Bungling Bundy
Through the past week we have witnessed events that should be viewed as our dead canary in the mine shaft. The bird who bit the dust was that not-quite-defensible old rancher out in Nevada, Cliven Bundy, who got chewed into a mess, not just by a demonstrably dishonest New York Times, but by a pack of media minds eagerly seeking to prove to the reigning media elites their politically correct bonafides:
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Glen Beck
Without questioning the accuracy or completeness of a quote attributed to Cliven Bundy, the rancher under assault by the Federal Bureau of Land Management, all three seized firmly in their powerful jaws the deviously doctored Milkbone the Times threw out to the slavering pack of worshipful media that considers the Times a Manhattan version of the Oracle at Delphi.
Despite an overwhelmingly negative response from their watchers, readers and commenters, which can be verified by any cursory examination of the comments sections on virtually every conservative website, all three of the above-cited adherents to the worship of Political Correctness, continue to defy their bases, the very Americans who have made them what they are.
Inexplicably they continue their clearly uninformed, hip-shooting, media assassinations of an old western rancher who doesn’t even begin to understand the eastern elitist kneejerk reactions to his admittedly fumbling attempts to express his beliefs about social issues that had nothing whatsoever to do with his mano-a-mano confrontation with an overreaching federal bureaucracy. We all know the old guy was set up by a conniving reporter from the Times, one Adam Nagourney and the issue of race was the Times Bomb selected to destroy a man defiant to over-reaching, overwhelming federal enforcement. Had the Times editorial board instead dispatched a mafia hit man to Nevada to silence the old rancher with a bullet to the brain, they could not have violated his humanity more.
Or so they so smugly thought. Surf the Internet and read the comments: they are running as a very strong tide against their supposed spokesmen, about 98 to 2, maybe even 99 to 1. I can’t recall any past event where these so-called conservative spokesmen were so out of touch with those who have made them who they are. Like so many of those Americans who feel we have been deserted by those we thought shared our beliefs, I am filled with a combination of anger, disappointment and contempt for those three men who chose to cowardly and ignorantly bow at the altar of political correctness when, were they genuine, they would have expectorated upon it.
From me, all three have lost a huge measure of trust; from how many millions of others, who knows?
Category: Politics
I think you are barking up the wrong tree in defense of this man. Not for reasons of any racism, real or not… but because he is an utter crackpot who surrounded himself with other crackpots, lying about lands his family never owned, that the state of Nevada never owned, that since Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe that land has been US Property.
Property that is allowed for by the US Constitution in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.
Cliven Bundy never had claim to that land, his family never even used that land despite his claims otherwise until 1954, and then did not go back to it until 1973. During those times they always paid the US Government to lease the land.
Bundy decided in 1993 it was no longer in his best interest (his own words), to lease from the US Government and came up with this idea that it was State land, County Land, his own land… all of which were shot down time and again in the US Court System.
This began in 1993,worked its way through the courts several times and not until just recently has the US Government sought to resort to enforce numerous court orders against Bundy.
You can try and say they “framed him” on the racism charge, but that I have some doubts on as well. I watched the darned video… the man is a serious crackpot.
You cannot argue that he has any Legal rights to be on that land. Well you could, but those arguments fly in the face of established US History and Law grounded in the US Constitution.
Concur. Well put.
Not only that, but he admitted to having said those exact words. *shrug*
I agree with rb325th. He knows he doesn’t have any rights to the land in question. The problem is he is still using it and don’t care what the courts or anyone says. How are you suppose to stop someone that was told over and over again by a US Court not to use the questioned land???
The force that was used was over the top, but Mr Bundy took this matter to court and lost and lost and lost. He is to STOP using this land…and still he is using it.
Agreed, Bundy is not a good case study at all. He’s basically a scofflaw with a racist twist. Not worth getting into a Waco style shootout with, but definitely a criminal who is ignoring the law to suit his purpose.
He’s not some poor backwater old man being betrayed by the government, he’s a calculating fraud using the media to attempt to justify the perpetration of a crime.
I have zero sympathy for this criminal, the same as I have for anyone who thinks the standing laws should be disobeyed and confronts the government with weapons instead of attempting to change the law through the legislature or the court system.
I also meant to point out that those three men are in the business of selling advertising. Just as Rush Limbaugh does, there is nothing wrong with it but they would be just as happy selling a liberal message if anyone could ratings with that crap.
These are not strong ideologues expressing a valid political viewpoint, they are salesmen who are damn good at their jobs. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t make them bad guys, but it certainly doesn’t make them heroes of the right either.
Well said. I sympathize with the Oath Keeper types who rushed to his side, and if I thought the violations of his rights were real, I’d probably be there toting my AR. But I think those guys are being used by a practiced huckster who should’ve STFU while he was ahead.
Bundy is wrong, and BLM was wrong and ham fisted. And ANYBODY that trusts a media hack is a fool.
^^ agreed.
Trying to back into the money Bundy owes. Grazing fee is $1.35 per head per month. Bundy has < 1000 cattle, which breaks out to 62-100 years of grazing. Guessing there were quite a few late fees, interest and other stuff added on. Instead of doing that, why not just expeditiously go after property judgments, liens, foreclosure and tax sales? Heck they took this house for $6.30: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615280/OK-sell-widows-home-6-bill-judge-rules.html
Poetrooper: Bundy is a crackpot, not a martyr and certainly not someone worth defending.
It wasn’t until recently that I understood the significance of the 1993 date (the time when Bundy suddenly refused to pay for his cattle lease, which he had been paying faithfully up to that time.) 1993, in the early months of the Clinton administration and following the debacle at Waco, was when the “soveriegn citizen” movement began. Basically some charlatans managed to convince a few gullible idiots that there was some kind of ‘secret Constitution’ and if the idiots simply uttered some magical words and phrases, they would be exempted from Federal law. It was (as I posted in another forum) a concept sort of akin to “legal alchemy”, this notion that if you simply made an utterance or a declaration that you were a “sovereign citizen” that all of a sudden you were accorded a pass froma whole bunch of laws.
It’s 100% cockamamie nonsense, of course, because law doesn’t work that way. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who managed to convince themselves that it does and Bundy was apparently one of them.
Put quite simply, Bundy has to be a nutjob because only nutjobs (and not terribly bright ones) believe the nonsense that he does.
I have a neighbor that is one of these types. Talk about a conspiracy nut to the extreme. This guy will only take Alex Jones and his Info Wars as his only trusted news source.
What I find really disturbing about these individuals is that they somehow believe that their “sovereign citizenship” somehow make them immune to any type of search by the authorities.
I have asked him repeatedly asked how his believed status will keep the proverbial “jack booted thugs” from breaking down his front door. He still has not given me a coherent answer to that question. This individual is the main reason why I disdain this group of wack jobs, no matter how much I may agree with some of their complaints.
Here was Montana’s contribution to the “sovereign citizen” crazies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_Township
Good catch. Never thunk’a dat.
I can trace my family roots back to when they lived on the land that now comprises of Yellowstone National Park. Does that mean I don’t have to pay when I go there to visit?
NO.
Plus I also made it all up, but the point is the same. Sorry Bundy, you get no support from me. Now if it was Al Bundy, my hero, that would be a whole ‘nuther story.
Funny how thousands of ranchers pay their grazing fees to the overreaching federal government without complaint. They must just be suckers, not law abiding citizens.
I don’t watch any of them, anymore.
What you guys said. The racism charges are questionable, but he’s definitely committing fraud. He says the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over him, but he took his case to federal court and fought it there for twenty straight years. Thousands of other ranchers in similar situations to him have followed the law and their leasing agreements and paid without complaint. This nimrod is just trying to get out of paying the money he owes on the land owned by the people. Take those cattle off OUR land, and if he starts an uprising, stomp a mud hole in his ass.
This is why the Nevada Cattlemen are sitting on their hands. Bundy put their membership at an unfair disadvantage by not paying the grazing fees they all pay, thereby either being able to sell his cattle cheaper and/or unfairly fatten his profits.
A comparable analogy for those used to living in a city:
Suppose you buy a condo in a swanky part of town that does not include parking. But that is OK because there is lots of parking in the nieghborhood.
10 years later the city decides it can make money on parking meters. You start paying for what used to be free. But that is OK, you can afford it.
10 years later another megabuilding is put up and the parking rates triple. But you are already paying, so you live with it.
10 years later the city decides to change all the parking spaces into extra road lanes.
What do you do? Go ahead and sell the condo you have been living in for 30 years? Get rid of your car that you still need to earn a living? What sort of crazy ideas might you come up with to try and keep things going for a few more years?
Not that there is a correct answer, just something to think about. Especially as I left out a lot of facts that would push the scenario one way or another.
Not that I like the Bundys. But my thoughts run more to letting keep their life for the next few years until they give up ranching due to age, etc. I worry why so many think this has to happen NOW.
Sorry, but that’s a completely bogus analogy.
Here’s a better one: You rent a condo in town, and enter into a written lease agreement with the landlord.
After paying rent faithfully and uncomplainingly for years, you hear a radio talk show host explain that the landlord doesn’t really own the land based on the talk show hosts own interpretation of history (which is largely based on wishful thinking.) So you simply stop paying the landlord. Landlord takes you to court, wins a judgment against you, not once but multiple times.
After serving you multiple times, the exasperated landlord finally gets the sheriff to try and evict you by force, at which time you call a bunch of your idiot buddies to surround the place heavily armed, and threatening a bloodbath if the sheriff tries to evict.
So the sheriff, thinking that it’s not worth the lives of his deputies, as well as the lives of the misguided fools surrounding your property, backs down.
How long before the other residents in the area realize that they don’t have to pay rent, they can just threaten to start a war and the sheriff will back down?
I see great minds think reasonably similarly. (smile)
Poor analogy, JAGQueen. There was never a guarantee of free parking in the future – either expressed or implied.
A better analogy would be a rented space in a city-owned parking garage when one ceases to pay the rent, using the justification that the city doesn’t really own the land on which the parking garage is built and thus can’t charge rents – and, besides, I want to park free anyway like I once did years ago.
The future doesn’t come with a “no changes” guarantee. And unless you own something, you have no right to believe you’ll be allowed to use it in perpetuity.
However, thousands of ranchers have had to deal with the same rule changes and have simply paid the fees. Bundy is just being unreasonable. There are scenarios in which this sort of thing could be a legitimate concern, but he’s been in court for twenty years, lost epically four times, and now owes 1mil+. His shenanigans are costing taxpayers large amounts of money in court costs, and he’s basically a squatter. It should happen now. This game has gone on long enough.
Perhaps in your example for the “city” folks the more appropriate example is that when the city puts up the meters you just decide not to pay, and then you ignore the parking tickets for unpaid meter violations and then when the tow truck driver pulls up to impound your car you and several of the residents in your neighborhood stand next to your car with firearms…..
That’s probably a little closer to what’s happening with a gentleman who has refused to pay grazing fees for over twenty years and now wants an armed confrontation to resolve his dispute.
If his case had any legal validity it would have been decided in his favor.
When you are a criminal the law gets to you when it gets to you, not when it’s convenient to “keeping your criminal livelihood a little longer”….
That’s just my opinion, YMMV.
Geez I better learn to stop trying to work and blog at the same time, talk about being late to the response to post party…
Tell me about it. I’m posting this in the middle of World History AP class.
I’m a Bundy supporter, not because I think he has a leg to stand on, but because I’m one step left of an anarchist. I don’t like the federal government having any say in anything beyond national defense and interstate disputes. I hope he stays strong against the feds and let the rest of the country see what the massive expansion of the federal government brings. He has no right to the land, but neither should the feds. For them to show up, kill his bulls, trash the land they are supposedly trying to preserve, and do so at gun point only goes to show that everyone should stand behind him. We can not let the feds do this to anyone. If we allow Bundy to be treated this way, who next? If the feds wanted him off the land, they should have done it through the court system, as they decided when the thug style repo didn’t work.
In other news, the feds sold a woman’s 280K house for a 6.30 past due tax balance. Way to treat a widow feds, another reason I don’t trust or like the government
Smitty, the feds had nothing to do with that widow’s predicament. It was done in a local Pennsylvania court, over a county tax bill:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/29/judge-oks-decision-to-sell-widow-home-over-630-debt/?intcmp=latestnews
No, it wasn’t the feds–but it was government. And that’s enough.
I disagree. In the same way that we don’t advocate collective punishment for individual crimes, we can’t hold the dickery of one government agency against another that had nothing to do with it.
Smitty’s post is a great example of what you get when people obtain their “news” from talk radio or the histrionic right- and left-wing blogs.
You mean like outlandish property taxes that force folks from their family homes after decades? Or the social security sham foisted on us? Or the fees and myriad taxes for this, that and the other thing that just keep increasing? This guy, Bundy, represents much more to many people than the grazing land. It is, in part, about Big Government beating the crap out of people in our name.
I’m in agreement that there’s a ton of problems and overreaches by the federal government, but the fact that the federal government is in the wrong in other areas does not affect the question of the morality of Bundy’s cause. He’s refused to pay rent on land he uses but doesn’t own, hiding behind a spurious legal argument that the Feds don’t really own the land. He claims the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over him while at the same time de facto acknowledging they do by taking his case to federal court. He’s a squatter. JMHO, I for once agree with Reid; evict these tiresome clowns.
Here in Kansas The “Lesser Prairie Chicken” is our Desert Tortoise. It is being used to determine how we use the land we own. If you can’t produce income from the land it is hard to pay the property taxes. You loose.
I’m in favor of sending in the full force of the federal government to evict Bundy and all of his followers. The shatterpoint for me was when he called in his heavily armed friends to face off against the federal government. His cause has no legal merit as shown by the fact that he’s lost in court four different times. He should have taken his medicine like a man. Instead, he’s decided to launch a rebellion of sorts. This is not acceptable for the same reason it’s not acceptable to negotiate with terrorists. If we let him get away with this, you can bet there’s other wackos who will take note and try the same sort of thing. We cannot tolerate people subverting the lawful, constitutional decisions of the civil government with armed force. We didn’t during the Whiskey Rebellion, we didn’t during the civil war, we didn’t during the Little Rock school system desegregation, and we sure as shit shouldn’t now. Send in the SWAT teams and evict this crackpot and his entire clown car of fools.
Seems like Bundy’s “Patriot Army” is no slouch in the acting-like-thugs department either:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25371465/concerns-growing-about-militia-members-at-bundy-ranch
“According to Horsford, his constituents say the militia have set up checkpoints where residents must prove they live in the area before they are allowed to pass and have set up a “persistent presence” along federal highways, and state and county roads. They also claim some have established an armed presence in the community.
Horsford told the sheriff that the militia are making people feel unsafe.
Armed people from across the country arrived in Bunkerville weeks ago to support Bundy in his fight with the Bureau of Land Management over cattle the agency says are illegally grazing on federally managed lands. “
Ok, that’s it. If they’re interfering with interstate transit and keeping people out of areas for absolutely no reason (What the hell does whether a civilian lives in an area near the house of Bundy have to do with his dispute with the Feds anyway?), then the federal government MUST intervene. No mob rule for me, thank you very much.
“According to Horsford, his constituents say the militia have set up checkpoints where residents must prove they live in the area before they are allowed to pass”
Wrong answer nutjobs militia dudes. I don’t need to show you papers to pass on a public road.
If you use public land you pay a fee for its use, to help maintain it. When I visited the battlefield parks back east I paid admission. This guy is grazing hundreds of cattle on our land, making a profit, and not paying a penny for its use.
Issue a warrant for his arrest, and when he comes into town cuff him.
Seems like sentiment around the TAH neighborhood is running roughly 98 to 2 against Bundy. I do think he’s the victim of some media spin that makes him sound more racist than he is. But on the original land-use dispute? Count me in the 98. He’s wrong, period.
I am stepping back and looking at the big picture. What Bundy is trying to point out is not that he should be paying rent for the land but that the feds came in and literally took 82% of the state of Nevada and all the mineral rights with it. This puts that land out of reach for mining, oil, living space, recreational uses and any other reason that private citizens may have in mind on land that really does belong to the State of Nevada and the citizens of that state. Add to that Harry Reid’s son has gotten some sort of solar energy scheme in mind for the land. The windmills in Wisconsin have changed the Canada Goose migration routes there. They no longer go to the Horicon Marsh because too many die from the blades of the turbines. This is the same thing that they are doing in numerous western states, Utah, MT, WY and others. By putting this land under federal control removes it from any private or state use. Then, they lay this land for the Desert Tortoise and say that nothing but them can live on the land according to them. That is the same thing the EPA is doing on any land in many states that have a mud puddle on them, they call that land a waterway and restrict it from any kind of use. I am dismayed at my TAH brethren here that have ignored the Tenth Amendment and the takings clauses in the Federalist papers that Bundy is trying to get peoples attention for. You talk about heavily armed people in the militia ??? Did you see the specops rangers that were in that group of BLM rangers ??? What in the hell are they doing with M-4’s, M-16’s, MRAPs. They had everything there except a few M-1 Abram’s tanks… We have to stop arguing about the points of contention regarding Bundy, the important premise here is the taking of land from all of us. This kind of circular firing squad will negate any gains we could possibly hope to… Read more »
I don’t like paramilitary law enforcement either, but I’m taking a second glance at this one. Based on the way events turned out, I’m guessing Bundy had threatened before to raise a militia to force out the Feds. Given the amount of militia groups that there are in that part of the country, too, the so-called “American Redoubt”, it’s probable they were making noises about throwing their support behind Bundy if the Feds tried to evict him. They came prepared for a standoff-and that was exactly what happened. The speed with which the militiamen managed to get this off and get organized says to me that they had been preparing to do this for a while. Using a SWAT team to take out an old lady’s poker game is one thing. Being prepared for anything when dealing with a sensitive legal issue that a whole lot of crackpots with guns have got their panties in a twist over is another thing entirely.
Thunderstixx you might try getting your news from someplace other than the crackpot rightwing web.
The Feds never “took” anything from Nevada. The Feds (as in, the United States of America) owned that land before the state of Nevada was a gleam in anybody’s eye (If you want to be pedantic, they “took” it from the Mexicans by beating their ass in a war.) When Nevada became a state they specifically disclaimed any right to non-occupied lands.
You are also 100% factually wrong about the use of the land. Land owned by the Feds and managed by the BLM is generally OPEN to mineral location, ranching, and recreation. Yes, there are rules and in some cases there are fees but understand this: “Giving” the land to the state of Nevada (which, BTW, does NOT want it) would not “open” the land, it would CLOSE it to use.
In summary: Bundy is a sleazeball and his idiot “militia” defenders are dupes. This isn’t colonial Massachussetts. We have a representative government. Don’t like the law? Work to change it, don’t ignore the law and then get butt hurt when the lawful authority comes to enforce it.
So here is yet another federal BLM land grab happening now on the Texas Oklahoma border. How can anyone justify the taking of land away from people ???
I watched a Mike McQuire on ABC 13 say that the BLM will not allow people to purchase this land back even though they have been paying taxes on it since the 1880’s…
This is the real message of the Bundy fight…
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3509722884001/texas-ranchers-fight-back-against-blm/#sp=show-clips
Whew! I usually have nothing but respect for posters on this site, but some of you guys have just lost it in my book.
I’m not going to spoon feed those of you who are so set in your oblivious opinions, but I will give you some clues for your research.
First of all, look up all the cases over the past few years where the BLM has forced ranchers off grazing land.
Then, dig up the web page that the BLM quickly removed from their website because it talked way too much about their “green” energy plans for the 80% of the West that they “own.” Though the Fed had Google purge it from their cache, it has been saved in quite a few places.
When you finish that, ponder this. The BLM was still going on about the tortoise, all at the whim of environmentalists who are sworn to destroy ranching and grazing on all public lands. They tried this and failed in Arizona because of an 18 year study that showed cattle grazing had no negative impact on the tortoise. Yet the BLM persisted in Nevada, “protecting” a tortoise that they themselves were destroying by the hundreds.
Mr. Bundy didn’t stop paying grazing fees. The BLM shut him out completely on false pretenses.
So, those of you who are so entrenched in obeying “the law,” just remember that everything Hitler did was “legal.”
Bundyville a complex issue that far too many people disregard because they are hypnotized by mass media soundbites.
Tell me this though. If, in the next few years, the 2nd amendment is stricken or rewritten to abolish your ownership of firearms, are you going to obey that “law?”
Keep reading folks. The answer is out there.
Mr. Bundy is grazing cattle on public land. Mr. Bundy does not own the land. Mr. Bundy has cheerfully admitted he has not paid the owners of the land for the privilege of its usage in twenty years. Mr. Bundy has lost repeatedly in the courts, the proper venue for his dispute. Mr. Bundy has no right to the land he uses, having never owned it at any point and having not paid his rent. Mr. Bundy has wrestled up a gang of armed fatass-basement-dwellers with Walmart weapons, many of them convicted criminals. Mr. Bundy’s followers are setting up checkpoints on public roads, interfering with interstate commerce by menacing state and federal highways, and are preventing a court order from being served with the threat of force of arms. Mr. Bundy and his loons have no right to do this. Mr. Bundy is a piece of shit. Mr. Bundy should have his guts stomped out by the full might of the federal government if he attempts to resist further. That is all.
By the way, what exactly does the Desert Tortoise have to do with any of this? This is a straightforward dispute over a lazy deadbeat refusing to pay for the land he uses. Where does an endangered reptile fit into that picture?
First side to use a Nazi analogy loses the debate, especially when talking about the US Government. The Federal government routinely pisses me off, but having many relatives who fought the Nazis the comparison is disingenuous at best and offensively distasteful to the nation that made beating those Nazi bastards a reality.
I don’t trust any media source to be accurate anymore, but I do tend to trust the court system especially when someone has tried and failed at least 4 times to plead their case in open court as Bundy did.
You might have a case regarding some BLM issues, but Bundy is the wrong point man for the job.
Racist turds who refuse to pay their fees and lose four court cases trying to prove their point are hardly the guys you want to represent sensitive legal issues.
Bottom line is whose land is it? The government’s. Can they kick you off of their land if they want? Yep. Grazing fees, turtles, whatever. What makes him any different than the squatter in Florida? Nuttin. When the owner says go away, one should go away.
Mr. Bundy didn’t stop paying grazing fees.
Bundy has said that he has not paid the grazing fees both in public statements and in court proceedings.
Only having cursory knowledge of this and having decided that Bundy was a horse’s ass with dubious allies, I ran into a teabag I know (about 65 and the bag part of the description is apt – sorry) who regaled me for longer than I could enjoy about why this was the crucial issue of our time, she would happily die to support him, etc. Knowing what an over-the-horizon flake she is, I’m just gonna paint ’em all with the same loonie-tune brush. That’s my superficial judgement. Suck it up, Bundy. Whether he is a racist or just inarticulate on racial issues is not a concern to me.
You know what gets to me? Yeah, a million things, but what I have in mind right now is the racist tag that is used like a hammer to bludgeon people. Think correctly. Speak correctly. Or else. Well, I can’t buy it, not when it has everyone afraid to say something if, per chance, that something could be construed to be bigoted or racist. I recall using the term Oriental in describing someone a few years ago and the person I used that term with stopped cold, telling me that the term to use is Asian. I didn’t and I don’t. That makes me a bad person. Tough shit.
Yep. Ran into that one about 15 years or so ago. Evidently the public schools had already been teaching the youngsters that anyone who used the word “Oriental” was a racist. After a bit of confusion, there may have been some learning about anthropology generally and the correct use of scientific terms more specifically.
It’s all part of that dumbing down thing they have been doing. Several generations of teachers and administrators later, there are few left who understand things like critical thinking. It’s all feelings and opinion now which inevitably seems to lead to name calling and disdain.
It doesn’t matter what term you use. If someone is looking to brand you a racist, they will manage it. If it’s not the term you used, it’s the way you said it, or the context you frame it in. You’re screwed either way.
are you OK with gringo, honkey or the ‘n-word’? If Oriental hits some of them like that, probably better to use Asian (which is more correct anyway.) I work with tons of Asians, I figure why gratuitously insult ’em – they don’t gratuitously insult me.
Mr. Bundy has his challenges, as all humans do. That being said there are a couple points in this discussion that have been overlooked.
1. In order to pay grazing fees Bundy had to sign the BLM reduced cattle density agreement, the neighboring ranchers did. He declined and the other ranchers are no longer in business.
2. The tortoise in question are ones that will be relocated from the solar enterprise to be built down the road. Ergo the Senator Reid tie back everyone is poo pooing now.
Background on the grazing fees.
http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/04/13/why-cliven-bundy-is-not-wrong-from-a-fellow-rancher/
And the Reid tie back continues.
Follow the money.
“It tells a story of a man, Cliven Bundy, seemingly in the way of some lucrative business deals.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/05/reid-bunkerville-llc-exposed-is-this-why-bundy-ranch-was-targeted-2618310.html
Even the Canadian press has found some interesting conflict of interests.
“It’s about prime real estate, and Bundy’s cows were grazing on land that the City of Mesquite has had its eye on for years for annexation to be used to “meet future demands for its citizens and a rapidly growing tourism industry.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62749