It remarkable how quickly people seem to distance themselves from this man. Sure, he said something stupid and may have proven himself to be a bigot. But does that really change what the government tried to do? Does him being labeled a bigot make what they government has done and plans to do in the future okay? I think we are so desperate for heroes that we forget that no one is perfect. When we are shown the imperfection we run for the hills, abandoning the cause we rallied behind.

He was asked a question. Having lived in the south west, and worked with men like Bundy, I can tell you that they don't dodge answering a question, they give you short answers in as blunt a language as they can and if there's confusion, they'll deal with it in as short a path as possible. I know that a NY Times reporter would have a field day with such men. I haven't read the entire statement he made and I doubt that the NYT published it. The important thing to take from him is that he's not a very complex person and has a limited education and zero nuance with dealing with the press. He should have never agreed to talk to these people, but I can tell you this, he is used to dealing with people who have honesty as their most important character trait. Apart from government critters, they expect ALL men to deal with each other forthrightly. That's the way these cattlemen are, if one of them gives you his word on something, they would lose their home before breaking that promise. How do you suppose a reporter would measure up to that sort of standard?

If Cliven was givena do<over, I don't think he would lawyer~up..I think that by sensitive liberal standards, he missed the PC bar.. I don't think he is a racist, but as others have said, that's not the issue. So, they finally get to distract with the race card. I'm not buying it.

Would suggest THE BLM, IRS, and the rest of the gang surround the White House, Congress and the IRS and harass, and publicly embarrass, and threaten to arrest all the delinquent tax payers in those venues. My 2 cents.

Not only can the government not have a "right" in property ownership, the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to control land at all beyond very narrow limits such as for post offices, military forts, etc.

They already do.
They are not honest brokers.
It is time to ice them out.

Nevada became a state in 1864. "The Nevada Statehood Act gave the federal government most of the new state’s land, for the purpose of selling this land to help pay the Union’s Civil War debts. These sales never took place."
http://www.npri.org/docLib/20071126_The_...

Maphesdus: "I have a question: who owns the land that Cliven Bundy was grazing his cows on? ... This is a serious question. I honestly don't know. Depending on the news source, the answer seems to change.":

The Federal government controls over 85% of the land of Nevada, including most of the land used for grazing by the Bundy ranch. His buildings and a small part of the land are privately owned. There are also grazing and water rights owned on the range, but the ranchers are not allowed to own the land in fee title.

The reason for this is that the original Homestead Act limited the amount of previously unowned land that the settlers could claim to 160 acres, and that acreage is far too small in the more arid parts of the west to support cattle ranching. This was never corrected because the late 1800s was the beginning of the Progressive era when Federal policy was reversed to prevent private ownership by settlers on the unowned land in the west wherever possible, aiming instead for a permanent Federal kingdom of land socialism. Ranchers were, however, able to retain rights to water and renewable grazing rights under a complex system of 'special use permits' and fees.

Beginning around the late 1980s the viro pressure group lobby, such as the Sierra Club (no they are not a hiking club), began a campaign to drive the American cowboy off the range for viro preservationism, exploiting driving up the fees to unaffordable levels as well as the power of the Endangered Species Act. This is what happened to Bundy and other nearby ranchers 20 years ago when the viro activist Bruce Babbit, appointed Secretary of the Interior under the Clinton-Gore administration, led the attack on the ranchers from inside the government. The land around the Bundy ranch was designated for "conservation", exploiting a turtle under the Endangered Species Act as the surrogate.

Bundy is the last rancher left in that region of Nevada, having refused to leave. The turtle is no longer "endangered", if it ever was, but the viros refuse to give up the power over the land they demand be preserved. The recent attack on Bundy was precipitated by the Center for Biological Diversity threatening to sue their viro activist friends entrenched inside BLM, giving them an excuse to go after Bundy.

The next time you hear some viro complain that ranchers are being "subsidized" by the "public" by using Federal land remember that the ranchers built and maintain their ranches, including development of access and networks of water ditches, but have been prevented from claiming and owning the previously unowned land they use because of the Federal denial of property rights on principle.

For a good history see Wayne Hage, Storm Over Rangelands, 3rd ed.

Cliven, Cliven, Cliven, why did you have to open your mouth and step in it? What on earth did these comments have to do with the government over-reaction? If he meant to question whether some blacks have been sold a bill of goods by the government and exchanged slavery for servitude of a different kind on the public dole, then he may have a small point. Today those on the dole do not have to pick cotton for the master, but the price for their subsistence is support and votes for the nanny state. All of this is irrelevant though and does not exonerate the federal government for its actions. It will, of course, be used to discredit and distract from the main issue. Ignorant, in-artful comments from Cliven will be used to make much hay.
Three cheers for Kira!

. . . unless they have a basic understanding of how to explain the value and importance of freedom to the average citizen.

If everyone in the Liberty movement stops speaking to the press, those in the anti-Liberty movement will be delighted to have the discussion all to themselves.

She is my new hero!! And she's right - only a liberal would try to use the race card to shoot the property rights issue in the foot... Well, they, and of course, the media for which they stand...

Is it that the rents are so high-or is it the restrictions placed on how many head of cattle are allowed on the land? Maybe both. I read that most ranchers were driven out because they limited the herds. The ranchers couldn't make it then. The grazing rights are very important in this case. In the Hage case, although he never agreed to relinquish his grazing rights for BLM to manage the land. In Bundy's case, he did agree to relinquish his rights. Where I disagree with the judge in Bundy's case (the exact same reasons in Hage's case) the BLM took the fees but placed so many restrictions on the rancher he wasn't getting his end of the deal. Therefore the rights should have reverted back due to non-performance. The BLM took many intimidating actions over the last two decades-as their goal was to get Bundy to sell off his ranch and leave. In fact, the federal govt probably looked to buy his ranch if he would sell. As the judge in the Hage case said-"Unconsionable"action by the agency

I wonder what led up to him even going there? I'm sure it was gov over reach interfering with making a living or the like, but why go THERE? Either way..it's not relevant to the issue at hand.

+1

The New York Times didn't interview him. Apparently someone sent them the video and they exploited it to play the usual progressive "race card", downplaying that Bundy was talking about how in his own observation blacks he has seen in Las Vegas are probably worse off under government dependence, but emphatically said we should never go back to the earlier conditions (of slavery or segregation).

In the language of the progressives, in which they corrupt the meaning of concepts as they try to emotionally manipulate people while not daring to explicitly state, in words that people understand, what they are after, the rejection of the progressive welfare state is called "racism". The mantra of the left in this country has gratuitously called the political enemies "racist" at least since the late 1960s. The violent SDS on college campuses used to do that routinely and repetitively, and the slogans never stopped.

When Bundy used the the once common word "negro" as a synonym for "black", but no longer "politically correct", it was low-hanging fruit to the knee jerk progressives, and a convenient ad hominem and diversion from the problem of the public recognizing that Federal agents are forcing ranchers off the range on behalf of the viros. That they don't want publicly discussed.

Brilliant point, Euda... Add to that, he's not a cosmopolitan NYC or LA big city politically-correct-or-die jets setter exec... he's a Racnher, for gods sake... and I suspect his entire circle of associates you could count on both hands and feet and have toes left over. Ever been to some of these Nevada Ranches? Ever met the people there? My guess is (from some friends who ARE Nevada Ranchers) Cliven could care less what people think about him, or if he's the most vilified person in Greater San Francisco... He's out there, raising cattle, doing his job, and likely trying to lead a quiet live and keep to himself. That is, until the Cosmopolitan Metropolitan Big-City types in DC (and those who claim to be from his home state, even they are no more Nevadan than Obama himself) decided to screw over the little guy ekeing out the living his grandparents and before did on their land.

If you look at it from the viewpoint of most young kids and cosmo Cityfolk, then sure - he oughtta pay up the govt. If you look at it from his point - The gov stole his family's land, so why should he have to pay the thieves tribute to use his own land they stole from his family?

It'd be like the gov looking at Ford, and saying "Oops, all auto industry is now Nationalized, so you no longer own your family company, all your stockholders are SOL, and if you want to keep building our cars (which will be based on Chinese-produced Ladas) you have to pay us for what used to be ours. IIRC that's customary practice in such garden spots as the People's Republics. Steal the means of production, and charge the workers to work it, and give them what the gov decides they need to survive. And you live with 4 other families in a 5 story walk up "Kruschev flat"? Well, that's all you need to survive, comrade...

It is looterism, plain and simple. And this man, who uses archaic language and is man enough to have his opinions, rather than those society says he must have, has said "Enough. You cannot keep robbing money from me for land you stole from me." And his opinions, and private views, are none of anyone's damned business.

I don't think Bundy claims to be the most articulate orator, he's a Mormon cattle rancher that had 14 kids, worked his entire life to support and raise his kids, teaching them the value of work and pride in individual accomplishment.

I've watched the entire discussion, and I have no idea why he went off on that tangent, but he did and much of what he had to say and his intent was not racist and was correct. Government bureaucracy has ensnared and trapped a part of our population into a slavery of the mind and spirit through the programs and systems they've used as bait. So many of that group have become victims and slaves of a life style that robs them of dignity, self worth, and motivation. There is no 'help' given to people in that life and circumstance, only nothing of value and many, many problems for themselves and society.

And I don't care if he is a racist - his story and the events in Nevada have absolutely nothing to do with racism. It has to do with an out of control government showing up on and around his property and family with 200 some federal agents with assault rifles and sniper teams over a civil issue that damn near lead to a lot of bloodshed.

Point for Dirty Harry... and for understanding just how borked up what Bundy is going through. It's as if the government is saying "I don't care if it is your land, you've had it long enough so now it's mine"...

Want my somewhat jaded opinion? Discounting the whole congressional landgrab issue, it's a BLM region pissing match. BLM Winnemucca has this huge cash cow called Burning Man they permit every year. What does the LV office have? Sagebrush desert. They want a big cash cow as well. To them, making massive solar farms is just the ticket they get energy subsidies, rent and kickback from the solar operators, and kudos for keeping the hard working industries of the People's Republic of China (our dotgovs newest ideologically-similar Bestest friend and master) fed with what little remaining of our national wealth they can loot from we the people...

You would not believe the one-upsmanship the various departments in the dotgov play... it's flipping disgusting, and it's all done because they have a free hand in your pocketbook to play games with, and the support of the congresscritters that play the same power-monger games...

Because "rights" (including property rights) belong to ( are owned) by individuals. Government doesn't have "rights"...therefore it cannot own property under the Constitution.

I agree too. This man is a rancher, not a political figure who has been trained to speak and avoid the mines. I'm not convinced he is a racist, although he certainly did put his foot in a cowpie with this statement. I suspect that changing a few words and the order they were offered and very few would find offense in his words.

Ownership is control. The fed gov is supposed to be controlled by the people. If the fed gov is the land lord it can control who can access the land, how the land can be used, and who can use it. As you can see by this, Mr. Bundy IS being abused by the fed in every point. In fact, were a posterboy needed to portray just why the fed should NOT own land, Mr. Bundy would be that model.

Remember that purpose of our government is at it's most fundamental level is to protect the people from outside forces as they pursue their individual goals. To insure that their basic civil rights are protected as outlined in the bill of rights. And to insure that interstate commerce can flow without interference.

In essence, to allow the people to be free of governmental influence while keeping them safe from outside forces. To make the path for production open and to insure producers can produce.

You might notice that the current federal government is failing in all these points. This is also the reason for my distaste of the current administration. Our current professor of constitutional law seems to have never read it.

Bravo

Bad choice of words. Point is the people he saw were doing nothing and seemed to not have a trade or skill to aid in being productive. And on the dole instead. Chosen slavery.

Officially the land is under the control of the BLM, but the fact that the land has been used for grazing Bundays family cattle since 1877 - I believe, long before Nevada was a state - there IS some claim to the land by Bundy. When the state was accepted into the union the federal gov demanded that the state surrender ownership to large tracts of land without reimbursement to the ranchers that owned the land. This has been a source of contention for well over a century and a half. There is no constitutional position that allows the fed gov to own land that only has a commercial value. The founding fathers never intended the gov to be a slum lord, yet that is exactly what it has become with the BLM and grazing leases.

This land is not good for much at all. Cattle can survive by grazing large tracts in way that would not be possible in a eastern ranch. In the east a cow might graze on 5 acres of land and grow very fat and happy. A western cow might graze on 100 acres to achieve the same growth rates. This is due to the poor growth of plant life in this high desert. Ranchers need to have access to thousands of acres to raise a herd and there are few breeds of cattle that will survive in that climate.

So you have a fed gov through the BLM that has acquired these huge tracts of land that the ranchers need, that are not any good for growing traditional farms or ranches, and then the BLM has set grazing rents so high that most ranchers have been driven out of business. The plan that the BLM has for the land can be best summed up as being a complete zero. There is no plan. Except for Harry Reids plan to cover some of it with solar cells and generate green energy. This is only "viable" with huge subsidies from tax dollars - or todays borrowed dollars from China.

I don't know about you, but to me if the Senate leader has anything to do with a business that's competing for the use of some of this land and at the same time is labeling people who support the rancher as domestic terrorists, I think the real domestic terrorist may be Dirty Harry.