life together.

  • Michael Buchanan

    True but Barry did say he would use them and you do not know when a drone is coming

  • Michael Buchanan

    Stay Army Strong

  • Anonymous

    It’s not even about turtles. It’s about scum. Harry Reid and his son Rory are knee deep in bringing the Chinese in to build a solar plant near the area. As always, when it comes to the scumbag political elite, it’s about money. And lots of it.

  • Loren Schofield

    “We have problems in our country, and many are praying and waiting for God to do something.

    I just wonder if maybe God isn’t waiting for us to do something. And while no one is capable of doing everything. Everyone is capable of doing something.” Ronald Reagan

  • Loren Schofield

    They don’t know when a sniper will take a shot either, or an airstrike will be called

  • Ken Hughes

    How many years have the tortoises been living with the cattle with no problems? What about the solar farm and the consequences they may have on the tortoise? Seems to me the tortoise has a better chance with cattle than a solar farm, but what do I know. This isn’t really about money, cattle or anything else except greed for Harry and Rory (Reid). I totally support everyone that showed up in Mr. Bundy’s behalf and always will. What would happen if someone started up a fund to pay Mr. Bundy’s “debt” to the BLM? There are enough people out there that could send a few dollars, or whatever they could afford, at this time. Anyone want to make a bet that the money would be sent back, not because of what lawsuits have been won or lost, but by politics? All I can say, as usual when it comes to the Government, is FOLLOW THE MONEY and see who would be in line to collect and who would lose. Plain and simply if one thinks about it! To me Mr. Bundy is not a squatter, just a rancher trying to make a living and should be admired for being the last rancher in the area and standing up for what he believes. How many other land grabs in other states are going on besides Nevada? This is one time we should all stand up and say enough is enough. If we don’t do it now, we are all in serious trouble. What will they try to grab in the future? Just a few things to think about.

  • Deckard426

    Bundy has permission to graze his cattle on the portion of federal land that my taxes support.

  • Robert Zielke

    You need to read the property clause (article 4, section 3, clause 2) which is what this is about. And as far as the “10 square miles” that is supposed to be 10 miles square and refers only to the capital.

  • landofaahs

    In the days of MLK and Gandhi the American people had a much better sense of fair play and doing right. Only Nineveh pulled back from the brink when they had become so corrupted. Sadly our government is so corrupt that just as our founding fathers knew, that protesting for what was right fell on deaf tyrannical ears. I’ve been praying for this country for years and will continue to but at what point do we continue with a marriage with an unfaithful spouse? Do we wait until we are disarmed before we divorce in peace? This is for the people to decide.

  • Robert Zielke
  • Jadee Rosell

    Glenn Beck talks suddenly as if the way Americans are to stand up against a tyrannical government that they should use Martin Luther King doctrine, be courteous, and have a little protest now and then. That’s ridiculous. It’s fine that Bundy and his immediate cohorts were courteous and respectful, but Beck thinks that the BLM agents backed down because the cowboys said a prayer, rode horses, and spoke like gentlemen then he’s severely misguided. Those BLM agents were heavily armed and militarized – they were ready to enforce their presence and conduct their mission under the threat and use of violence. This was no college sit in. The reason the BLM backed off is because Bundy was backed and supported by armed men who were willing to fight and kill, and even die for his and their rights. You can read this in the BLM’s own statement. It didn’t say “Due to the diplomatic effort and polite discussion with the bundy’s the BLM has decided to end it’s cattle operation… ” No! It plainly read, “Out of concern for the safety of both the public and the officers involved…” In other words – because we didn’t all want to die in a bloodbath. Respect and diplomacy are fine – but Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” What fantasy is Beck living in we will defend our rights WITH our rights against a tyrannical government, but leave our guns at home so everyone can be friends when it’s over?

  • Loren Schofield

    Tyrants only respect force, if you disagree with them and they don’t fear you… Well ask the Jews or the Russians, or the Chinese. …etc etc

  • Jadee Rosell

    There is no clear cut black and white approach to standing up to a bully. In order to defend yourself you must be willing to give the opponent a dose of his own medicine. You don’t resist oppression by reading some “Revolutionary Playbook” full of rules and regulations.

  • Loren Schofield

    Reid tells News4′s Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

    If that’s not ominous you don’t understand the man or the situation.

  • isis5551

    Beck, you have proven to be a wussie. And now you have proven to us your also an idiot. Government suck-up! Camp FEMA will be ready for your type. Best of luck. P.S. Remember those words, “Don’t take my word for it. Do your own homework”? Evidentally you preach to the choir, but don’t heed your own words. Mean what you say, and say what you mean. Oh wait. That must be a line from someone else. Because when we came to your rally in DC, we found out those were empty words too!

  • Jadee Rosell

    That’s an erroneous perspective. Your taxes don’t “support” any federal land and Bundy hasn’t taken anything from you. 1 million dollars over a 20 year period? How much money is that really? 50,000 dollars a year? Do you have any concept of what the budget of the United States is in a year and where that money comes from? In 1994 when Bundy first stopped paying his fees the fiscal budget was 1.2 TRILLION dollars! And it went OVER The budget by 2 BILLION dollars!

    Clivens grazing fees would equate to like, a molecule of copper that fell off of a penny that I found laying in the driveway this morning that I used to help pay my mortgage with.

  • Jenn

    They thing that concerns me is obama has been arming his homeland security people and I believe he is hoping for civil war or revolts like this as an excuse to try to tighten gun control or take our weapons and turn our country into a military state where he will rein as dictator. I am not in the least saying these people were wrong to defend their rights, but with Judges making laws instead of enforcing them an obama crazyness we had all better be on our toes. Life Liberty or Death.

  • jalina susan stutte

    Glenn have been a strong supporter of yours and its people like me that has made you successful! What we give we can take back brother! How dare you side with the BLM against a man whose family has been grazing on Nevada state land since 1877, not land owned by the feds! You say other ranchers are paying that fee, No they are not they have been all put out of business due to Harry Reid and his son going to make billions on a deal for a solar panel station from China! This is another way for the feds to take our food sources away so we can starve like Stalin and Hitler did to the people in history. You are wrong on this one Beck. Maybe it’s time to cancel subscriptions until you get our head together.

  • exlogger

    a letter written by Bundy’s daughter and given to
    the media. Has been on hold for 25 mins waiting for Glenn to ok the letter if he doesn’t let it post I’m canceling my subscription to the blaze tv

  • Jaamoose

    Someone left the door open at the nut house?

  • Jaamoose

    Oath Keepers are nothing more than wannabe jack-booted fascists.

  • Jack Gossett

    hey, I’d like to go over to the National Forest and steal some of the taxpayer’s trees. will some of you guys come and protect me from the evil tyranical government?

  • jalina susan stutte

    Stu and Pat need to get some time out for being disrespectful to Mr. Bund and Beck you need to look for your balls, you lost them.

  • Jaamoose

    This idiot in a cowboy hat says he did not have a contract – point made, thank you very much, those cows should have never been on that land in the first place – and he should be in jail.

  • RickfromPaso

    He stopped paying his grazing fees because BLM modified his contract effectively putting him out of business by limiting his herd size to 150 head and eliminating grazing altogether at certain times of the year. No contract – no grazing fees. That is what the lawsuit was all about. The BLM needed to get him off the land to allow the 350,000 acre mitigation area to be created for the Solar project in Laughlin. It’s the BLM and the federal government who are the thieves. Mr Bundy’s family was ranching here on the land before Nevada became a state, before the BLM was created. They have no right to take the land away.

    Read the “Gold Butte” part – No Cattle.

    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf

    Breitbart had the best article about the situation:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

  • Loren Schofield

    Mr. Beck

    I read the article on the blaze where you talk about not becoming “the rights Occupy”, because there was 10-15% That preached violence. I would like you to use that same company and do an analysis on the followers of The Blaze. I am very curious what those statistics would say?

    You are falling into the trap of doing to these supporters, what the left has been doing to you for years. Be fair and have Dana Loesch investigate what is really going on.

    Sincerely

  • Anonymous

    Then why were his cattle still on the land? It’s not his land so he was trespassing. It’s that simple. He is in violation of the law.

  • RickfromPaso

    When I was young, we used to go up into the mountains and cut firewood on BLM (really our) land. That is what “PUBLIC” land is all about. The BLM is supposed to manage the land for US, not take it away from US. It is to be managed for mining, ranching and recreation.

  • Anonymous

    It happens every day. If I rent and don’t own, the landlord makes the rules. Every time the lease is up for renewal the landlord can change the terms. He owns the property. I can either accept the new terms or move. That’s life. Nowhere does throwing babies into a gas chamber enter the picture.

  • RickfromPaso

    This is exactly why they are trying to take away our guns. They can point their weapons at us and threaten to shoot us all day long, if you possess a weapon you are a threat, if point a weapon in their direction you are dead.

  • Jane

    Before you crucify Mr. Bundy and the thousands that support liberty, the constitution and this great country, please watch the following youtube video and understand the real issue. Mr. BUNDY is a hero! He has just not been able to articulate the issue very well…..this referenced video explains it succinctly and with precision!

    Go to youtube and search:

    http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8
    The Truth About the BLM – Bundy Ranch Dispute Explained

    After you listen and understand the issue, then comment. Today was a sad day for me! I WAS a faithful listener………if you and Stu can belittle and mock this situation without an understanding of exactly what the real issue is, it makes me wonder about what other stories I have listened to on your program and trusted?

  • RickfromPaso

    As long as corrupt politicians use the “Law” and the “Courts” to loot our country for their gain the law means nothing to me.

  • Larry Johnstone

    Preach peace to the feds, Beck.
    Good luck

  • Anonymous

    That’s exactly how homesteading works. That’s how you take original ownership of wilderness.

    Claiming it on a map is not improving that land in any way at all. In order to have a claim on land that can be sold, you have to first improve that land in some way. Now it is possible that the Shoshone had improved the land in some way, but it is certain that the US government did not.

    Yes, they paid the government extortion rate for years, but as it turns out, when you don’t pay the protection money, the men with guns will come for you.

    What do you know, they did.

    It is really funny that you think the Bundy family is the one being greedy, and not the government that is trying to shake them down for fees to use land that they’ve homesteaded over the past 137 years. You use the word greed, but you don’t seem to know what it means.

  • Larry Johnstone
  • exlogger

    I used to buy timber from the national forest for anywhere between $300 and $5000 dollars a 1000 bf, but they used the spotted owl to put and end to that. Now the national forests are just dying from disease and poor management

  • Pat McCrady

    I am done with you Mr. Charlatan. Why is the BLM and Traitor Harry in cahoots with solar companies in the area?

  • RickfromPaso

    Unjust laws should neither be obeyed or enforced. We had trials after WWII about this. If the BLM wants the Bundys off the land, then they should be compensated in perpetuity for their loss. They were here first, they and their family will suffer the loss for generations.

  • exlogger

    Here is a letter written by Bundy’s daughter and given to the media.
    http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/04/shiree-bundy-cox-on-the-bundy-family-allotment-that-was-bought-blm-background-and-public-lands/
    Plus info on grazing rights over the last 100 years

  • Anonymous

    The reason they want the bundy ranch to go is because Reid and his son-in-law who works for ENN energy, have struck a deal with a chinese solar energy company to sell all that property to the chinese company for $4b ……..meanwhile that land is worth around $38B………this is the main reason why they want the bundy ranch gone. Reid is corrupt to the core…….he has already given taxpayers money to his granddaughter (which is theft)……..now who is going to get this $4B?????

  • Loren Schofield

    Here is an example of a true reporter. I would think Glenn would love to have someone like him work for the Blaze. He is objective, looks at both sides and preach’s standing with people to protect fundamental human rights. He uses the example of people in the right should have stood with the occupy movement when the thugs came in. Its not about left or right, it’s about freedom standing up against progressives.

    If you have an open mind take five minutes to read. If you already know it all, them nothing anyone says will change your mind.
    http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

  • CrapsDealer

    If only Bundy would have named his ranch “Benghazi”. The feds would have never shown up!

  • Anonymous

    You’re right! This is the real point, which is always lost in all the media mumbo-jumbo.

  • CrapsDealer

    Reid and his son, Rory, were both deeply involved in a deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Laughlin, Nevada. But that is roughly 177 miles away from Bundy’s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the federally owned Gold Butte area where Bundy ‘s cattle graze, according to Google Maps. So yes, Reid is “scum”, and they are involved in a deal with the Chinese, but that land is not “near the area” of the Bundy ranch.

  • Loren Schofield

    Just watched The Kelly Files. .. that was some amazing journalism. Glenn, take note.

  • Boo2

    So true Jenn. And I think something like that will be tried before 2016. Then there won’t be an election and he can be the dictator.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, and what has been YOUR SERVICE to anyone other than your ego and “opinions”??

  • Janice Sicz

    That provokes a few thoughts.

  • Kericoleman

    Thank you for trying to get the masses of band wagon jumpers to at least attempt to understand that this man, Clive Bundy may be wrong in what he is trying to stand for. Arizona once fought for this area, way back over 100 years ago, and lost, maybe they will try to get it back?? Lol.

  • Lynne Holt Miller

    I agree with you all, but just because you don’t like your landlord dosen’t mean you don’t have to pay your rent. He should have been putting that money in a special account or something, if he wanted to show that he didn’t know who to pay.

  • Chris Schatte

    I as a listener that goes back to the beginning am very dissapointed in the interview. Mr. Bundy was treated flippantly by Pat and stu. Stu, I personally after your disrespectful comments today will no longer listen to you with respect. Pat, as a fellow Texan, I am very dissapointed in you. Glen, I hope that you realize that there comes a time that your point of view on this becomes pacifism.I am sure you mean well, but the treatment Mr. Bundy received this morning on your show was disrespectful. Even our founders eventually had to go beyond prayer and pacifism. Yes 20 years later. 20 years later these days is almost here. You saw it these passed few days.

  • Nicholas Crimaldi

    Glen Beck is a rat, he is being used to first attack Bundy, and then make it look like he has sympathy. It’s all psychological operations. They even tried to make a connection between words used by the fed to associate the man with terrorism, which is INSANE.

  • http://kool-computers.com/USAPatriot/ DMChoreographer

    Well Sheriff Mack just let Ben Swann know that the FEDS are comin back. It ain’t over yet….
    http://benswann.com/exclusive-sources-inside-the-blm-and-las-vegas-metro-say-feds-are-planning-a-raid-on-bundy-home/

  • Anonymous

    the commerce law was specific when enacted. It has been used and abused by kaniving overreaching crooked people in the government. When I saw that private property was taken away and sold to developers, I lost all respect for government. It is past time to do what ever it takes to make government come to heel. What ever. The longer we wait the more suffering and blood.

  • ellievl

    Right on to that..my son has been telling me he is “in bed with the progressives.turn that junk off! ” He is right this incident revealed the truth beyond a doubt!

  • ellievl

    You can pay to listen to a “lying, arrogant progressive!” I chose not to!
    He mocked an elderly man folks! This speaks volumes of what is in his heart…garbage! This is not about one point! This was the “three stooges” mocking an elderly man! Glen needs to go like all of D.C. There were other learned and knowledgeable children who could have been the spokes person or been present in the interview.. But Glen puts up the Grandpa and Great Grandpa..while they all laugh and smirk! Glenn, your like all the rest…now we have see your heart. Your just another bad actor! Delete:)

  • Anonymous

    Wait, wait…you mean the Chinese are buying those land? Maybe United Nations? Oh, maybe a part of Agenda21?

  • sstout

    Yeah, thats what they said about Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington…. go figure! Yeah Shut that dang door Jaamoose before the “nuts” figure out there IS one.

  • RickfromPaso
  • Jaamoose

    No, that’s not what they said about those guys – it is, however, an apt description of the right wing in America – oh, ps – those guys you mentioned were liberals…

  • Jaamoose

    Well, although I have no faith and seriously doubt you have much honor, I am a decorated veteran.

  • sstout

    I will say this… If Mr Bundy has been grazing his cattle, and his father, and his father’s father had been grazing their cattle on this same land for generations.?.The ownership of that land is the one who has actually been using it. In TX –if the land was partitioned and used for 7 years without opposition–it is your land… period. Mr Bundy has done nothing different than his forefathers.. he has made use of the land to the benefit of U.S. citizenry… this land, in my opinion (as “squatters rights” even) should be his..and/or owned by the accumilation or COOP of the ranchers who have made use of this land over the last CENTURY and a HALF!

  • Mark Cline

    Uh… The Bundy Family settled that land in the 1870s and has been grazing cattle on it since then. BLM came in after they had been there for almost a hundred years and said, “Let us help you manage the land,” which 50 some odd ranchers along with the Bundys agreed to do. Mr. Bundy watched the government change the rules and create regulations that put his neighbors out of business. Once he realized what they were up to, he quit doing business with them.
    As a descendant of the Cherokee, I know how our government operates, and what they did to the American Indian is no different than what they are doing to the Bundys today.

  • Anonymous

    “but we do have illegals who violate the law [just by their being here] and we do just let THEM walk away”. But more than that, we don’t let them walk away empty handed – we give them food stamps, housing, education, interpreters, and voting rights.

    And while we’re talking about breaking the law and walking away…In 2011, Former Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid agreed to pay a $25,000 penalty from his own pocket to settle accusations he skirted campaign finance laws (when he was running for Governor of Nevada (he lost to Sandoval-R)) Reid was accused of funneling more than $900,000 to his gubernatorial campaign in 2010 through 90 shell organizations in an effort to bypass limits on political donations.

  • Anonymous

    The people who fought and won the Revolutionary War didn’t use the MLK playbook.

  • BlueMN

    They’ll make good practice for Predator drones.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that the feds HAD NO PROBLEM WHEN THEY RELOCATED TORTOISES from the Ivanpah Solar Electric array – 5 square miles of “federal” land 40 miles SW of Las Vegas – that enabled that operation to open up two months ago? Answer (as always): Follow the money.

    Ivanpah, the largest solar operation of its type in the world, is a $2.2 billion operation owned by NRG Energy Inc., Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy. It consists of 300,000 computer controlled mirrors measuring 7 feet X 10 feet. BrightSource execs are big DONORS to OBAMA AND REID and, naturally, the company was the recipient of $1.6 BILLION of our stimulus funds. And NRG received over $2 BILLION Stim $ for various solar projects, including Ivanpah.

    And surprise, in 2009 GEORGE SOROS, the same guy who made trips to the White House to advise Obama on how to set up the Stimulus – purchased 500,000 shares of NRG Energy as well as millions of shares of other stocks in companies that benefited from the Stimulus – aka American Redistribution Act.

  • Brad Maaske

    In every state use of the land gives you prescriptive easements and rights on the land. The key to almost all prescriptive easement claims is that it is hostile to the owner of the land. Does the United States Government declare itself exempt from these laws? Of course. Unless after they limit your use of the land they use the same law to say you gave up your easement rights.

  • Anonymous

    Their corruption runs deep. A decade ago, on June 23, 2003, the LA Times did an expose titled: THE SENATORS SONS, In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid. This is where you will find many of the llinks to the cronyism Another article titled Harry Reid’s Connection to Bundy Ranch Siege can be found at a site called Futurnamics. I’d post the links but they will be censored. Just do a Internet search. The Reid boys are up to their necks in deals involving real estate and mining. Read the LA Times article!

    Reid’s legislation: “The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002.” dealt with boundary shifts and land trades that benefited real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms, federal lobbyist reports show.

    Reid’s son-in-law Steven Barringer, employed by a D.C. consulting firm, lobbied to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the
    exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area. (Wasn’t Harry against lobbyists?)

  • Mike Nelson

    So will you.

    Progressives always eat their young/own.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you. Glad you know all the tech back doors. You need to send this on to the brave reporter who was on M. Kelly’s show. And then you need to go into hiding. Reid has many unsavory ties. Look for an article titled “Harry Reid’s Connection to Bundy Ranch Siege” at a site called Futurnamics. Also, a decade ago, on June 23, 2003, the LA Times did an expose titled: “THE SENATORS SONS, In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid”. This is where you will find many of the llinks to the cronyism.

  • sstout

    OK, Glenn.. I’ve looked at the BLM’s Mitigation Study of the Solar E.. Zone (SEZ) and my question is this… The BLM has looked at all these environmental losses from soil crust destruction to endangered animals & plants, from normal wildlife & plantlife loss due to habitat distrubances to CULTURAL and HISTORICAL disruptions and interference regarding Native Americans. These mitigations are to have planned resolutions thru use of fees ($854 per acre) to help protect the environment & resolve cultural & historical values of the land with regards ONLY to Native Americans? Did they forget something here?! What about the Cutural & Historical use and dependancy of this land by “humans” of non-Native Americans in the last century and a half? Does the Western American Rancher NOT COUNT? This long tradition and Icon of “the Wild West” and today’s Southwestern American Industry is thrown out with the “bath water”? This is directly “killing” this area’s Ranching Industry without ANY compensation OR MITIGATION forethought. The study says “NO” amending is needed on any one component…. EXCEPT, I believe the WHOLE Study needs AMENDING by the inclusion of an ENDANGERED SPECIES now at the brink of COMPLETE EXTINCTION by this project– the generational, cultural and historical backbone of the American frontier: “The Western American Rancher”. Save a turtle–kill a cowboy.

  • Anonymous

    In the State of Oregon they used the spotted owl to close all the Fed lands to logging. This used to be the logging capital of the world and now it is mostly done on privately held property. In the Klamath basin they are shutting off the water to the farmers from a series of canals built by the Reclamation service back when the government was trying to help the people. In Oregon at statehood the state retained the right to all water but the Feds claim the supremacy clause gives them the right to trump state law. In 1841 the first land act gave all the Federal held lands back to the states and other than a few sections out of the townships they had no land. The government originally was to survey and sell the land to fund the militia and the government but with the Tax act they should have at that point given the land back to the States where it came from in the first place. It was a little bit of double dealing done by guess who… the politicians. Bundy has a point if you consider the intent.

  • SterlingK

    Mr. Bundy, do you own the land you’re grazing your cattle on?
    No.
    Do you have permission from the owner to graze your cattle on that land?
    No. Not unless I pay them
    Have you paid them?
    No.
    Well, then the “owner” of the land is well within their right to have you to remove your property from the land or they will do it for you.

    Am I missing something? This seems pretty clear cut.

  • Denise McNeil

    Check out FSMA. If this passes, it will make it impossible for the farmers. This paves the way for China to supply our food. It’s all planned.

  • Joseph Allen

    Beck and Bundy…was this on Comedy Central?

  • Anonymous

    Historically the government was to survey the land and sell it to provide money for a defense. The Public Land Survey System was designed to create parcels to be sold to the public. The Donation Land Claim act was designed to give land to the public if they would settle and make improvements for free. Now the public can’t even buy land from the government if you wanted to. The intent was to fund the government and its lawful activities with land sales. After they passed the Tax Act the land should have gone to the States for sale to the public since it was no longer needed for revenue.

  • Stan

    I doubt that very seriously. Otherwise the oath you took would mean something. You also might want to look up the definition of fascism and fascists, and providing you can read and comprehend you will find the only fascists here are in our govt.

  • Stan

    You undoubtedly are a moron.

  • Alamaba Casieda

    I think Glenn’s missing the point. This isn’t about whether or not what Bundy’s doing is illegal. This is about whether or not it should be, AND, is it right for the feds to bring out the jack boots in order to impose their will, in this type of scenerio? It’s also about how the feds have strong-armed so many ranchers out of business because the feds own so much of the land. I really think that Glenn’s failing to understand this and his making negative comments like “welfare rancher”, and “Some of those so-called ‘supporters’ of mine would scare me as much as Bill Ayers” really hurts his credibility.

  • Stan

    You people that think this man is freeloading are ignorant. The government through the BLM, has regulated the other ranchers out of business. He refused to sign a invalid contract that would essentially force him out of business. This is nothing but the govt. trying to drive independent ranchers out of ranching so the “big business agro-ranchers” can take over and provide union jobs to mexicans.

  • Alamaba Casieda

    A lot of people are arguing that what this guy is doing is illegal, and he’s just a “squatter”. But the fact is that this family has used the land for over 100 years. Shouldn’t a person be able to gain ownership of the land after having exclusively used it for such a period of time? Our country was founded on the idea that people have a right to private property, yet, 86% of the state of Nevada is owned by the federal government. I think this goes against our values just as segregation laws went against our values, and like the civil-rights protesters did in the 60′s, Bundy and his supporters are engaging in acts of civil disobedience in opposition to injustice. But apparently Glenn’s experiencing difficulty seeing that. I think this shows that part of the problem us conservatives have is we have re-learn how to see the injustices of big government, and not get side-tracked by arguments of “well, it’s the law!”. We have to remember: we are trying to change unjust laws.

  • mspatdev

    First of all, it was about desert tortoises. They took them to Las Vegas to different farms. Then the people wanted money from the BLM and they said no. The government destroyed the tortoises. Then Harry Reids son was in with a big company in China. That company is a “Solar Panel Plant” and h. reid and son will make about 5 billion dollar deal. They had gotten rid of a lot of ranches around the Bundy’s. The Bundy’s stood up for their rights from Big Government and a lot of people came out to support them. The government doesn’t own anything around there. Nevada owns the state. They live in the county of CLARK. There is a lot of ground around Las Vegas and south of Vegas. In Searchlight, Nev. there is a lot of ground around that area. Searchlight is the home of reid. Now reid has gotten really mad, that the BLM gave up. The guy over the BLM, worked for reid. reid is fit to be tied. He is a cheater and he needs to be fired. Put the Chinese Plant some where else then in Bunkerville, Nev. This is what happens when one person is over the Senate and has been in the Senate for a long time. FIRE HIM!!!!!!!!! WE THE PEOPLE SPOKE UP AND FOUGHT FOR BUNDY’S LAND. MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA.

  • Micah Chastain

    the Bureau of Land Management is not even a government agency – it is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a PRIVATE FOREIGN-OWNED off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico (http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=871) to do all the evil things that this corrupt government doesn’t want to be ‘responsible’ for doing, like land grabs. It’s not about the sand turtles – that’s a joke, since the feds are currently euthanizing sand turtles in the areas around Las Vegas that were designated as ‘protection’ for an endangered species. It’s not about the Bundy ranch, either. (Bundy’s family has grazed its cattle on that land since 1877 – before the BLM even existed. He willingly paid grazing fees to the state of Nevada, who OWNS the land, but refuses to pay the BLM because they do not own that land, and there is nothing in the constitution that gives the govt the right to own ANY land.) And it’s not about all the other ‘grazing’ land that the BLM has already grabbed and is going to continue to grab until somebody stops them. (Harry Reid won’t stop them because he and his son, Rory, will benefit from the $5 billion solar plant the Chinese are going to build in Clark county. Why doesn’t somebody investigate how many millions of dollars Dirty Harry has made since being a Senator?) (Harry Reid’s point man is Neil Kornze, who used to work for Reid, but was appointed head of BLM a couple years ago. He is also in tight with the UN and it’s goals.. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62404) It’s also about what’s underneath the land, i.e., the water and pipelines. As set forth in the UN’s Agenda 21, which this is REALLY all about, the so-called ‘elites are aiming to totally control the population by controlling their health care (already done), the food-producing land and the water. There is a huge aquifer under the land.) (http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house) They also intend to kill off 90% of the world’s population to make the rest of the sheeple easier to control- I hope I’m dead by the time they get around to that.

    If you’re not familiar with Agenda 21 or the New World Order, please spend some time to familiarize yourself with what they’re about. We are losing the sovereignty of our country, and all the freedoms that go with it. If you don’t know what to look for, you won’t be able to stop it. We’re already most of the way there. And it’s not only Obama, it’s members of both parties in Congress who are also involved with this

  • Ncrdbl1

    As i understand it the Federal government is responsible for upkeep of the land. Things that must be done to protect the land. Building of fences and protecting the water in the area. The Federal Government has not done what it is required by law to do in oder to take care of the land. Mr Bundy did these things out of his own pocket. In many states if you are leasing a house or building and the owner does not keep up with his legal obligation on upkeep. You can make the needed repairs yourself and deduct the cost from your rent. Based on what i have read, with the amount of work Mr Bundy has done to make the repairs that the Federal Government was required to make. The government should actually owe him money instead of the other way around.

  • Anonymous

    thanks for that NoU4EN

  • Ncrdbl1

    Truth is most of the non violent leaders were more myth than reality. There is a thing caused plausible deny ability. They work things so they can deny any knowledge of violence but in reality their people have been out instigating violence. Do not know for sure about Ghandi because i was not in India when they were fighting for independence from Great Britain. . But i do have first hand knowledge of the “non violence” violence that MLK and his supporters instigated. I lived through weeks where we feared going out of our house due to the violence throughout the city.

  • Loren Schofield

    Civil disobedience is key. I think it started with CT and NY gun owners refusing to register their evil assault guns of death. That was the first step, but it wasnt an act, it was refusal to act. The battle of Bunkerville is the first modern day action of civil disobedience.

    I wonder what Glenns thoughts are on the Battle of Athens TN. That was a violent expression of rebellion against a corrupt govt by returningvets of WW II. If you never heard that story, read up on it. But i Suppose that Glenn would say they were wrong too.

  • Madeline Brashear

    Okay, the land that Bundy’s cattle is grazing is government land. It does not belong to Bundy or the state of Nevada and the local officials of clark county, Nevada do not have jurisdiction over it. It belongs to the federal government to do with it as they see fit and that “as they see fit” takes precedence of ranchers grazing their cattle. The federal government has sole ownership of that land. It never belonged to any of Bundy’s ancestors either. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOVERNMENT LAND. The ranchers had no lifetime guarantee that that government land would be available to them for grazing; none. Whether Bundy recognizes it or not, the federal government exists and has jurisdiction over that land. Bundy does not have the option to choose to whom he will pay grazing fees. He’s been taken to court twice and he lost both times on this. The courts ruled against him. He has been in contempt of the courts and federal government for 20 years. It makes absolutely no difference what the federal government plans to do with that land, Bundy’s position is the same; he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Have you people ever heard of eminent (sp) domain? That’s the provision whereby a state can take your property if they want to build a road or some other project that benefits the greater public cause. It’s perfectly legal. They buy you out and use the land for their purposes. Only in Bundy’s cause he doesn’t have to be bought out because he doesn’t own the land. You and I have as much right and title to that land as Bundy does and we don’t own it either. So all the hoopla over what the government is going to do with that land is a moot point imho

  • Loren Schofield

    The Battle of Athens, Tennessee is a little-known story about citizens taking justice into their own hands against a corrupt political machine. Athens was a small town inhabited by a number of GIs who returned home from World War II to find political bosses, including a corrupt sheriff, controlling the local government by rigging elections. The GIs, incensed at seeing the very freedoms they had fought for in World War II being trampled on upon their return home, countered the corruption by organizing a ticket to run against the sheriff and put him and his cronies out of business. When it became clear the ballots in the election would not be counted fairly, the GIs took matters into their own hands. The Battle of Athens is an extreme example of Americans invoking their Second Amendment rights in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical and oppressive government

    I wonder who wrote these words? Let me read the last line again. ..The Battle of Athens is an extreme example of Americans invoking their Second Amendment rights in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical and oppressive government.

    http://www.glennbeck.com/mm-chapter/1946-the-battle-of-athens/

    So what’s the difference?

  • Anonymous

    Personal employment exposure to LDS-ers assures me their personal integrity takes a back seat to none. Nevertheless, Bundy’s understanding of constitutional law (in general) and the Constitution of the United States (in particular) far exceeds Beck’s (and most Americans) who have been misled into believing it is a contract between citizens of the United States and a central government. Were that accujrate, the nation would have been named “the United PEOPLE [of America], not the United STATES [of America]. It is rather a power-limitation contract between SOVEREIGN STATES and a central government.

    Since the time of its ratification, most of the restraint on the Executive branch has been concentrated in the SENATE. What changed rapidly (under great central government pressure) was the method of seating individual Senators. That power was quickly transferred from better-informed state legislatures to less-informed [and more naive] individual voters.

    Lacking the tele-prompter that converts Barack Hussein Obama from stumbler to

    silver-tongue, Bundy’s interview does not point out that no part of the Constitution of the United States empowers any branch of government to transfer its duties to any other branch. The [lately abused] practice of lawmakers empowering the Executive branch to draft their own regulations is as unconstitutional as the Supreme Court defining the meaning of the Constitution. THEIR power is restricted to deciding whether or not laws comply with the constitution.

    As Bundy points out, when a nation becomes dumbed down to the extent the United States of America has, no segment of society is immune.

  • Anonymous

    They hush it up, but do it, all the time

  • Anonymous

    Home – Congress Shall Make No Law
    The Constitution grants no power to Congress’ (nor any other branch of government) to delegate its powers and duties to any other branch.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    so the fellow regional ranchers have no problem w/him not paying grazing fees (even as they have paid theirs) and are supporting and standing w/him? if bundy prevails and the state successfully ‘regains’ ownership of the land, this means the feds have to pay all those back fees retroactively. then, this will spread to arizona, etc. and the government cannot have that happen. therefore, reid says this is “not over” he means it.

    bundy is going up against one of the most corrupt politicians. even the nevada governor has backed away. what does that tell ya?

  • Colleen Wampler Schaming

    Used to be a loyal listener and watched you on Fox News. You were highly respected in my eyes. No more. Makes me wonder if even you can be bought. Smh………

  • Anonymous

    Why was the section of the constitution that Bundy referred to left out of this article? I’d like to read it four myself.

  • Anonymous

    How can government own land when it works for we the people?

  • Anonymous

    The founders, were “Classic Liberals’ who believed in individual liberties, and freedom, not “Progressive Socialist Liberals” who believe in collectives lower classes, submission and enslavement to the elite ruling class. Jaamoose, you’re part of the Progressive Socialists, no where near a classic liberal. Try reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, some original source writings of those founders… not the Revisionist stuff you picked up in grade school. Learn what this nation was built on, not what these Progressive Socialists want it to be… Then consider …. just what were you decorated for if you don’t know the history and traditions of this nation? Who, exactly, were you fighting for?

  • IsRaeLi_BaBe29

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/q71/s480x480/10156098_709122562476565_7349107568806932489_n.jpg
    If only the Nevada rancher had named his ranch Benghazi, the Feds would have never shown up.

  • Mark Cline

    We have a rancher in Nevada who is part of a family that has been working that land for 150 years. He has his day in a government court on a case against the government. Tell me how you think his day in court is going to go.

  • Anonymous

    At least comments to this article and others demonstrate why the founders made our form of government a republic. Mob rule (true democracy) results in chaos. Mobs cannot keep on topic and bring up all types of irrelevant data (true or false), and rhetoric. Then the name calling, labeling, and fighting starts.

    The relevant issue here is the Enabling Act and Mr. Bundy’s protest against it. Ever hear of the sagebrush wars? Ever wonder why the eastern states have so little federal land while most land in the western states is owned by the federal government (no, it had nothing to do with Teddy Roosevelt)? The precedent, as explained before, is that Territories applying for Statehood did sign their lands over to the federal government for clear title. That was really important for states that had land grants and other land ownership documents. Then the federal government would sign the land back over to the newly formed state with clear title with stipulations as to how much land would be set aside for schools, colleges, etc. This is what Utah is complaining about. The government did not relinquish the land signed over to them. So should the Feds give this land back to the states so they can support themselves or should they remain wards of the federal government?

  • Anonymous

    Please explain: “the BLM came in and made it virtually impossible for ranchers to survive.” I believe that the rules governing home loans and the Development of Mortgage Banks made it impossible for ranchers and farmers to survive. Mortgage Banks must sell their mortgages because they do not have the capital investment to back them up. The secondary buyers, mainly Fannie May and Freddy Mac, place limitations upon what land they will buy, i.e. no land greater than 10 acres. Thus farmers and ranchers have to go to Banks at interest rates almost double that of people in urban areas or they are forced into ARMs. Some pay a surveyor and counties up to $26,000 to carve out 10 acres. If they want to build a home, they cannot get a loan for the construction because there are no comparable sales in rural areas. I wanted to build a $980,000 ranch house and he appraisal came in at $445,000. How can a house be worth 50% of the cost to build it? That is why so many ranchers live in manufactured homes or double-wides, because that is what they can afford or for which they obtain financing. Now ranchers are depending upon land sales FOR DEVELOPMENT in order to make a profit. No wonder why young people are not getting into ranching unless their parents already own one. As the saying goes: I can show you how to make a small fortune in ranching…start with a BIG one.”

  • Anonymous

    The founders believed in limited government, no taxation without representation (and no income tax, period), a Jeudeo Christian-moral-based Government that held to the beliefs expressed in the 10 Commandments, and which would stay out of the church’s affairs (you know, the opposite of the seperation of church and state lie on the liberal marxists’ side), staunch, God-given rights to the Second Amendment to keep guns for the right to hunt, sure, but most of all for the right to defend against *all enemies, both foreign and domestic* as a well-regulated militia — did I mention they believed in God? — to stay out of the affairs of other sovereign nations, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the right to an unborn child to be considered a life — there would never have been a notion to even suggest killing an unborn baby then… They would be the hardest of hard-core conservatives, were they to be alive now, and you damn-well know it.

    So would John F. Kennedy. Classic Liberalism, as the poster above me mentions, might be considered a more appropriate definition of them, and those principles are what conservatives hold true to, while the liberals (re: marxists) of today have gone the opposite direction. No liberal economic growth and opportunities, overbearing regulation from the Federal Government, intruding and robbing State citizens of their right to liberty, control over speech, over income, over status in the world, beholden to their ruling class, suppression of Second Amendment rights, true destruction, not separation, of church by way of the State (Federal) … and a host of other ways to subvert and control their puppets, subjects.

  • Sally Cronkright

    Oh Kile now I understand where you are coming from. It’s been nice conversing with you. Take care.

  • bless us all

    so its an early version of ‘if you like your land you can keep keep your land’ …in which the feds promised to return it to them after a title was cleared…but the last part was never done -is that a simple but correct understanding of the situation?

    thank you for the respectful info/explanation above

  • Jane

    Glenn and Stu,

    Before you continue to crucify Mr. BUNDY and the thousands that support him, you should get the facts. Because Mr. Bundy did not articulate his position very well does not mean that the cause he is fighting for is not just, is not right and is not worth at least 10 minutes of your time to do a little research to find the truth! Please watch the video below before you and your staff continue to belittle, berate and make fun of a true American hero that has been standing for your rights and mine for over 20 years!

    http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

  • McLee

    So everyone is ok with Mr. Bundy refusing to pay grazing fees over a 20 year period? He owes the American taxpayer over $1 mil, but everyone seems more focused on the fact that the government was coming to take what was legally theirs (his cattle in lieu of payment). Do you think your bank would allow you to stay in your home for 20 years if you didn’t pay your mortgage? Tens of thousands of ranchers in our great country are paying their grazing fees annually to the BLM (very cheap relative to the real cost of owning land), yet Mr. Bundy gave them the proverbial finger, saying it’s state land. Ok, did Mr. Bundy pay the state of NV for grazing? No, because NV told him it is not theirs and that he needs to pay the BLM. This man has chosen to defy the law which we are all called to uphold, no matter level of income or status. I’m as conservative as they come, but this is just wrong. Now, are there other issues at work here, relative to Harry Reid and bureaucrats? Probably so, but the fact remains, that if Mr. Bundy had paid what he legally owed over the last 20 years, this issue would not be nearly as inflamed as it is today.

  • BlueMN

    You mean all those bloody purges after a progressive was elected President in this country? LOL I’ll be safe and sound.

    On the other hand, there have been a few of paranoid, right-wing extremist wackjobs that decided they were going to take up arms against the US Government and ended up dead or in prison, your buddy Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.

  • Jane

    McLee:

    http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

    Watch the above video! Understand the issue before you spout the rhetoric being put out by pundits! The grazing fees are NOT the issue!

  • Anonymous

    This land situation in Nevada is similar to one of the
    things that cause the Revolutionary War.
    That is when the British harbored British soldiers in the homes of the people
    without their consent. The BLM is taking
    state land which is the land of the citizens of that state and appropriated it
    as Federal Property without the consent of the citizens. There is nowhere in the Constitution that
    states that the Federal Government can take state property. There is way too much State lands that have
    been appropriated by the Federal Government.
    The BLM is another government agency that could be eliminated as at the
    state level better stewardship of the land could be attained.

    In addition, I would bet that the dirty crooked fingers of
    Harry Reid is all over this situation.
    He is the biggest crook in the Congress.

  • Anonymous

    A freeloader, that is what Bundy is; a shameful cattleman that lets other taxpayers
    and cattlemen support his living, everyone in this country pays his share, Bundy is a freeloader, how did he get away for 20 Years? If we don’t our taxes we loose our
    property, bundy should be in prison.

  • Anonymous

    Do you believe for one minute that this man doesn’t pay taxes? I’m not talking about “grazing fees”. For this man to make a living he has to sell cattle.Buying and selling require the payment of money(call it taxes or fees it’s all the same theft) to the government. Those cattle are then brought to market as food. All through the process the cattle have generated tax revenue that the government had no hand in creating. You speak about the government in the third person. Read the constitution. “We the people”(that includes you). The man truly believes the U.S. Government has no claim here. He said he was willing to pay Nevada for the grazing fees. He just didn’t want to pay a environmentally activist organization(BLM) money to in essence put him out of business like they have done to so many other ranchers and farmers around the country. This is what you call a test case. Unless you believe in armed revolt, this is the most peaceful way to resist government tyranny, raise awareness on this issue and I support him. Harry Reid isn’t blameless in this either.

  • Jane

    http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

    Watch the video! Understand the issue before you simply repeat pundit rhetoric meant to squash freedom!

  • Anonymous

    “A freeloader?” Maybe he just has more guts than the other ranchers to resist the tyranny of the BLM. So how has he made a living all these years? Selling cattle. Try selling something and not pay taxes. He isn’t selling cattle on the black market. Hellooo taxes! The” freeloader” is the Federal Government confiscating our hard earned money and squandering it.

  • Jane

    http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

    Watch the video! Understand the issue before you simply repeat pundit rhetoric meant to squash freedom!

  • McLee

    I understand that the government is “we the people,” and I also understand that laws have been created that we are all obligated to uphold. Sure he pays taxes, but the law also says that he must pay grazing fees, period. If he chooses not to pay, which he hasn’t paid to either NV or the US government, then the lease should be broken and he should not be allowed to use the land for grazing. I understand there are likely other issues at play here, but so much of this could have been averted if he had paid the fees that are required to get the benefit of public lands. He believes that he has no obligation to the US gov, and it’s ok to believe that, but the courts have told him that is not the case, yet he has chosen to ignore that. If the laws should be changed, I have no problem with that at all, but I have a big problem with people thumbing their nose at it and saying it does not apply to them.

  • Loren Schofield

    Then how come the other ranchers are standing with him? I’d like to see what you said if the govt came in and took away 85% of your paycheck, because they could. Forcing him to reduce his herd from 1000 head to 150 is doing exactly that for a rancher.

  • Boyahdoggie

    HA HA HA….I hope 2012 YOU NEVER cross YOUR gov…..the guns might be pointed in YOUR DIRECTION………!??

    and pay your taxes…wow 12 wow

    PLEASE OH PLEASE……..WHAT PART of the GOV have NO NO NO NOT ONE RIGHT TO LAND…..HELLO do you not know a THING about the Constitution of the BILL of RIGHTS???? BY the WAY did you know that YOUR GOV has GIVEN the rights RIGHTS to the UN to take our Historic sties ….and the LAND that surrounds them …..check it out for YOURSELF SO when that LAND TAKE OVER is in the news and guns are pointed at MORE AMERICAN TX PAYERS……………. you might have a CLUE!!

    SEE the gov thinks we are to STUPID to know what our RIGHTS are and what THEIRS are NOT!!! please stop proving them right….!

    WAIT…..I know you are NOT and AMERICAN……QUICK how many STARS on on OUR FLAG?????
    Please…………before you speak LEARN. WE have 2 eyes to see with

    we have 2 ears to HEAR with and ONE mouth so speak…..they are to be USED in the proportion GOD gave them to us

    Sorry….I am sick of FOREIGNERS that are NOW American Citizens knowing MORE about our COUNTRY THAN WE DO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS DAY We the People stood up for WE THE PEOPLE and kicked to the GROUND the over paid bloated and CORRUPT gov of OUR NATION!!!!
    I say GLORY TO GOD……amen

  • Walter Buddy Knowles

    Good,
    if they get outta hand these ” I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE APOCALYPSE TO HAPPEN ” idiots they should be droned!

  • Deckard426

    Obama can’t stop twelve million illegals from pouring across the border, but he can send helicopter gunships to keep a cow from farting on a turtle. Anybody think Putin is worried about the little misfit from Kenya?

  • Deckard426

    Everyone in this country pays his share? Are you out of your mind? We have WHOLE CITIES in this country where everybody is on the dole!

  • Diruss

    McVeigh was a doing the work of the international bankers.

  • http://www.thecontract.us scotthudson

    Everyone needs to read this book, The Contract On The Government. It is the book that the politicians and bureaucrats DO NOT want you reading. Find out more about the book here:http://www.thecontract.us/

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Please don’t remind me.

  • ISawTheLight

    You hit the nail right on the head .
    It’s all on purpose , I believe it is called pick and choose .
    We just get told it is the law , sure makes one wonder.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly, Clive said that he did not sign on with the feds to reduce his herd head to 150 like all the other ranchers did who are now out of business. Even if he did sign and even if he did pay fees he would always owe the feds unless he let them put him out of business by reducing his herd to a point where he couldn’t make a profit. His cattle would have always been in trespass and had accumulated fines..He probably would have had them confiscated after signing an agreement to reduce and then failing to..any in excess would have been rounded and sold by court order anyway. He was put in a lose, lose position.

  • Anonymous

    The feds also regulate the airwaves Glenn. If they told you it’s ok to stay on air except that you had to reduce your audience to only 2 stations and only broadcast at midnight would you have signed that contract? Of course not..you couldn’t make enough profit. It’s the same situation as Cliven Bundy was in.

  • Rick

    BLM “invaded” because the Federal Court ordered Mr. Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle and he refused – for 21 years – and all legal remedies had been exhausted. The final step in evicting the non-paying tenant was to remove him and his property from OUR land. As a fifth-generation native Nevadan, I do not understand why people are finding this so convenient to overlook here! I just don’t get why everyone is rallying to this rancher’s side when they know he is the law-breaker who, rather than trying to change the law, chooses simply to ignore it. Isn’t that exactly what we Conservatives hate about the way the current administration conducts itself? Why do we excuse and support it for an individual against the government, but want the government to be held accountable when it does so against we the people? We cannot have it both ways. The rule of law means something or it doesn’t! This is not a case of unfair oppression. He paid his fees – until he decided he simply did not want to anymore – and then he forfeited his privilege (NOT a right!) to use public land for his profits. Simple.

  • Loren Schofield

    Man has not only the right, but the obligation to disobey a law that is wrong. If they wanted to arrest him they could have at any time in the last 20 years. They didn’t, they chose to go in with a militarized govt agency and show him who was boss. It was flagrant intimidation tactics that the BLM has used before, against the Hage family

    For years, the Hage family had been subjected to threats, intimidation, and fines, and — like the Bundys — had their cattle illegally confiscated by federal agents. And, as with the Bundys, the Hages were portrayed by the Feds and their compliant media shills as scofflaws and environmental criminals who deserved to be thrown into the slammer. Last year, as we reported , a federal court once again vindicated the Hages, although by that time Wayne Hage and his wife, former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage , had both passed away six years earlier.

    Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada issued a blistering decision that charged officials of the BLM and other agencies with malicious and criminal conduct, and actually engaging in a decades-long “conspiracy” against the Hages.

    It is a corrupt beauracracy that is wrong not him.

  • Loren Schofield

    Or if they told him he had to give equal time to the progressive agenda? Yeah don’t think so.

  • CosmicJo

    You may wish to look up the word “Freedom”.

  • Bob

    Loren, think about it… the people that defeated Iraq and Afghanistan were the US military, with jets, and helicopters, and missiles, and tanks, and special forces. Do you REALLY think than untrained citizens can face a well trained, well supplied military, such as the US military, in open combat, and prevail? Do you WANT to face them? It’d be over in a month, and nothing would have changed except the population would be about a million or so less. They are not the problem. The 537 MORONS in DC, and the idiots that put them there and KEEP them there once they’ve proven to BE MORONS, are the problem. This is an attack the head and ignore the body type of fight.

  • Wojciehowicz

    “Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.”

    When did we the people of the USA modify the constitution to allow him to judge this for himself? When did we elect him to an office where he can single-handedly decide this?

    Never.

    So, he’s usurping power we never gave him, and claiming he’s above the laws put into power by those we elected (whether you like it or not, we the people put them there, decent or dippy, makes no difference), and thus superior to the rest of us.

    Nope. I didn’t buy that from the Occupy Wall Street kids and I ain’t buying it from him.

  • Anonymous

    landofaahs,
    Great comment! For 6 years, we’ve put up with our “unfaithful spouse” not only cheating, but lying, stealing, murdering & still we haven’t even filed for a divorce! Now, the spouse wants to move the “other woman” into our house with all the privileges of the wife! I’m afraid we’ve waited too long to “divorce”! Our “spouse” is armed to the teeth! I just read an article that NOW the US Postal Service has ordered LARGE amounts of ammunition! Why would the USPS need ammo?

    When Glenn said we have “representation”, I said, “No! We don’t”! The Bundy family had no representation! We have deaf mutes who are SUPPOSED to represent us, but Republicans (except of a few) are so afraid of this administration intentionally using the “racist, sexist, homophobic, etc” card to destroy them, they cower like wounded animals!

    Republicans act like they’re not even aware that these tactics the Dumbocraps use against anyone who disagrees with their agenda are straight from their bible…”Rules for Radicals”. That’s what they’ve been indoctrinated to do! That’s why they all come out saying the same exact things like a bunch of squawking parrots on every issue! The Dumbocraps KNOW Republicans aren’t a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes, but that’s the ONLY thing they have on their plate. Everything the “left” does is against all rational, common sense, human behavior; so they have to resort to name calling like the childish, fantasy land loons they are!

    The GOP needs to turn the tables on them. Call them out on everything! The only difference would be that the Dumbocraps have to make up LIES about the GOP! All the GOP has to do is stand up & tell the TRUTH about the Dumbocraps!

  • Loren Schofield

    Who was fighting those troops? Civilians and farmers and foreign fighters. Who is the administration scared of? U.S. vets. Do you think all soldiers will open fire on civilians? Most are conservative/libertarian mindset.

    You mentioned Special Forces, read there thoughts on the 2nd amednment here and tell me what you think. http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772

  • Anonymous

    Behind you 100% Cliven Bundy!

  • Anonymous

    I might be reading Deckard426′s comment or your comment wrong but I think you totally misunderstood what he was saying!

    I think Deckard was saying that whatever taxes he (Deckard) had paid to the government, they could use to pay for Bundy’s cattle to graze on that land!

  • Anonymous

    That tells me that this is precisely why our Republic is going down the toilet. Nobody has the courage to stand up to our new bully, criminal, anti-American, unconstitutional, Communist government except for these few courageous ranchers!

  • Anonymous

    Loren,
    I should’ve posted this! I live 15 miles away from where this took place! Thank you for posting the story! People should read the entire story! I’ve lived in this area all my life, used to have to work at the McMinn County (Athens, TN) courthouse several times a month & didn’t learn about the “Battle of Athens” until a few years ago! It wasn’t an “extreme” example, tho! It was their absolute, NORMAL Constitutional right to do so!

  • Angry Grandma

    And please remember the Clark County government was more than happy to sell to the Chinese and for far less than the land was valued at. Nevada county government, NOT federal government.

  • Toomuchcoffeeguy

    That’s an awful comparison. It’s more like Glenn Beck’s station telling the Feds that he doesn’t have to pay the same licensing fees that everyone else in broadcasting has to pay. Other ranchers have no problem turning a profit under the same scenario; this rancher just thinks he’s above everyone else.

  • Wm Russell

    That’s the stupidest argument yet.

  • Mike Nelson

    Strange how that was motivated by a desire to strike back after Ruby Ridge, isn’t it?

    Which was an abuse by the Clinton admin of the ATF, wasn’t it?

    I think you’re a little myopic in your casting of asparagus ;)

  • Angry Grandma

    It seems they have listened to him for some time. Now, because they do not like what he says, he does not agree with them, he is no longer good. They cannot stand he does not agree with them. I have researched and researched. Not all the conspiracy theory, militia , or only my opinion is the right opinion sites. Legal sites, law, state and federal, sites or areas that give facts not theories to push agendas. The man does not agree with anything from the federal government. He supposedly follows Nevada law as he stated:“I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada.I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” He stated this himself in a LIVE interview.However that position of his contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

    All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority. This is known as a paramount allegiance clause.A few states have the paramount allegiance clause but they do not have what Nevada has -the explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it. So it seems he does not even follow his own state’s laws or Constitution. He only does as he wants. Bundy’s claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn’t hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land . So he is in violation of court orders as well, which is contempt of court for which you can be fined and/or jailed. He has been given much leniency in that respect to this point. I think at this time U.S. marshals should be involved in arresting him. After the threats of violence he himself made, the past bombings, his threats last year and calls to armed “militia” members, on top of his violations of court orders, it is the next, warranted , necessary step.

  • Loren Schofield

    Really? How about if the feds came and told him because of the endagered airwave turtle Glenn has to reduce his transmissIons by 85%. Then when he kept broadcasting they came in tanks and battleships to destroy his equipment.

    That better for you?

  • Angry Grandma

    I agree. While they were here toting guns, stating “they are not afraid to shoot” and complaining all the while about our borders needing to be closed and protected. Maybe this kind of stand needs to be at the borders. That is more about protecting our country, our jobs , etc. and seems to be more cause for a revolution then standing behind a guy that does not recognize laws, rules, or even that he does not own this land or have any “inherited”rights to it. And for grazing cows.

  • Angry Grandma

    These agents were doing their jobs. they came with weapons to protect themselves . Why, because over the course of this man’s non payment of grazing fees and court appearances and such, there were bombings (not saying from him) over these issues. He did make threats last year and this year and called for “armed” militia. Those agents have families who want them to come home. You talk about a taser incident, well look at those protester’s mouths flappn and arms flailing and their hitting of vehicles in that video… they were pushing to incite those agents. Those dogs are trained to protect their handlers and they could sense the situation, that is what they are trained for as well. A trained dog moving towards a ranting man showing aggression (pounding vehicles, etc)appears to be a threat to that dog. Kicking that dog, whose handler had him leashed, was an act of aggression, as was all the vehicle pounding. But it seems if you all point those things out then you cannot just say the agents were there beating on people. They were pretty restrained for what was going on. Moving aggressively and screaming and having armed people around you promotes a need for your personal safety as well, especially in light of the threats, past and present.

  • Angry Grandma

    If you do not pay your rent, you are evicted. If you do not pay your mortgage, you are foreclosed on. A court orders an eviction and you are given so much time to vacate, If you do not law enforcement shows up and executes the writ removing you and your property.They will even pack you belongings into a truck and store it, you pay to get it out. He did not pay grazing fees, lost his permit, lost court battles and the agents came to remove the cattle from property that he does not even own and refused to move. It is really that simple, like it or not.

  • Angry Grandma

    Everyone else is disregarding issues that do not support their opinion. They are even inventing reasons for this issue i.e. Reid, solar panels farms for the Chinese, fracking, checking out militia’s (which really makes no sense as Bundy called the militia’s) he owns the land because he says so, Nevada owns the land, our government is corrupt, or whatever theory will float around in the next hours and days. Yet you all ignore the simple facts staring you all in the face, because they do not support your opinions

  • Angry Grandma

    Because of all the threats, courts take awhile, and they cut the guy a break for awhile. He had every opportunity to follow the law, he chooses not to.

  • Angry Grandma

    The land was obtained through the Mexican-American war. Look it up as I learned it in history and brushed up on it to make sure I was correct. The U.S. paid Mexico 15 million for several staes lands and portions of a couple states lands. The BLM is NOT taking stae land here. The Nevada citizens when they voted and approved their Constitution relinquished all right and title to the land…just did not want it. They agreed to the federal government keeping it. Research that too.

  • Sally Cronkright

    Angry Grandma, I wish people would post as their real name. It’s difficult to take people seriously when they hide behind fake names. I appreciate you discussing though rather than name calling. So thank you. But I believe If it were that simple it wouldn’t be such a big deal. The BLM came into existence after this family had already been grazing their cattle on this property for years. The BLM should not even exist. Why after 20 years is it suddenly a big deal? (This is the million dollar question) This isn’t about paying rent and eviction. There is much more to it. The Federal Government was only ever allowed to receive tax dollars for infrastructure and defense. Not organizations like the BLM. I do not like it and it needs to change. I’m afraid his fight has only just begun.

  • Angry Grandma

    It is land the government acquired at the end of the Mexican-Amerian war, research . It is the federal government’s land.

  • Angry Grandma

    You are absolutely correct.

  • Fran Hendricks

    Maybe this is the only way to change the law. It doesn’t look like the ranchers who just gave in and paid up had a possitive impact. It takes guts for a man to take a stand, especially against the federal government. Too bad the ranchers who bought into big government “owning” them don’t each “grow a pair” and stand with Cliven Bundy. “United we stand, divided we fall.”

  • Fran Hendricks

    This needs to be widely spread.

  • Fran Hendricks

    This also needs to be spread to the media. People need to be educated of all instances duch as this so we can “put two and two together”! The feds are overstepping their original boundaries big time. The federal government was established to serve We The People, NOT the other way around.

  • Anonymous

    I’m completely aware of the criminal Mexican-American War, started on false pretense. Funny that you think this is some kind of deal-breaker.
    The Mexicans, and the Spanish also did nothing to improve the land. They also didn’t have a legitimate claim to it. The war that followed transferred an illegitimate claim.
    By the way, I claim your house. I’ve never been there, but my neighbor used to claim it, and I had a fight with him, and I won… so therefore I own your house

  • Anonymous

    Bundy is not usurping power. Interpreting the Constitution is not something that is the realm of government alone. Read the 10th amendment.
    The government has no legitimate claim on the land. Bundy, as a result of this families use of the land for 137 years, does. Please show me where you voted to create the Bureau of Land Management? I didn’t. The regulation in question was not put in place by any elected official, but was in fact a usurpation of power.
    By the way, I have as legitimate a claim to own your house, as the government does to Bundy’s land. By the way, a couple dozen of my friends voted on this. If you want to vote on it, you’re more than welcome, but you only get one vote. What do you think you are, better than us? Don’t want to comply with our decisions? Do you think you’re above the law? I never gave you the power to stay in your house.
    By the way, your line of thinking would fit in just fine with Occupy Wall Street. They also think that government force should be used to attack people they don’t like.

  • Anonymous

    Actually no, other ranchers have been driven out of business by the fee. They haven’t been turning a profit.

  • Loren Schofield

    That’s interesting, that’s not what the ranchers are saying

  • Biggus Dickus

    Glen Beck is a conman! First he’s 100% Anti-Bundy, then he’s just against the Militia – as usual Beck is a Propaganda Conman, and only acts as a Liberty lover. Only reason he even came half around is because of the backlash from his audience. Screw Beck! Just listen to the Alex Jones show instead of Beck’s propaganda spin, and on top it’s free.

  • Duddioman

    No, It’s like the FCC telling Beck if he pays his license fees he agrees to cut his operations to 15% of what they are now. THATS what the BLM did to Bundy 20 years ago, and why he’s refused to pay.

    To pay grazing fees to BLM, you have to sign their “terms and conditions.” The terms offered to Bundy were cut the hurt o 150 from 900, which they knew would bankrupt him.

    Beck wouldn’t pay either. Neither should Bundy.

  • Duddioman

    Would YOU agree to cut your income to 15% of what it is today? That’s what BLM told Bundy to do, and why he won’t pay. Paying means acceptance of the “terms and conditions” the BLM requires. BLM basically required Bundy to go bankrupt and he said NO. They told him to cut his herd down to 150 from 900. That would be the death of his ranch.

  • joe michael villa

    Bundy has lost every court ruling in the past 10 yrs.
    He’s a lying anarchist freeloader.

  • Duddioman

    You need to read more. BLM told Bundy to cut his herd to 150 from 900, which means his ranch is bankrupt. IF he signed the agreement required to pay the fees, he would be agreeing to cut his own throat. Not paying is the way to reject the terms that would kill his business.

    Would YOU agree to cut your income down to 15% of what it is today? I wouldn’t. Neither should Bundy. The man pays taxes, just not grazing fees. Paying them means he agrees to kill his own business.

  • Duddioman

    He’s not a freeloader. He pays taxes. He does NOT pay grazing fees. The BLM “terms and conditions” Bundy is required to accept when paying his grazing fees state that he has to cut his herd from 900 to 150. That would bankrupt him.

    His family and he have paid their grazing fees since the 1930′s. Why did he stop? Because BLM was requiring him to cut his own throat. I wouldn’t pay either. Would YOU agree with the gov’t to cut your income down to 15% of what it is today? If not, YOU are the same as Bundy.

  • BlueMN

    If that justifies blowing up a Federal building and killing 168 people in OKC in your eyes then it seems the asparagus fits.

  • CrapsDealer

    “…177 miles away from Bundy’s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the FEDERALLY OWNED Gold Butte area where Bundy ‘s cattle graze…” Bundy’s land is NOT the land sold to the Chinese!!

  • CrapsDealer

    Since you know it all, then sort it for us.

  • Loren Schofield

    Some things are more important than safety

  • Shawn Cameron

    No because essentially what he’s saying is I don’t recognize the law, therefore I don’t have to follow it. Which is in no way “right”. I’m not saying the government is in the right here either with their crap about the desert tortoise, and the Harry Reid connection is fishy as some have said. But when you take on the government you have to have all your “I’s dotted and “T”s crossed or you come off like a loon. If this was his land they were running him off of that would be another thing entirely. But it’s not.

    I also find it amusing that all of Beck’s loyal fans are turning on him at the drop of a hat now that for the first time he’s telling them something they don’t want to hear. Of course he bears some responsibility in this, he’s made a gimmick out of an “anti-government” stance and in doing so has stirred this pot, maybe not knowing the types of people he would attract with that message (anarchists).

  • Julia Ward-Martinez

    How is what the USA Govt doing to this rancher any different than what Russia is doing to Crimea and The Ukraine?

  • Mike Nelson

    Ah, you seem to identify your prejudice by naming your expectation… but that’s not what I said, is it? I’ve never been on the side of terrorism, but I can see where his motivation and perception of patriotism come from. Thus, though we may disagree in terms of whether or not his concerns were justified, we agree that commission of the act was morally wrong and intellectually stupid, yes? Why then would you endorse actions that would cause further such incitements (such as Predator or other drone strikes against similarly disaffected citizens)?

    If I implied that your camp included all the mass shooters (the vast majority of which were indeed left of center in their politics), I expect you would be indignant at the association of your priorities with these actions, yes?

    And yet, given a concrete example of a Progressive purge stemming from a Progressive action by a Progressive administration intentionally acting on a Progressive agenda, you focus on the reaction to that instigation, rather than the root itself… and (jokingly? I wonder…) advocate further steps that would certainly instigate backlash.

    Let’s assume that you’re right about the lacking morality, intellect, and/or character of people with whom you disagree, or with whom you assert that I would associate or otherwise endorse. Given that as fact, would it be wise or unwise, moral or immoral, to incite conflict with them?

    How far does the Progressive agenda go… and if it goes THAT far, then how, indeed, are you safe?

  • Mark Cline

    Bundy is no loon. Shame on you Glenn Beck for making him out to be so in your interview. How can you have credibility? Why not hear the man out….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iygs0yURzRo&list=PLbiZD-LEmu-eJ2rimTxFMqnmcV8X0HjDg

  • McLee

    Are there not legal processes to go through in such cases? I don’t agree with them cutting the animal units who could graze, but it isn’t his legal right to continue to use something he does not own without paying for it.

  • Angry Grandma

    That is right, NOT the land. Point is all thee people bantering about Reid and this solar panel deal. And it is wrong, so they move on to the next theory, when in reality the problem is simple. He did not do what was required, pay grazing fees. His permit was revoked, he went to court and lost, his cattle do not belong there, he refused to move them. Agents sent to enforce court order. All these people crying about Reid and his deal, selling out, but Nevada was the one selling land, not the federal government.

  • Angry Grandma

    Already have, Bundy did not due what he was supposed to, did not pay fees, permit revoked,courts find him in the wrong, supposed to remove cattle on his own, did not, agents come to enforce court order. He is in the wrong, he makes threats, calls for armed militia last year and again this year to protect him from his wrongdoing and save his cattle.

  • Angry Grandma

    *do

  • Angry Grandma

    Kind of like this issue here, started on false pretenses. Rancher does wrong, does not pay grazing fees, gets permit revoked, goes to court and loses, supposed to remove his cattle , he refuses, agents come in to enforce court orders, he makes threats and calls militias. Just explaining that land was not Bundy’s and how it was acquired by the federal government. See you said the government did not purchase that land, they did for 15 million along with land for several other states.

  • Loren Schofield

    Who does Own it? That is the question. It is public land. The BLM doesn’t own it, they manage it. That’s what Bundy is trying to say ie shouldn’t be federaly owned, if it’s public land. NV should own it.

  • McLee

    The BLM manages it, and the US government, we the people, own it, but there are costs to grazing it, and more than 15,000 ranchers pay their annual grazing fees to the BLM, to have the right to graze cattle on the public land. What would happen if we mortgaged a house with company A, and company A sold the note to company B, but we don’t like company B and don’t believe the transaction was legitimate, so we just quit paying? Whether we like it or not, we know what the rules/laws are, and if we choose to use something that requires a fee to be paid in order to receive the benefit, then how can we thumb our nose and say I’m going to take it anyway and not expect to be punished for it? Again, I’m sure there are other issues involved here, but one has to believe that if Mr. Bundy simply paid, what he knew was owed, over the past 20 years, this wouldn’t be nearly the issue it is today. It’s funny that you don’t hear any of the cattle/beef industry trade groups (not even the NV Cattleman’s Assoc.) coming out in support of Mr. Bundy’s disregard for the law.

  • Angry Grandma

    The BLM came into existence in 1946 when the government combined two federal agencies into one and renamed it. Bundy’s ranch came about in 1877, after the combination of the two agencies into one-BLM.They combined the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. In ’89 the U.S. FWS listed the desert tortoise as endangered. In ’93 hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land was designated as strict conservation efforts and grazing was eliminated as well as strict off road vehicle use in the area. Purchasing of grazing “privileges” on this federal land were made, paying ranchers for the “privilege” to graze. Bundy did not like the idea and refused to sell his grazing “privileges” and off road vehicle users were upset as well. Bundy continued to graze on the land and began being fined on top of the fact he refused to even pay his grazing fees. At this time BLM was overseeing 800 grazing areas in Nevada. Because he cont’d to graze on the protected land his permit was then revoked and he did not apply for a new one.In ’95 a small bomb went off at a U.S. forest service office in Carson City. No one claimed responsibility but issues with ranchers wanting to graze on federal land with no fees seemed to be growing more intense. The issue was going through the court. The land (public grazing land and protected land) is trying to be maintained healthy and viable for grazing, othe recreation and protected (so it was also about other land). A goal being to protect streams, springs and land was being hindered by unnattended, free-ranging cattle degrading these. Now by this time Bundy was owing 31,000. in fees for grazing on federal land without a permit. Threats of violence continue, and two pipe bombs are exploded at forest service and BLM offices.Bundy claimed he has grazing rights because his Mormon relatives utilized the land before the federal government claimed authority over it. But they had authority before 1877. “98 the court issued a permanent injuction against Bundy. He was ordered to remove his cattle and lost his appeal in the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.’09 the fight was continuing and although signs were posted all over the land stating it was off limits to graze, grazing cont’d. Bundy says he does not recognize federal government authority and threatens resistance. Signs are filled with bullet holes. in 2012 BLM are going to remove the cattle as Bundy refuses, continues to disregard courts orders.After receiving threats they decide to cancel the roundup. BLM files in the Las Vegas federal court seeking an injunction against Bundy. August 2013 a court order gives Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle. October 2013 federal district court tells Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impounding operation” (which he did so maybe now he can be charged?) Bundy acknowledges he has firearms and will “do whatever it takes” to keep his animals from being impounded in an interview. Bundy’s neighbors were interviewed by local sheriff’s to see if he was a threat prior to the move to remove his cattle. Sheriff Gillespie visited the ranch but had not enforced the court order declining to put his deputies in danger over cattle. So even the sheriff knew it was a threat, hence the armed agents to enforce a court order. His wife in an interview stated ” I’ve got a shotgun. It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do.” In March 2014 Bundy was sent the letter they were going to impound his cattle. They later closed off the land to start collecting them. Bundy files a notice with the sheriff “Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection”, he sends out a range war emergency to militia’s (and armed people head to a range war, he incited this threat). Some of those are telling media “I am not afraid to shoot” ” we will do what it takes even if it cost my life and limbs “. So with all these situations and threats there was obviously no recourse other than to bring armed personnel for those doing their jobs to enforce legal court orders from a man that is in the wrong and violating those orders. Nothing more , nothing less. He has had time, time for several courts (and they can take awhile)and decisions and he does not like all the decisions so he makes threats. This is what happens, it is not a government siege, plot or plan. It is the enforcement of orders given by several courts and the necessity to protect those doing their jobs from people who have and continue to make threats of violence.

  • Loren Schofield

    If he had signed the contract and paid his fees you are right, it wouldn’t be an issue because he would be out of business. A more apt analogy is you have a mortgage then your bank comes in and says you can only own 15% of your house because an endangered fist mite was found. What would you do then?

  • Angry Grandma

    The federal government owns it. They maintain some for public use and some for conservation efforts to keep native plants and wildlife from disappearing. They have i believe approx 800 areas they allow grazing by permit on, but I cannot be positve that is an absolute correct number. So there is area to graze as well.

  • Angry Grandma

    You have a great answer and are correct. Not even the Cattleman’s Association has come forward to defend him.

  • McLee

    So not signing the contract yet continuing to graze is right? Your premise implies he can have it whether he has right to it or not. As the courts have ruled, mulitple times, over the last 20 years, he does not own it and has no right to the benefits of it, unless he pays what he owes, just like everyone else. That is called stealing. If you want to fight the other aspects going on, then do it in the proper channels, but your disagreement with a law does not give you the right to steal.

  • Angry Grandma

    The problem is he does not own the land. At one point he was allotted about 155,000 acres he could graze on and pay a fee to graze (and I did not verify that number before posting but am pretty sure it is correct) and he refused he wanted this whole area.

  • Bob

    In the end, yeah, we were not fighting the cream of the crop. But, in the beginning? We fought the best they had, and no group of farmers and civilians were capable of taking them on and winning. What are you missing here? FIGHTING our military is NOT going to get us what we want. Getting rid of the 537 idiots that CONTROL our military will. The people in our military are our sons, daughters, and neighbors… you want fight and kill them? Or, do you want to win and take the country back?

  • Angry Grandma

    There are also other issues that no one seems to want to mention. Bundy’s cows have been on roads including state route 170, a person at a wildlife refuge was attacked by one of his bulls,his cows have destroyed crops on PRIVATE land, Mesquite Heritage Community garden was damaged by cattle, and so was the Mesquite golf course among other things. So the cattle are roaming wherever they can find food to graze on.

  • Loren Schofield

    My understanding of NV, that they are a state where the law says if you don’t want free range cattle on your property, it is your responsibility to build a fence to keep them out.

  • Angry Grandma

    Nevermind the fact that BUNKERVILLE and Mesquite residents have complained about the impact of these”trespass cattle” on city facilities. Or that artifacts at Red racer and St. Thomas cultural sites have been crushed by these ‘trespassing cattle”. Springs are contaminated by the cattles fecal matter. Widlife avoids streams or springs that cattle congregate at. The rare relict frog is being pushed from springs because of the cattle damaging the habitat. Monitoring spots damaged by the cattle, spots that are monitored for rare vegetation after fires. And then the unauthorized reservoir being constructed with bulldozers on the protected land twice .Restoration funds are on hold until the cattle are removed, those funds from private, non-governmental agencies.

  • Loren Schofield

    Judhe Nepolitano disagrees with you. He says Cliven has a case. I think the main reason he lost is he represented himself. Another farmer in NV had almost the same story, and win in court. Not only did he win, the judge gave him damages against the government And said charges should be brought against the BLM for their corrupt intimid as tion tactics.

  • Loren Schofield

    evada district court issued a 104-page ruling detailing the federal agencies’ “vindictive,” “shocking,” and “nonsensical” actions against the Hage family. The case largely turned on the agencies’ capricious decision to reject Hage’s application to renew his grazing permits. The feds were apparently upset that Hage had written “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ under his signature—a legally meaningless attempt to say that by applying for a permit renewal, he was not waiving his water rights. Because of the “offensive” marginalia, the feds refused to process that or any further applications from the Hage family. And by doing so, the agencies blocked Hage from grazing and watering his cattle on the range for over a decade.

    http://universalfreepress.com/2013-court-ruling-blm-conspired-to-deprive-nevada-rancher-of-property-rights/

  • Loren Schofield

    Hmmm Hage won in district court, exact same story, Bundy lost in Federal court, makes you wonder

  • Angry Grandma

    Napolitano said the federal government should file a lien against Bundy, he does not say Bundy has a case-”Napolitano again criticized the federal government’s heavy handed methods in the dispute, choosing to steal Bundy’s property rather than file a lien against him in order to claim the grazing fees they claim he owes.” Of course he seems, as others do, to negate the threats of guns and violence “whatever it takes” from Bundy. But the again Napolitano is not the one there enfocing court orders under those threats now is he.

  • Loren Schofield

    He also said the federal government should not own so much property

  • Angry Grandma

    And he does not seem to get that it is NOT Bundy’s property in question, but he must be following the internet hype and theories.Of course he could mean the cattle, but Bundy refused to remove them himself until last Friday after they were being impounded. As in any enforcement of an “eviction” the property is impounded or stored if the premises has not been vacated when it was supposed to be. The property is then held until paid for because the party did not ‘remove’ it themselves.

  • Angry Grandma

    Bundy simply refused to or did not even apply for a new permit after his was revoked. There was no vindivtive, shocking or nonsensical activity going on. He did not remove his cattle from land he could no longer graze on and defied several court orders to do what he had to do.

  • Angry Grandma

    He says a lot, that does not make just him right. He is one of those judges that did television court as well, you know those played up for ratings craziness courts. He has varying views that in a lot of people’s mind are controversial (for lack of better word right now). He has his somewhat crazy look at 9/11 (must like those conspiracy theories). So he pushes his views or agendas to back what he believes, but quite frankly courts heard the arguments and made their decisions. Whose to say their decisions are wrong and his is right ? Is he more qualified then those judges sitting on those benches making decisions?

  • Sally Cronkright

    Thank you for all of this history. I had read all of this before. I still don’t believe they have the right to suddenly impose fees on these ranchers. I don’t believe grazing cattle are doing harm to the streams, springs and land. That is ridiculous. We used to camp out west and wake up in the middle of a mooing cows. The land is vast and the streams were not damaged by cattle. It’s amazing to me that people buy into this stuff. The Government wants the land and they want the ranchers out. Period. They have succeeded in getting them all out except one last rancher. You are going to believe what you want to believe and that’s fine. The Federal Government should not be in control of any land. The Federal Government is over reaching and way too powerful and we let it happen. All in the name of saving a tortoise.

  • Anonymous

    So the government courts have decided that the government is right and he’s wrong. Shocking!

  • Anonymous

    Fascinating, because the other ranchers are gone.

  • Anonymous

    The rancher didn’t do anything wrong, except he refused to pay extortion money. That a government court ruled in favor of the government is shocking.

    You think the rancher is the one making the threats? What do you think the fees are? Perhaps, and I’m going to go out on a limb here, but it was the government that was doing the threatening, and the government that was the one showing up with the intent to use force to get what they wanted.

    To go back to my previous analogy, we can take my dispute over the ownership of your house to my uncle. Good luck.

    Your explanation of how the land was “not Bundy’s” is dead on arrival. He had a 130 year claim on the actual use of the land in question. This is as opposed to the claim of a bureaucrat thousands of miles away, who had never been there.

    The government’s claim to the land is based on the murder of 50,000 Mexicans over a shot that nobody seriously believes was actually fired on the east side of the Nueces River. You brought this up, so I’m assuming that you know all this, right? You know about Lincoln’s spot resolution, right?

    You can also tell me about the numerous treaties that the government violated along the way to claiming this land, can’t you? Adams-Onís Treaty? Numerous treaties with the Southwest Indians?

    That they paid a state they created out of stolen land a below market value is shuffling of stolen goods among thieves.

    Did they actually homestead the land in any way?

    Do you even know what homesteading is (and no, it’s not about the 1850 law of the same name)?

    You seem well-meaning, but you have bought a lot of government propaganda at face value. I’d forgive it if you weren’t so arrogant about it.

  • Anonymous

    His living is supported by the consumers of the products of his cattle.

    When you talk of “his share”, you mean paying for unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional medicare, and the rest of the $3.6 trillion Federal Budget, the vast majority of which is unconstitutional?

    That you and I are being robbed does not forgive the government robbing Bundy.

    If you walk through the park and get mugged, it does not mean that I’m a freeloader if I refuse to do the same.

    You are no poorer because Bundy refused to pay the government’s protection money.

    When you talk of his share, you really look like a sheep.

  • Loren Schofield

    correct, I misread your comment, we are in agreement

  • Angry Grandma

    Bundy paid grazing fees to the federal government prior to 1993, so he was not suddenly imposed fees. Why did he pay fees before 1993 if he felt it is wrong to pay to graze cattle on federal land? It was fine before 1993, then he decided he did not recognize federal authority after paying them previously for the grazing fees. He was fine to graze his cattle and pay fees to the federalgovernment for the privilegeto graze on federal land, he made no stink about it before the land usage change, so at one point he DID recognize their authority. But it seems obvious when things were not what he wanted that changed and he decided the federal land was state land. So when they decided to make changes on the land they have and they allotted him land and he did not want to graze only the what 155,000 acres they said he could graze on he would not pay, did not recognize their authority… the hypocrisy of it all.

  • Sally Cronkright

    I was under the impression that it was state land when he was paying. I’m new to this story and am trying to figure out what is going on so I really do appreciate the info. I just hope we don’t ever become so quick to jump and defend government before our own people. I would give a rancher the benefit of doubt before some big government agency. Don’t you think it’s a little suspicious that hundreds of ranchers have been put out of business? That doesn’t concern you at all? I read somewhere that the borders of this land that is managed by the BLM were changed in order to fit some solar plant being built by the Chinese? That seems suspicious to me. And don’t you think it’s crazy that we allow this sort of thing-believing it’s all in order to save a turtle? There is hypocrisy everywhere. In every situation I suppose you could point it out. The Federal Government is too big and it’s getting even bigger. I believe that is a dangerous slippery slope. This is just one example.

  • Angry Grandma

    The disinformation propaganda isn’t only coming from those that feel he is wrong. There are those that claim Reid is behind it with solar panels, fracking is behind it, etc. Bundy paid and recognized the federal authority to this land BEFORE 1993, he paid them grazing fees. Then when changes were made to the land usage, as happens, and grazing was no longer permitted, he then did not recognize their authority and quit paying. Why, because he did not like the fact his cattle could not graze where HE wanted them to graze. They allotted him a parcel of land but it was not ALL the land he wanted to graze on. So he decides he no longer recognizes their authority as he used to. So then he decides the land is now the states land (how he figures he can make those decisions who knows) and he will not pay the federal government anymore, even AFTER DOING SO before 1993. That is not disinformation. Then he decided he would just graze the cattle although his permit was revoked and the federal land usage their changed. No grazing was permitted any longer on that Gold Butte land. And court battles followed as he chose to not pay fees , graze where he was not allowed to, did not remove his cattle when ordered to, et. It is not disinformation.

  • Angry Grandma

    The land is not state land, nor his land, it is federal land. After paying grazing fees to the federal government and recognizing their authority to that land before 1993, when the land usage changed cattle grazing and all terrain vehicle usage was disallowed. The government offered to buy out the grazing permits (it’s $1.32 per cattle/calf to graze) and all ranchers sold out their permits except Bundy. He was offered about 155,000 acres to graze on and pay the fee to graze, he refused and then decided the federal government had no authority (even though he paid them and recognized their authority over their land before) and he decided it was state land, he decided. The land that was proposed for the solar panel thing and Reid some are throwing out there as the cause was in Laughlin, Nevada way south of this area. Clark County Nevada itself offered to sell county land for that Chinese solar panel project. They even offered the land for much less than it was valued at. The federal government is not selling this land, but Clark County was sure ready and willing to sell Nevada land, they were happy…jobs and revenue. And it really is more than just turtles. Even the complaints against the Bundy cattle being in roadways, like the main highway, the Bunkerville and Mesquite residents concerns, and others are being overlooked by Bundy supporters.

  • Angry Grandma

    And I am not being quick to defend the government, I have great dissappointment in our government for SO many reasons. I just cannot condone an issue when things are misrepresented and facts thrown to the side or conspiracy theories tossed about. Some are even tossing around the theory the government just wanted to check out militia’s. Seriously then if that were the case, who put the call out to those militia’s? Bundy did, the government did not. So I like to see fact, not a bunch of stories and theory. And with Bundy’s own actions i.e. paying the federal government the grazing fees before ’93 thus recognizing theri authority and the deciding not to and now the land is state land helps to prove he is wrong in his thinking as well.

  • Angry Grandma

    And I do not use my real name because of people. I stand behind the issue of child abuse and missing children. To make a very long story short I commented a couple times on the case of a missing child. Some people backed the parents , many believed the parents had something to do with her being missing as their stories changed numerous times in interviews. Vicious, rude name calling began then those siding with the parents began “investigating” people on facebook. They were finding addresses out by just whay they were gathering on peoples pages, callin employers, threatening peoples children, taking pictures of their kids and photoshopping them horribly. So I do not use my name to comment on things when and IF I do. There are some crazy people out there.

  • CrapsDealer

    The Bundy’s were not living off the backs of the public, he created and provided with his own money — a water way for the land– a fence to keep his cattle out of other areas and paid for the roads to be graded and paved and paid out of his own pocket– The BLM did nothing. He paid his fees up until the point that he saw his fellow farmers get forced off of their property. He believed that after all of the money he used to pay these expenses he owed $300,000 to the BLM — the BLM claimed he owed 1 million– they spent 3 Million of tax payers money to try and run him out. You seem to think Bundy should just roll over and comply with the law even when he disagrees with it. Are you going to comply with Obamacare? If the government decides to confiscate your firearms, are you merely going to roll over and comply? Bundy felt like he had a duty of non-compliance.

  • CrapsDealer

    The Bundy’s were not living off the backs of the public, he created and provided with his own money — a water way for the land– a fence to keep his cattle out of other areas and paid for the roads to be graded and paved and paid out of his own pocket– The BLM did nothing. He paid his fees up until the point that he saw his fellow farmers get forced off of their property. He believed that after all of the money he used to pay these expenses he owed $300,000 to the BLM — the BLM claimed he owed 1 million– they spent 3 Million of tax payers money to try and run him out. You seem to think Bundy should just roll over and comply with the law even when he disagrees with it. He felt a duty not to comply when he realized the unfairness. Things are not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

  • R-WOOD

    He just wants to make his followers happy. Screw the Pooch on this one.

  • R-WOOD

    At least you got some comments ! ……….. That’s different.!

  • Angry Grandma

    And taking a look at the Bundy claim that his family grazed this land since 1877, you find that in 1877 the Bunkerville company of the United Order, which consisted of more families than just the Bundy family, some who worked some who were careless and wasting the means of the COMPANY. After 2 1/2 years property was divided for distribution. It seems Bundy’s relative was dissatisfied and moved to Mesquite. So quite frankly their family alone did not graze this land since 1877. Court records say Bundy and his father or both began grazing the Bunkerville allotment in 1954.

  • Nicolas Edwards

    Or the drought in the local area along with rising fuel prices made grazing in a desert reason non profitable. You’re making a lot of assumptions Fuzi with nothing to back it up. The gov is not taking anyone’s land.

  • Angry Grandma

    When looking at the Bundy family claim of his family grazing this Bunkerville allotment since 1877 you find that it was not just the Bundy’s family but others working in what they called the United Order. After 2 1/2 years of this United Order the decision was made to “dissolve” the United Order and divide and distribute assets and property. Bundy’s relative Dudley Leavitt was dissatisfied with the division and moved ACROSS THE RIVER to Mesquite. So actually his family was not on the Bunkerville allotment themselves grazing since 1877 and they fail to mention the move to Mesquite. Court documents also show Bundy and his father or both began grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment in 1954. As the documents also state from 1973 or before until 1993 the BLM issued Bundy’s father and Bundy as his father’s representative ephemeral grazing permits to graze livestock on the Bunkerville allotment. Regions classified as ephemeral do not consistently produce forage , but periodically provide annual vegetation suitable for grazing. So I see a bit of discrepancy as to the Bundy family claim of their family grazing this allotment since 1877.

  • Loren Schofield

    I asked this in the “do the end ever justify the means” comments. I wanted to post it here in case people were only here. ..
    What do a free people do when tyranny, injustice and corruption become so overwhelming and abusive as to be destructive and trample individual liberty. What if this injustice is morally reprehensible but no one has been killed, yet. What happens when the over reach of the state is such that individuals cannot fight through the system. Is it not our duty to stand up for the innocent even if it may cost is our life. I am not talking open revolt or insurrection I am talking about making a stand and letting the evil know, that we the people have had enough and we will not stand by for one more second.

    Here is an example that all the Beck supporters will intimately know, and be able to relate to.

    Justina Pelletier. A group of two or three thousand Americans, Patriots and militia, show up in CT, and march on and surround the location this poor girl is being kept. They are armed, but not violent simply stating they are here to return her too her parents, they aren’t leaving, and if she doesn’t get released to her family, they will march in and release her themselves. The police have two options, they can step aside so there is no bloodshed, our they can open fire. The people will not shoot first, but if the police start a war, them by God a war they shall have.

    Would your opinion of these extremists change, when it is a fight over a little girl instead of cows? Glenn’s approach hasn’t worked, probable won’t work, and every day that poor little girl is getting closer to death at the hands of the state.

    Would you still condemn them? Would you mock them on you radio show and say they are crazy and you don’t want those kind of people to be your followers?

    Please all you supporters of Glenn, let’s have an honest debate about this fictional scenario. I truly want to know, and for everyone lets keep it civil and adult.

    Go

  • Bill_Nyes_Labcoat

    I like Chinese food. Orange chicken FTW

  • Anonymous

    Glenn Beck needs to get not only his facts straight but needs to stop buying into the crap that Bundy is somehow in the wrong and not paying legitimate grazing fees.
    Wake up Glenn and learn what the lying sack of sh** Harry Reid has been doing to run Bundy off his land in order to seize it and sell to the lowest Chinese bidder. He’s been brokering a deal with the Chinese for them to grab the land at cents on the dollar in order to build a huge Solar farm as well as grab the natural gas and oil resources.
    This is what’s behind the whole fiasco and why the dozens of other ranchers lost their land. It was stolen by the BLM and Harry Reid’s thugs.

  • Woodrow Wilson

    So should we just open up all public land for anything?

  • doc holiday

    It will when those iron bars close behind you I have watched many a hard man lose it when that happens

  • doc holiday

    Because states enforce state law and those government agancys enforce federal law.

  • doc holiday

    I want you to consider the fact that every man with a gun aimed at a law enforcement officer could have been shot dead legally, they can only thank their lucky stars that the Feds made a good decision not to get them killed.

  • doc holiday

    What you seem to want to just ignore is that the laws governing property do not give Mr Bundy the right to use the land just because he wants to any more than you can just go and use your neighbors.

  • doc holiday

    If you go back far enough the indians owned the land that Bundy took or bought but it was because new laws were put in place in this country that gave him the right to buy it,he liked those laws but Bundy does not get to pick which ones he likes and which he doesn’t.

  • doc holiday

    This will end badly for them

  • doc holiday

    I agree with the overreaching when land is taken and sold to developers its wrong, but the way you change that is to elect those to office that are against it. But I would bet that you vote Republican and these are the very same people that would do this. Not that Democats are always clean.

  • doc holiday

    So if I want to take the tools out of your house to use in my shop its ok because I am the little guy.

  • CrapsDealer

    The Bundy’s were not living off the backs of the public, he created and provided with his own money — a water way for the land– a fence to keep his cattle out of other areas and paid for the roads to be graded and paved and paid out of his own pocket– The BLM did nothing. He paid his fees up until the point that he saw his fellow farmers get forced off of their property. He believed that after all of the money he used to pay these expenses he owed $300,000 to the BLM — the BLM claimed he owed 1 million– they spent 3 Million of tax payers money to try and run him out. After all of this, he probably felt he had a duty to not comply. You seem to think Bundy should just roll over and comply with the law even when he disagrees with it. Are you going to comply with Obamacare? If the government decides to confiscate your firearms, are you merely going to roll over and comply?

  • MikeyMike

    Nope.
    That has already been roundly debunked as a bs conspiracy theory.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

  • Cindy Peak

    Understood. But you are missing the point. The point is whether the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in land issues, when the Constitution clearly states that the Feds should not own — and therefore have agencies enforce laws regarding the management of land outside of the seat (i.e., DC) and military bases.

    I say no. My desire is for a much smaller Federal Government — one that is closer to and more responsible to the citizens. Power should be with the States.

  • Cindy Peak

    Good point. Although I believe the land should have transferred to the states upon them becoming states.

    This notion that the Feds “own” 20, 30, 40 and more percent of western states is in my reading unconstitutional.

  • MikeyMike

    “His living is supported by the consumers of the products of his cattle.”

    Oh really?
    What about the part where his living is being supported by his trespassing on land that is not his?
    Even if he were right in his claim that the land is not rightfully the federal government’s and that it belongs to the State of Nevada, it still is not his land.
    Bundy is a welfare rancher.
    If “His living is supported by the consumers of the products of his cattle.” then there would be no issue. Instead, he is trespassing on land that is not his and is complaining about being asked to pay fee for the right to do so. A fee which he paid for ~20 yrs prior.
    Welfare rancher.

  • Anonymous

    There should be no public land.

    Also, really classy picking the racist whose brain-dead actions gave us World War II as your icon.

  • Anonymous

    Nope! You are wrong and you should try checking your facts through some other source other than Snopes!

    FYI, Snopes gets its information from the same source as everyone else…..the internet and they don’t always do a good job of getting it correct.
    Do yourself a favor and read the FACTS below …..which incidentally can be found from other scholars’ writings….and then make up your own mind.

    Personally you haven’t given proof of any credible evidence to your claim other than Snopes which doesn’t address the issue. Cliven Bundy has EVERY right to do what he is doing right now and millions of American citizens support him wholeheartedly!
    And btw, if you are foolish enough to believe and trust that criminal Harry Reid, then I suppose there’s no convincing you otherwise.

    http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/

  • Anonymous

    I totally concur with your assessment and couldn’t agree more!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, really.

    Your label is nonsensical. Welfare involves the taking of the earned wealth of some people in order to give it to other people.

    That’s not what Bundy did at all. He worked land that he had the most legitimate claim to.

    He is not trespassing on land that is not his. You have not established that the land is not his, nor have you even addressed the sound argument by which it is.

    Please learn what homesteading is. Bundy’s claim comes from actually making use of the land by him and his family for 130 years. The state of Nevada’s claim comes from a series of broken treaties and wars.

    If we take your argument, that we are the government (a lie so vile that one has to be either truly evil, or truly stupid to believe it), then Bundy is trespassing on his own land. Bundy is a part of we. Of course, that’s not what’s really going on here. Your argument fails on its own grounds.

    His living comes from selling cattle and cattle products. You tried really hard to get around that, but you’ve failed.

    That he paid the government’s extortion for any amount of time does not mean that that extortion is in any way legitimate, or that it validates their claims. If this is the case, then the mafia can claim to own most of Chicago, and all of Las Vegas.

  • Anonymous

    I forgot to also add this link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPndJ4fuL9g#t=19

  • Loren Schofield

    Snopes quotes The Wildlife News, this is the founder of that site… Dr. Maughan also serves as a Director of Western Watersheds Project a group that works to influence and improve public lands management in 8 western states with a primary focus on the negative impacts of livestock grazing on 250,000,000 acres of western public lands… agenda anyone?

  • Sally Cronkright

    Angry Grandma, thank you for replying to all of my questions in a civilized manner. I understand your point of view more clearly now. I still don’t know enough to change my mind about the rancher. :-) but I will for sure be reading up on it. I pray this doesn’t end up getting people killed. I refrain from commenting sometimes due to the subject matter and the fact I have my real name attached. I can see where you are coming from. I actually got audited and believe it’s because of my affiliations and comments I have made. Maybe that sounds paranoid and conspiratorial but I have never been audited before. And with the IRS you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. So I have no regard for government. Anyhow; maybe I will have the opportunity to converse with you again sometime? I wish more people would act civilized towards one another in the comments section of articles. We are stronger when we are not fighting against one another. Have a blessed day. :-) More importantly you got me to look at this in a different light because you didn’t insult me. So thank you.

  • Anonymous

    Try checking this out and see!
    http://benswann.com/lofti-who-

    Also this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?…

  • MikeyMike

    Did you happen to see the footnotes and citations? They include The Las Vegas Sun and Reuters. The main take-away is the solar project died last june and that it was to be located near Laughlin, nowhere near the Bundy ranch.
    What are your sources for the Reid-China conspiracy?
    And don’t assume that I’m a fan of Reid. As a resident of Clark County, the china thing is really old news and it is tiresome to see people bring it up.
    As far as the Bundy’s rights to graze there, even if it wasn’t federal and, it still isn’t his land. That’s trespassing. Same reason I can’t just go 4 wheeling anywhere I want.
    Just because his ranch is next to public lands does not mean he has any special right to it.
    As far as the link you posted, that author, nor yourself, seems to have read the Nevada State Constitution. The Ordinance Clause. You can’t miss it. It is right at the top, preceding the preamble.

  • Anonymous

    Private grazing fees cost a lot more… The guy wanted an excuse to not pay for the cattle’s feed, and he probably bought his own line after repeating them enough. That is how mantras work. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to believe them though.

  • MikeyMike

    His family homesteaded on 160 acres. That is legitimately his land. The issue is about him using federal land that is not his.
    It is federal land, granted by the Nevada Constitution. That’s clear. It is not a “Nevada’s claim comes from a series of broken treaties and wars.” Citation for that please.
    I am part of “we” as well. Does that mean I can dirt bike and 4 wheel through the same land? I’m sure he’d have no problem with that.
    Bundy is whining because his business model of ranching in the desert is broken and obsolete. To make it work he needs to rely on using federal land without paying a grazing fee, like other ranchers do. If he fails as a rancher, then that’s free market at work. No matter how long his family has been there.
    He is fighting for a hand out in the form of not paying the grazing fee.
    It is not his land. Because he is adjacent to it does not give him special rights to it.

  • Anonymous

    When the federal government moves ALL of the illegal aliens off US land then we can sit down and revisit this issue with respect to Mr. Bundy and what his use actually is. Until then, no go. Also the documents DO STATE exactly where this solar farm that Reid and his son are so heavily involved in will be. See Mr. Bundy’s ranch is right in the middle of the “mitigation area” that they indicate they (Reid, his son and the Chinese energy company EEN)need. That is how they ran off the other 50+ ranchers and ultimately I believe through either payoffs or by whatever means they deem necessary they will also remove Mr. Bundy but I truly hope it does not become ugly. People are ticked. They are tired of the same few people, like Reid and his cohorts, making tons of money while they struggle to provide food, housing and clothing to their families. Something unfortunately has got to give. There is a reason why the government has had all of these supporting agencies purchasing BILLIONS OF ROUNDS of AMMUNITION. Ask yourself, just what does the Social Security Administration need with over 2 million rounds of ammunition? They aren’t the only agency within the federal government to purchase millions upon millions of rounds of ammo. They aren’t intending to stockpile it, they plan to USE IT. When they do use it, it will not be for a foreign source but on the American people. I truly hope that day does not come but people are in tune to what is going on in the country and I don’t think they will stand for the federal government taking up arms not so much against Mr. Bundy as it will against other citizens. They will begin to ask themselves just who is right. They will conclude that the people are right and the government is wrong. When that day comes, we are going to be in very big trouble.

  • Loren Schofield

    The amount of the ammo isn’t the important part, the type. It is not training ammo. It is the more expensive hollow points that they are buying.

  • Judy

    Glenn Beck is right and he is a Republican. I am impressed. Nothing you are saying Technicallysane is correct. Sounds like you have been watching radical right websites like Info Wars and junk like that.
    The article is correct and I think Bundy is just a confused older man who is living in the past. That could even be dementia.
    I live here and go to Gold Butte and there isn’t any plans of a solar plant here. That is over 100 miles from here and is out in the barren desert where there isn’t recreational or protected land, which is what the land that Bundy says is his, but isn’t, is located. No oil and gas around here and no leases, not fracking, no solar plant. Its all lies and propoganda on the Internet. Harry Reid isn’t doing anything around here, so you need to get your facts right before you and your right wing friends write all of this crap. Bundy is in the wrong and his militia buddies need to leave our area.

  • Cicero13

    Cliven didn’t do a very good Job of making his case, or giving all the info on making payments for his grazing rights. I live in St. George Utah about 40 minutes from Bunkerville so I’ve been following this. The BLM contracted with Cliven to preform maintenance on that land and he agreed to pay them to do it, but at some point they stopped providing those services and wanted to continue getting paid for them, just as currently in our state they’re supposed to be keeping the wild mustang population down and it’s three times what they agreed to keep it at. Cliven tried to pay the state to preform those services on the the land he was grazing on, they said they wouldn’t take it or preform that maintenance, so Cliven put those fees in a trust and used it to maintain the land himself, doing the BLM’s job for them since they wanted to get paid for doing nothing. How long would you pay a corporation that stopped providing the service you were paying them to do? That said Glenn I love ya, but you’re missing the point, this is about much more then grazing rights, it’s about a federal agency presenting lethal force they were never given authority to use by the citizens. Since when did the BLM start carrying AR-15′s and sniper rifles? If they needed firepower it should have been from the county Sheriff, but the feds know that local people aren’t as likely to do their dirty work, so they arm people on their direct payroll, with federal training, who are selected by federal agencies, and more likely to be obedient to controversial orders, like stealing cattle and threatening to shoot unarmed Americans. It was a miracle no one died, and cooler heads kept a lid on everything. If the Bundy’s and others hadn’t been open to what God was telling them, this could have been a blood bath between a few angry armed citizens, a bunch of unarmed ones, and a decked out militaristic BLM force.

  • wicked woo

    So let me get this straight. You as an Indian agree with the USA government steeling others land property that the government once stole for you and you think it’s wrong to fight for land that your family has used for over a century plus? Ooooh that is rich lol lol.

  • Anonymous

    This answer is non-sequiter.

    You don’t pay grazing fees on land you own. Land that is not owned by anyone comes into ownership through homesteading. Bundy’s family homesteaded the land.

    That the government can claim land by fiat is a mantra that you might want to disabuse yourself of.

  • Anonymous

    “We” haven’t homesteaded the adjacent land. Bundy’s claim on it is better than yours or mine is. There is nothing legitimate to stop him from homesteading unused land.

    Carl Herman did a great job detailing the history of the claims in the area http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/us-land-claims-bundy-case-based-lie-started-treaty-violating-unlawful-war-mexico.html.

    Bundy is not whining because his business model isn’t working. He’s “whining” because government agents are threatening to take his livestock, and using violence against his family, purportedly over the safety of a desert tortoise that the government not 50 miles away is actively killing.

    That Bundy would probably be okay with you taking a dirt bike across his land doesn’t mean that it is not his land. You can take a dirt bike through the woods behind my house as well. This does not make it any less my property.

    Government fees are not part of the free market. If you are under that illusion, they you don’t know what the free market actually is. Threats of violence are not part of the free market. The free market is made up of voluntary, mutually-agreeable transactions between free people. Once you introduce the gun, you no longer have a free market.

    He is not fighting for a hand out. He’s fighting against extortion. These fees are not a market cost.

    He does not have special rights. If you wanted to homestead that land in the same way that Bundy is, you’d have the same claim. But that’s not what is going on here. The government is making up a claim out of thin air, and trying to enforce it with violent threats, and violence if necessary.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s take your claim down to its root logic.

    If I kill you, I can have a legitimate claim to your house?

    Really? How about if I just break into your house, hold a knife to your throat and make you sign a contract giving me your house? What if I agree to pay you $100 for your house?

    Does that make it a legitimate sale?

  • Dez E.

    Already been debunked

  • Kedwards

    I guess everyone has noticed how our government sucks. The government is suppose to represent the people, but all they do is see how much many they can put in their pocketbook for pulling off all these dirty little favors for each other. They don’t care about the people…so why do we need a government.

  • Anonymous

    Well your remarks are what I would expect from a left wing socialist so you have wasted your time responding to mine as I give them no credence.
    It’s you who should be getting your facts straight but I guess you’ll have to find out when it’s too late.
    If you can stand and speak with a straight face that our government, including all of its criminal agencies are to be trusted then I feel very sorry for you. I will waste no more of my time on trying to convince you.
    You are wrong….accept it.

  • Anonymous

    I forgot to include this link for you to read. It’s one of many showing the wheeling and dealing that has been going on for decades regarding western lands of which Nevada is one. Follow the money and it usually shows its cunning agenda.

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/democrats-awash-in-green-energy-deals-on-public-land/

  • Anonymous

    Sean Hannity and the rest of the right wing media making this mumbling buffoon into some kind of a hero is not only incredibly stupid, but also very dangerous. He’s no different from a warlord in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia. No different from a drug cartel kingpin in Mexico or Colombia. You can’t just make up your own laws and threaten government agents with violence. If his and his supporters get away with this it would set a terrible precedent and lead to complete anarchy.

    It’s ironic that the same people who lambasted the Occupy Wall Street movement for taking over public spaces are so vehemently on the side of this delusional deadbeat and is equally intellectually challenged, gun toting supporters. Then again conservative pundits aren’t known for being intellectually honest or consistent in their arguments.

    I wonder if the same conservatives would defend the right of, say, Black Panthers to overtake Central Park in NYC and setup tents there. Or the right of their tenant to not pay them rent so he could continue to live in the property they own for free. Or my right to use an airport without paying fees or dock my boat in a harbor, once again while not paying any fees.

    Even from a free market standpoint supporting this clown doesn’t make any sense. Other ranchers who comply with the law are at a competitive disadvantage to this pathetic excuse of a “patriot”.

    The guy and his supporters are not patriots in any way. The whole issue is that they refuse to follow the laws of their own country and think that they can do that because they have guns. So much for legally purchased guns being mostly in the hands of law abiding citizens. More like in the hands of mentally deficient domestic terrorists.

  • HoppinJohn

    You need to look up truth, morals, and legal.

  • HoppinJohn

    This is fully lawful. He has lost all court proceedings.
    Nevada isn’t its own country.
    Nevada gave the land to the Gubbermint.
    the US won it in the Mexican-American War

  • HoppinJohn

    He is a Tea Party/Militia Martyr, they just love him.

  • HoppinJohn

    Was your oath to tear up the Constitution?

  • HoppinJohn

    Socialist maybe, Fascism is for the tea party.

  • HoppinJohn

    Just make stuff up as you go, someone might believe you.

  • HoppinJohn

    China cant supply themselves, how are they going to sell to us when they buy their food from us. What sell it back to us?

  • Deborah

    they are talking about washinton, d.c. in that clause, the “district” of columbia, not the full area of the u.s.

  • HoppinJohn

    They have and that is why Clark County Sheriff and deputies have served several eviction notices to Bundy

  • HoppinJohn

    Or like your brain – Dead. This article is about land and cattle, stay on topic or go find a gun article a post there.

  • HoppinJohn

    Different President and different judges started this 20 year ago, not Obummer, but nice try.

  • HoppinJohn

    The US has owned since the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, the Bundy’s by their own admission didn’t get there until the late1880′s, it was and still is public land. The Bundy’s never wanted to buy it and do not claim to own it. Also, Nevada let the government keep it after it became a state, this is from the Nevada Constitution:

    “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”
    It does not get much clearer than that.

  • HoppinJohn

    The state shouldn’t get the fees, they don’t own the land.

  • HoppinJohn

    Like when Bush let private companies use eminent domain to take private property for a company office building?

  • Kelly Brown

    So why ever pay grazing fees if that is what he believed? Federal lands were not even opened up for grazing until 1934. So from the 1800′s til 1934 no rancher grazed cattle or anything else. According to court documents the Bundys started grazing cattle on federal land in the 1950′s. So why pay from the 1950′s to 1993 then stop and all of a sudden claim that the land isn’t the property of the US. He had always paid BLM before or his permits would have been cancelled long before 1993. The first time he was sued was in 1998. His father obviously had some kind of contract with the BLM and Bundy too after the ranch was passed on to him.

  • http://www.TheAlternateRoot.com Fred Boenig

    Yes its to save money their CEO makes $13.5 Million a year and their clerks make $8.50 — They were not losing money,they had a great year- they are just Greedy! Plan and simple!

  • santa went

    well Rick how would you like for a bill collector to come to your home with guns. This isn’t about who owes what. This is about control, Harry Reid and son running farmers out of business so they can sale there land to china for 5 billion for solar panels. Lets talk taxes we all know congress hasn’t paid there taxes in years. Sounds like do what I say, not what I do

  • Jon Galt

    They are moving to save money on corporate taxes. The govt is so greedy for tax money that they are driving business out of the country. You can blame the businesses all you want, but without them there are no job, no food, and no hope for libs.

  • Moderate2016

    The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and effectively double taxes dividends paid to corporate shareholders. There is a huge incentive to shift corporate profits out of the US to almost anywhere. Lowering corporate tax rates is a tough political sell since people don’t understand what a corporation is. It’s not some fat, rich guy stuffing cash in its pockets. Legally it is a person, but at its core it is a relationship between employees, shareholders, suppliers and customers all of whom pay taxes in relation to their activities with the corporation so lowering corporate taxes to bring more of these relationships back into the US tax net is a good thing.

  • ken tristar

    If only Reagan or any other GOPers have enough guts to stop Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid. That’s why I’m hoping Palin will run in 2016 w/ Perry. Yea!!

  • ken tristar

    Jon Galt is right – you can’t blame businesses. Remember a time when the market was free – a thousand years back before you can even trade your cow for some magical beans without paying taxes…the good old days.

  • ken tristar

    You are right again – those greedy libs – all they want t do is raise tax and print money. That’s why we have to stop them by pretending to be a fictional character name John Galt – cuz he is cool.

  • ken tristar

    So if we lowered taxes to say 8% – cut military spending / healthcare / welfare, etc.. you know those businesses won’t be moving to Mexico even their tax rate is 4%…cuz they care!!! Remember a time when the rich did not get richer and the poor folks were swimming in gold – good ol’ days.

  • ken tristar

    So true – that’s why we need to take military actions to stop Russia for being like America. Just who do they think they are?

  • Thetruth

    let get this straight,he USES federal land to graze HIS cattle and this is destroying farmers?in what reality,if he did not want to pay grazing fee than BUY your own land. USE your land.if you use another person’s property YOU pay what they want.in what drug induced reality is it that YOU the tenant get to decide who owns the property?get to decide what is due. HIS argument is he did NOT want to pay fee as everyone else did.trying not paying your mortgage see if they wait 20 years to kick your butt to the street.try pulling a gun on a cop,see if they walk away.the man is a dead beat ,nothing else.

  • Fairy Larry

    Dear Lord Glenn your Beckites are deranged demented and so very very stupid…

  • Adam Caulfield

    Beck cant say Alex Jones or Infowars.com. What a baby.

  • Fred car

    You want Walgreen’s to play fair? Stop shopping there, stop working there. Boycott works, and can change the world. Stop playing everyone and be good. To much evil in this world. :)

  • T-Dizzle Dizzle

    You’re a nut. The word is perform, not preform.

  • Gina Riedel

    Glenn Beck; Please read, and understand, this short article and you will see why Clive Bundy is not grazing on Federal land. http://www.dailypaul.com/316860/why-the-nevada-vs-blm-land-ownership-issue-is-confusing

  • Gina Riedel

    It is a shame that Cliven Bundy is not more articulate in expressing his viewpoints. Most people think the federal government owns the land his cattle are grazing upon, and when asked he says no but does not have a clear explanation.

    I did a little digging and found out why he does not have a clear explanation: because it IS confusing! But here is the gist of the story.

    In 1787, the Constitution for the United States of America was written, and ratified in 1789, fully in 1791. Also in 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which detailed how new states would be formed within the Northwest Territory. In that document, the concept of “equal footing” was established. The basic idea is that any new state would have equal footing (rights, powers, authority, whatever) as the original 13 states had. They would be equal partners in the union of states.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp

    In 1845, there was a dispute over land between the United States government and the newly-formed State of Alabama (formed partly from land that Georgia ceded to the United States). The case went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollard vs. Hagar 44 US 212 (1845), where they decided that when a new state is formed, it must be on equal footing (the principle established in the Northwest Ordinance) and this meant that once a new state is formed from land that was a United States territory, all sovereignty turns over to the new state. Furthermore, the federal government cannot “retain” jurisdiction over land that was a federal territory and becomes a state.

    … if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted.

    Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding … and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.

    So, it was established that Congress could not “retain” property or jurisdiction within any new state, the same as it did not own property or have jurisdiction within the original 13 states, except for the express exceptions enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-4/22-doctrine-of-

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&…

    In 1864, Congress passed an act to allow the people of the Territory of Nevada to create a constitution and form the State of Nevada. They did this, but there was a catch.

    Remember, Lincoln was president and the war was going on. Congress (the Union, not the Confederacy) put in a clause that said that the people of Nevada must give up any rights to the land owned by the federal government within Nevada (which turned out to be over 90% of all land). But, it also said that such a condition was only valid until Congress waived it, in which case the federal government would no longer own that land.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

    But Congress never waived it. Not even to this day. No matter, it is irrelevant, since Congress does not have the constitutional authority to own ANY land outside of the District of Columbia, except for those properties specified in Article 1, Section 8 (military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.). Congress also has NO authority to make these sorts of conditions on a state to be admitted into the Union. Remember, Lincoln was president and he corrupted the Congress at that time. None of them were following the Constitution or any other laws at that time. He was acting as a dictator.

    This all happened during a war that saw all sorts of illegal behaviors by the federal government, and let’s also not forget that silver was discovered in Nevada in 1858. The federal government wanted the land to pay for war and other debts.

    Unfortunately, the state legislators of Nevada have had no backbone for more than 100 years. That land does not lawfully belong to the federal government. It never did.

    In 1979, the Nevada legislature passed something — it can’t really be called a law, but it’s not really a resolution, either — that details these facts, and claims that Nevada has a “moral claim” to the lands claimed by the feds. The people in the Nevada legislature at least documented the facts, and put it into their legal code, while at the same time showing they have no guts to uphold the Constitution they claim to support and defend.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321/n

    So, this is why Cliven Bundy says his cattle are not grazing on federal land. He’s right. They are grazing on state land, but the state legislature has no guts to enforce their rights against the federal government. The claims by the federal government apologists that Nevada gave up that land when it was admitted into the Union is false. Such a congressional condition is not valid and has no legal force or effect.

    Of course, that has not stopped the FEDERAL courts from siding with the FEDERAL government in the Bundy lawsuits. Yes, those federal courts have decided against Bundy, but they have done so in violation of the law.

    This is why it seems so confusing in the media. Because it is!

    So, what do we get from this. We get THREE major points which will be summed up at the end.

    1. The Constitution established as law that any federal territories CANNOT retain jurisdiction of a new state formed from their lands.

    United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollard vs. Hagar 44 US 212 (1845) “…decided that when a new state is formed, it must be on equal footing (the principle established in the Northwest Ordinance) and this meant that once a new state is formed from land that was a United States territory, all sovereignty turns over to the new state. Furthermore, the federal government cannot “retain” jurisdiction over land that was a federal territory and becomes a state.”

    2. Pollard vs. Hagar 22 US 212 (1845) “… and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

    Meaning that no “conditions, clauses, laws, addendums, etc” can be made, now or in the future, by Congress aka the Federal government that can diminish or enlarge these rights. This is the legal precedence being set by the Supreme Court in accordance with the fully ratified Constitution.

    3. In 1864, Congress passed an act to allow the people of the Territory of Nevada to create a constitution and form the State of Nevada. But, there was an ILLEGAL clause added: stating that the people of Nevada must give up any rights to the land owned by the federal government within Nevada (which turned out to be over 90% of all land). But, it also said that such a condition was only valid until Congress waived it, in which case the federal government would no longer own that land.

    But Congress never waived it. Not even to this day. No matter, it is irrelevant, since Congress does not have the constitutional authority to own ANY land outside of the District of Columbia, except for those properties specified in Article 1, Section 8 (military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.).

    Remember Pollard V Hagar? “… and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” Remember? This mean that the clause added to the Territory of Nevada in 1864 is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    *In summary, the Constitution established that all Federal territories that would become states would be entitled to the same “equal footing” that the original thirteen colonies had and that the Federal government would have no jurisdiction or ownership over/of these new states. Furthermore, Pollard V. Hagar set legal precedent via the Supreme Court that renders the added-on clause in the Territory Of Nevada act whereby the people of Nevada had to relinquish their Constitutional rights of statehood i.e. “equal footing” to be illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and not enforceable by law.*

  • Gina Riedel

    *In summary, the Constitution established that all Federal territories that would become states would be entitled to the same “equal footing” that the original thirteen colonies had and that the Federal government would have no jurisdiction or ownership over/of these new states. Furthermore, Pollard V. Hagar set legal precedent via the Supreme Court that renders the added-on clause in the Territory Of Nevada act whereby the people of Nevada had to relinquish their Constitutional rights of statehood i.e. “equal footing” to be illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and not enforceable by law.*

    http://www.dailypaul.com/316860/why-the-nevada-vs-blm-land-ownership-issue-is-confusing

  • Gina Riedel
  • Gina Riedel

    Why the Nevada vs. BLM Land Ownership Issue is Confusing

    Submitted by TommyPaine on Tue, 04/15/2014 – 00:43

    in

    Daily Paul Liberty Forum

    DP Original

    It is a shame that Cliven Bundy is not more articulate in expressing his viewpoints. Most people think the federal government owns the land his cattle are grazing upon, and when asked he says no but does not have a clear explanation.

    I did a little digging and found out why he does not have a clear explanation: because it IS confusing! But here is the gist of the story.

    In 1787, the Constitution for the United States of America was written, and ratified in 1789, fully in 1791. Also in 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which detailed how new states would be formed within the Northwest Territory. In that document, the concept of “equal footing” was established. The basic idea is that any new state would have equal footing (rights, powers, authority, whatever) as the original 13 states had. They would be equal partners in the union of states.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp

    In 1845, there was a dispute over land between the United States government and the newly-formed State of Alabama (formed partly from land that Georgia ceded to the United States). The case went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollard vs. Hagar 44 US 212 (1845), where they decided that when a new state is formed, it must be on equal footing (the principle established in the Northwest Ordinance) and this meant that once a new state is formed from land that was a United States territory, all sovereignty turns over to the new state. Furthermore, the federal government cannot “retain” jurisdiction over land that was a federal territory and becomes a state.

    … if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted.

    Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding … and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.

    So, it was established that Congress could not “retain” property or jurisdiction within any new state, the same as it did not own property or have jurisdiction within the original 13 states, except for the express exceptions enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-4/22-doctrine-of-

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&…

    In 1864, Congress passed an act to allow the people of the Territory of Nevada to create a constitution and form the State of Nevada. They did this, but there was a catch.

    Remember, Lincoln was president and the war was going on. Congress (the Union, not the Confederacy) put in a clause that said that the people of Nevada must give up any rights to the land owned by the federal government within Nevada (which turned out to be over 90% of all land). But, it also said that such a condition was only valid until Congress waived it, in which case the federal government would no longer own that land.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

    But Congress never waived it. Not even to this day. No matter, it is irrelevant, since Congress does not have the constitutional authority to own ANY land outside of the District of Columbia, except for those properties specified in Article 1, Section 8 (military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.). Congress also has NO authority to make these sorts of conditions on a state to be admitted into the Union. Remember, Lincoln was president and he corrupted the Congress at that time. None of them were following the Constitution or any other laws at that time. He was acting as a dictator.

    This all happened during a war that saw all sorts of illegal behaviors by the federal government, and let’s also not forget that silver was discovered in Nevada in 1858. The federal government wanted the land to pay for war and other debts.

    Unfortunately, the state legislators of Nevada have had no backbone for more than 100 years. That land does not lawfully belong to the federal government. It never did.

    In 1979, the Nevada legislature passed something — it can’t really be called a law, but it’s not really a resolution, either — that details these facts, and claims that Nevada has a “moral claim” to the lands claimed by the feds. The people in the Nevada legislature at least documented the facts, and put it into their legal code, while at the same time showing they have no guts to uphold the Constitution they claim to support and defend.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321/n

    So, this is why Cliven Bundy says his cattle are not grazing on federal land. He’s right. They are grazing on state land, but the state legislature has no guts to enforce their rights against the federal government. The claims by the federal government apologists that Nevada gave up that land when it was admitted into the Union is false. Such a congressional condition is not valid and has no legal force or effect.

    Of course, that has not stopped the FEDERAL courts from siding with the FEDERAL government in the Bundy lawsuits. Yes, those federal courts have decided against Bundy, but they have done so in violation of the law.

    This is why it seems so confusing in the media. Because it is!

    Similar Subjects (Sometimes)

  • Anonymous

    Our founders were completely against the Federal government owing vast tracks of land in any state. They knew if this happened the government could use that to hold states hostage. This is why they added “ten miles square” and also said that in order for the government to purchase that ten miles square they had to have the permission of the state. This is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. The Fed had no right to retain the land when they granted Nevada statehood. This was wrong then and it is wrong now.

  • Anonymous

    This was in a ruling handed down by the Supreme court. I think it clearly shows where the supreme court stood on the government owning vast tracks of land in any state.
    The Supreme Court states: The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes

  • Anonymous

    It is not your land. The land belongs to the state of Nevada. It became Nevada’s land when Nevada became a state just like, GA, NC, SC and so on.The Nevada statehood deal was illegal and the government did not have the authority under the Constitution to retain the land. If the land was a territory then yes it would be your land but it is not a territory it is a state just like any other state and thus it falls under the Constitution just like any other state.

  • Anonymous

    As far as I am concerned the Constitution is the last word. The Constitution does not give the government the right to retain large amounts of land in any state. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 clearly spells this out. The government can not give statehood and then cut a deal for the land to be signed back over to the government. Once it becomes a state then the land belongs to the state.

  • Anonymous

    Under the Constitution Nevada could not give it to the government and the government had no right to demand it. End of story.

  • Anonymous

    They read the Constitution and saddled up. :-)

  • Anonymous

    Are these the same drones that Obama used to kill an American citizen without due process of law?

  • Anonymous

    Your right they are not taking it. They have already taken it. They did that with the illegal process of retaining the land.

  • Anonymous

    It is not Federal land. You are missing the point.

  • JDubya

    Not debunked – the Chinese company backed out – and not too long ago. That the deal fell through is hardly debunking it. The plan was there all along, and still is, to take this land for solar power use, in all probability to line the pockets of the Reid family.

  • JDubya

    The problem is that rule of law is sometimes unto the eye of the beholder.

    The Feds want to make sure that they have control so they take it to Federal court. The Bundy’s claim that it is the State of Nevada and the County where he lives who have the right to the land. He claims that he paid fees to the Feds in exchange for work to the roads, etc, but the feds did not continue to hold up their end of the bargain, so he used the money for the fees to fix the roads, etc. Sounds reasonable but we know things don’t work that way. Then he decided to fight the fight for Nevada, which sat on its thumbs.

    Bundy was taken to a kangaroo court that would never find for him. The same as was done to others. Now when it is happening again, the scathing findings of other cases just seem to be forgotten. Why is there only one left – easy – the ranchers didn’t fight together – just as we refuse to fight together. We will end up all beholding to the Federal government.

    The Civil War was not about slavery, although the war ended slavery, it was about state’s rights. Only a few vestiges of such an animal (states’ rights) remain today. And along with those rights are going the rights of the people, unless, of course, you are a leftist.

    BTW, you will see some comments soon about Bundy’s reference to ‘Negros’ – this only shows how old he is and is another thing I have never understood. ‘Negro’ means ‘black’, so does ‘Schwarz’ and ‘Black’ – for the life of me, I cannot understand why negroid people want to be called ‘African American’ when most of them are Americans who happen to be darker in color than some others. I never have felt the need to consider the skin tone of someone in order to be friends with them or to make statements about what has happened to them. One thing certain, with all the monies spent on all kinds of poverty programs during my lifetime mostly at the insistence of the Democrat party, these folks still don’t have much more than they had before it all started. The solution is JOBs, not handouts.

  • Dez E.

    It has most definitely been debunked. Where is the land the Chinese was going to purchase? and when did they pull out?

  • Sam Harris

    It’s not nevada land actually it belonged to the shoshone from a treaty in 1863. He is full of it. The land originally belongs to the natives not bundy, not nevada and not the federal government!

  • Anonymous
  • travelingman

    amazing, simply amazing, that you hicks are still out there, I fear for the future of all our kids when I see idiots like this getting support by more idiots with guns, “planning on putting our women on the front line, so all those rouge agents can get caught on tv shooting them” holly crap are you people nuts, living in a wierd republican dream land. Have any of you people every left your trailer park??

  • Anonymous

    You’re correct if you’re referring to the first portion of the clause. The second half, “and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of
    the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the
    erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
    buildings” enumerates the rest of the fedgov powers of land ownership within any state.

  • fourtonmantis

    Nevada wants to obtain the moneypit, let them!

  • lacaliffa1288

    This is such political baloney! This deadbeat rancher does not own the land. Other ranchers who graze their cattle there all pay for the privilege of using land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Do you know why? Because it is NOT their land. Bundy simply doesn’t want to have to pay for using land that he doesn’t own. He wants a government handout for his cattle business because it means more money in his pocket while his competitors pay for using the land that the U.S. government manages. If he doesn’t pay, taxpayers do – other cattle ranchers do too. That’s you and me! Do you really think we should subsidize this freeloaders’ business?

  • William Carr

    Bundy is a nut, and Glenn Beck is actually in the right here.

    {did I just say that?}

    The United States of America purchased the land from Mexico.

    When the Territory of Nevada became the State of Nevada they ceded large areas of land to the Federal Government, the actual owner of record.

    Bundy tries to pretend this wasn’t legal, and that Nevada owns all public land in the State.

    So he shuffled down to the Country office and tried to pay grazing fees to the State, which of course refused the money.

    And he knew it would.

    I can buy stuff at the supermarket with my Credit card, but I can’t PAY my credit card bill at the supermarket.

    The State can accept money FROM the Federal Government but it can’t accept payments TO the Federal Government.

    So Bundy has made about $25 Million over the last twenty years, running cattle on BLM land and refusing to pay Reagan’s lawful grazing fees.

    The irony.

  • William Carr

    No, read the next paragraph where it says the Federal Government can own property Ceded by the States. The ten mile limit only applies to the District of Columbia.

  • William Carr

    Bundy Senior had a grazing permit, and paid his dues as set by Ronald Reagan.

    Bundy Junior paid the fees until Clinton was elected and then decided he wasn’t sending money to a Democrat.

  • William Carr

    Occupy was pacific. Imagine if they’d been carrying rifles when the NY cops decided to herd them into clutches and pepper spray them.

  • William Carr

    Er, no.

    The Federal Government is the landowner, and Bundy was leasing.

    Bundy makes the claim that the BLM didn’t maintain the assets. I’ve seen no proof of that.

    But even if he was telling the truth, no renter gains supremacy over the land owner because the landlord didn’t mow the grass.

    His recourse then would be to sue, which he did not.

    You ask “when did the BLM start carrying AR-15’s”.

    Since they attempted to move those cattle in 2012 and were driven off by men with rifles. The BLM withdrew in 2012 “out of concern for our employees”.

    Oh, you didn’t know that?

    And the local Sheriff has no authority on Federal land. On Federal land, the BLM are the cops.

    Bundy is a nutcase, who thinks he can defy the United States of America.

    If he’d read up on the Lincoln County War, he’d know better than to pull this crap.

  • William Carr

    You’re so confused.

    The United States of America purchased that entire region from Mexico.

    The Homestead Act was very specific about the amount of land you could claim; and it expired in 1976.

    Homesteading is no longer legal and hasn’t been since the Carter Administration.

    Bundy owns his 160 acre Melon Farm, and not one square inch more.

    Remember, he can graze cattle on his OWN land, or rent grazing land at up to $16.80 per month per cow/calf.

    He chose to freeload.

  • William Carr

    The ENN Solar Plant was abandoned last June, and it was planned for land just outside Laughlin.

    That’s 180 miles from Bunkerville.

    The infamous “document” you poor people have been talking about mentions Golden Butte as a “Mitigation Zone” for solar development.

    That means it’s a nature preserve and if they have to move any endangered species from the southern tip of Nevada they re-home them in Golden Butte; it doesn’t mean Golden Butte was slated for a Solar Farm.

    And no, technically, you’re not sane.

  • William Carr

    Bankrupt? He owns a Melon Farm ! By all accounts, they’re good melons.

    The cattle are a side business, and by my calculations he makes almost a million dollars a year because he gets free grazing.

    You’re misquoting, of course. The acceptable number of cattle for Bundy’s OWN land is 150.

    He can run more if he rents private grazing land.

    Bundy paid Reagan’s Grazing fees, and he paid to H.W. Bush, but when Clinton was elected he refused.

    Three years later that area was set aside for a wildlife preserve and all grazing permits were bought back and retired.

    Bundy trespasses every day of the year.

  • William Carr

    His family bought that farm in 1946. They only ran cattle on it since 1954.

    And since the United States of America bought the entire region from Mexico and Nevada Ceded a good deal of land to the Federal Government, the Federal Government holds Title.

    I think some of you people still believe land in the West is free for the taking… the Homestead Act expired in 1976.

    The US Constitution is against you, and the Nevada Constitution is against you.

    Why do you people think you can move the goalposts and declare victory?

  • William Carr

    They told him his own property could only support 150 head of cattle, you’re entirely confused.

    He could raise more if he rented grazing from private landowners.

  • Anonymous

    Sure, the United States “bought” the entire region from Mexico. Please tell me of the circumstances of that purchase?

    Was it a voluntary exchange between free people? Or was it part of a treaty signed at gunpoint? Was the war itself in violation of a previous treaty?

    Either you don’t know the history, or your just being dishonest.

    Does the Constitution not say that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”? The US Constitution is not, “against me”. We can go line by line if you want to be shown just how little you understand of what the Constitution actually means.

    Of course, Mexico’s own claim to the land is baseless, as was Spain’s before it.

    So saying that the US government holds “title” is meaningless. They stole the claim of people who themselves had no legitimate claim to the land.

    Homesteading is natural law, and existed before the “Homestead Act”, which in reality had very little to do with actual homesteading. I think you miss the entire point. Until you become literate in the terms, you’re going to keep flailing around blindly from the propaganda.

    I’m not the one moving the goalposts. You don’t even seem to know what the goalposts are.

  • Anonymous

    I love being called confused by someone so convinced by obvious propaganda. You don’t even know what these terms mean.

    The US “purchase” of the land was completely invalid. You don’t purchase things at gunpoint, as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo most certainly was. There are only three possibilities here, either you ignorant of the history, or your being dishonest about the circumstances, or you can’t tell the difference between a legitimate sale and extortion. Which is it?

    Homesteading as a concept of law existed before the Homestead Act, and has nothing to do with the Carter Administration. Homesteading is not a creation of the government, in the exact same way the freedom of speech does not come from the government.

    Bundy legitimately had a homesteaded claim to that land. He (and his family) mixed his labor with the land to make it productive. That’s homesteading. It’s not sticking a flag in an arbitrary square set up by government.

    He did not freeload. The government freeloads. Bundy raises cattle, and makes his money doing voluntary business with customers.

  • Anonymous

    Ken, you do realize that the rich getting richer does not make the poor poorer?

    Economics is not a zero-sum game.

  • Steven Lewis

    jon, you are right, they tax tax tax tax and will continue to do so until every last company is gone and the people have no more money. Their greed is killing this or whats left of, this country.They are like crack addicts, except we are the victims.

  • Duddioman

    No William, YOU are entirely confused. The federal gov’t granted grazing RIGHTS to the Bundy family in the 1870′s to entice them to ranch and graze on federal lands adjacent to their ranch. In the 1930′s the federal gov’t passed a grazing fees requirement which the Bundy’s paid through 1993. The family owns water RIGHTS – yes, on federal lands – to provide water for their cattle. In the 90′s the BLM arbitrarily decided that the Bundy ranch had to downsize and he’d have no say in the matter.

    If the IRS came to you and said you have to make only 15% of what you made last year, would agree, even if gov’t regulations said they had the right? You’d be a fool if you did.

    To tell him to make a new deal with private lands after 100+ years of improvements paid for by Bundy’s ranch and building a life and a business around the original deal with the gov’t is insulting. No negotiations, just mandates. Nice. Additionally, there are no private lands adjacent to Bundy that would support his cattle. How would you suppose he would transport his herd to these magical “private lands?”

  • Anonymous

    Or, y’know 102 years ago before there was an income tax, and the government was 1/20th the size it is today.

    When real wages were consistently rising.

    Prices were falling, and the productive capacity of the country was going up.

  • Anonymous

    Does any part of you think that this is a justification?

  • pyrodice

    The day walgreens fails, you’ll be glad to be an $8.50 employee, and not the $13.5 million guy, because the clerk gets to walk over to CVS and apply, but the CEO is out of work for the rest of his life (who hires a failure?) and probably on the hook for an astonishing amount of personal liability.

  • pyrodice

    It’s only funny until you try it, and it works.

  • pyrodice

    I can show you a time TODAY where the market is free, and government is hunting it down mercilessly… But failing.
    the Black Market.

  • Anonymous

    Right. Cause money just comes out of thin air.

  • Anonymous

    No, money is used for the exchange of goods and services.

    When I buy something from you, a pen, for example, we both benefit. I value the pen more than I value the money I am giving you for the pen. You think the money is more valuable to you than the pen. We both gain from the trade.

    You can focus on the money side of the equation, but money itself has no value aside from being a medium of exchange. Having a lot of money is great, but this is merely deferred consumption.

    The way a child views trade, yes, there is a winner and a loser, and since a child doesn’t grasp the idea of time, or of production, yes, it may look like economics is zero-sum.

    But you are not a child, are you? You can see that in voluntary exchanges, one can only get wealthy by serving the needs of consumers.

    Yes, the Fed does create money out of thin air – but that’s a separate topic.