[WND] A writer for The Atlantic has faulted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is in mutiny against the federal government, for his interpretation of states' rights. No wonder. The progressive magazine's scribe views states' rights much as the Beltway-based lite libertarian would -- he thinks that the division of powers between state governments and the federal government has left the states in charge of pot, poker and porn. The proper expression of "genuine states' rights," opines the Atlantic, is passing "permissive laws on divorce, gambling and prostitution," "abortion and same-sex marriage."
I guess cleaving to a somewhat frivolous notion of states' rights is better than framing a conflict that has roiled the country as no more than a local skirmish. The last bit of casuistry belongs to the Washington Post.
Farmer Bundy is no lifestyle libertarian; he's a hardcore libertarian -- a libertarian who rejects federal authority over state land and does not recognize the federal government. Bundy faced down the goons from the federal Bureau of Land Management. They had come to steal his livestock, in lieu of back taxes the BLM claims the rancher owes it since 1993, which was when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees.
The Bundys of Bunkerville, Nevada, had homesteaded the disputed land, southwest of Mesquite, in 1877. Bundy's forefathers had lived off the land well before the Bureau of Land Grabs came into being. The feds subsequently passed laws usurping Bundy's natural right to graze his cattle. The elderly rancher offered the following rejoinder: "'I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have pre-emptive rights, among them the right to forage." She quotes John Locke. Intelligent, thoughtful and well done. Perhaps Mercer has ended tireless Bush whacking. But who better to understand a rogue regime's diefstal [theft] van die land.
#1
The Left will continue to slander Bundy. They had the news media completely derailed today over Bundy's slave comments. Now they are all talking of him being a bigot and not about the over reaching of the fed and the excessive force used. Reid will survive this and the Chinese will own the Nevada deserts... Our media are world class amateurs, FOX, MSNBC, and CNN are one and the same.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/26/2014 3:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Our media are world class amateurs, FOX, MSNBC, and CNN are one and the same. Posted by: 49 Pan.
I fully agree, and FOX was by far the largest disappointment. For whatever reason, Bundy stepped out of his gov't approved 'First Amendment Zone' and began pontificating. His first mistake was to mention abortion and it went downhill from there.
I have no particular regard for the poor bugger, dragging his sons and family into a potential armed conflict with the feds, not very smart. Not to mention, anyone who represents himself in a civil or criminal case has already proven him or herself a blundering idiot. That said, as far as I can tell, he [Bundy] has yet to be convicted of anything criminal in a court of law. This means he's an innocent man until proven guilty...of something. Conviction by a feckless media, hamstrung with lingering white guilt, or courting protect classes means nothing to me. Bundy's only 'crime' so far, appears to be crass and inartful rhetoric, neither of which
are criminal. An inconvenient display of Free Speech possibly, but not criminal.
I fear for old Cliven and his family. A powerful US Senator has already said... "something will happen to Bundy" and I fear it will.
#4
Bundy is a welfare cheat, stealing what other people pay for (grazing rights). Y'all wouldn't support this behavior if a "liberal" was the one doing it.
#5
What a bunch of Hogwash. The authors argument is akin to Occupy Wall Streets refusal to leave their encampments on the public malls. Plain and simple, Mr. Bundy is a Scofflaw.
#6
Bundy is a welfare cheat, stealing what other people pay for (grazing rights). Y'all wouldn't support this behavior if a "liberal" was the one doing it. Posted by Odysseus
Huh, waitaminute.....43 million people on welfare and cows eating grass is an issue requiring snipers? Excuse me, but I think someone needs glasses or a cranial re-boot.
#7
Bundy is a welfare cheat, stealing what other people pay for (grazing rights). Y'all wouldn't support this behavior if a "liberal" was the one doing it. Yes I would. David Coresh, Dennis Weaver are two people I would not EVER associate with, they are so far out there I would never want to know them. But in their cases the feds went in too heavy handed, just like bundy, and for that I condemn the way it was handled. Do we really think the folks that need protection under our constitution are the strong? Harry Reid is strong, he uses the government rights and protections to hurt others. It is designed to protect the folks that are not mainstream as well, and the old country folks that seem to be still living in the 50's.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/26/2014 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The author's argument is akin to Occupy Wall Street's refusal to leave their encampments on the public malls. Plain and simple, Mr. Bundy is a Scofflaw.
Occupy Wall Street didn't have use of public malls before they were occupied. Bundy did.
Bundy may be scofflaw, but that is not enough to warrant the kind of hostile federal response he received. Laying automatic rifles on people with the intent to shoot to kill; is that how civil matters are resolved? But that is how this government chooses to be. Therefore militias now occupy the land.
You also have to wonder about laches. In every other civil matter that would be an issue. Why isn't it a matter here, since the fedgov waited so long to collect the fees. Does no common law apply here and if it does, the fedgov has no right to impose fees on the basis of a one sided contract.
Welfare Cheat
No. At worse he is a derilict renter. Show how he is receiving public money for nonexistant claims.
OWS
No. It is the mirror image. OWS wasn't there before Wall Street was built. OWS was demanding other people's money; Bundy's case is that he should keep his own.
But because neither side got stupid finger we can find out what the legal challenge is. This issue began because the Feds sent what would be anywhere else in the world a military unit to destroy property. Which, if this is a monetary issue, would be like a banker collecting on a bad car loan by bashing out the windows of the car with the debtor inside. It is the same issue with that vet in Florida whose house under definition of law became deliquant because he was absent for x amount of time and the law protects the drug dealing squatters. We should be thankful for the opportunity to consider such laws and their enforcement without the Boston Massacre or Kent State or Little Big Horn or whatever event.
Freegrazers are an unwelcome lot in ranching. Imagine your friend asks if he could stop by your house and make a sandwich so he could save a few bucks from eating out. You get home from work and your fridge and pantry is cleaned out, your facut is broke, and he has pissed in the sink.
If you don't know ranching, that is why fence upkeep is so important. If your cows get through your fence into somebody else's pasture not only do you have to go get your cows back, being careful to not take their cows, but you probably also owe at least a favor for the grass and water.
If a property owner is a derilict and does not maintain their fences and the neighbor cows constantly wander onto that property, the neighbors will get pissed and at the very least tell everyone within 60 miles that said owner is a derilict owner. Derilict owners have no reputation, no credit, no emergency help, no respect, no real friends.
So I ask the question: did the government, who decided that the desert tortoise was important enough to seize private property, make an attempt to build and maintain a fence?
Second: How was that property seized? Did the Bundys receive a letter in the mail (or otherwise announced) stating that was no longer his land to use, or did both sides go through a court process with legel representation?
Get those two questions answered and then we can go to name calling.
Understand the grievance. If you got a letter in the mail stating that under penalty of law you must pay $10 per night to sleep in your bedroom because the extra climate control necessary to make it comfortable threatens the well being of the Phalanges Stinkfish.
Also understand that the Fed plays the long game in these matters. Fines for occupational safety that the finest stores in Manhatten would be faulted for. Sections of land declared off limits because in theory Native Americans had a party there one night. Water wells unable to be drilled because there is what is left of a foundation of a house which blew away in the 1930's and is a historic treasure.
Go through your Bill of Rights and see just how many have question here. Another difference with your OWS is those were private citizens, this is the Federal Government, cosigner of the contract we call the Constition.
If you do want to do that whole Bundy Ranch is like OWS, then take a look at this difference. OWS used human beings citing the 1st Ammendment right to assemble to agitate against current Federal Laws and were wrapped in garland by member of the US Congress for keeping up the spirit of the 1960's. Bundy Ranch used human being citing the 1st Ammendment right to assemble to agitate against current Federal Laws and were named Terrorists, a word not used since the Bush administration, by the highest ranking member of the Senate.
So if you are going to do this nation of men instead of nation of laws business, then you must ask yourself this question knowing full well both Bundy Ranch and OWS used threat of violence against law enforcement to push their grievence, yet ignoring each side's cause for this question: which side's behavior do you must identify with?
*For the record, I was honestly trying to figure as best I could with what little reliable information was available who was in the right...until the cell towers and airspace was closed and was going Waco direction. IMHO it was the right call to withdraw the BLM to avoid violence (imagine the conversation now if there had been a shootout) and prompt an investigation. I do find it curious that neither side seems to be pushing the last 20 years of legal proceedings for their case (if the records are open that is).
**Bonus Question
If indeed there were independent contractors riding with the BLM, what if any difference in legel status do they have compared to official BLM employees?
#11
If you do want to do that whole Bundy Ranch is like OWS, then take a look at this difference.
Hold the bus. My comment was a direct response to the authors opinion not a direct comparison. My point being her premise is the same logic OWS claimed for occupying public squares across the country. Take the two following quotes from Mercers piece and try to envision some progressive pinhead spouting the same sludge to the approving finger wiggle of the drum circle as to why they wont leave the court house lawn.
Unlike the positive law, which is state-created; natural law in not enacted. Rather, it is a higher law a system of ethics knowable through reason, revelation and experience.
Dude its like a totally higher law. Like the fascist Pilgrims stole the Indians land man.
Then there is the matter of logic. The public is an abstraction. In logic, an abstraction cannot possess property.
Yeah man corporations are like publically held thats like a total abstraction...why should they own shit?
*BTW, Bundy lost in court and on appeal usurp that.
#12
Someone should explain to me why the fedgov in a contract dispute over an agreement has gained the right to seize land. In no dispute in the US, unless the owner has agreed and has pledged hi property, can en entity seize private property, properly quieted because the owner fail to pay fees unrelated to the ownership of the land.
*BTW, Bundy lost in court and on appeal usurp that.
So he lost in court. Still doesn't mean he gives up his land or his cattle to satisfy a judgment on a questionable agreement.
#14
Unlike the positive law, which is state-created; natural law in not enacted. Rather, it is a higher law a system of ethics knowable through reason, revelation and experience.
Yeah, I kind of agree with you on that DepotGuy. It is my opinion that the natural law is that the strong can take from the weak, and in our system designed by people who had just booted the British for doing just that, they put in a number of the Bill of Rights to protect against just that.
That particular natural law I believe was the argument against the Indian Relocation Act, and lost with that bill being passed by Congress and signed by Jackson 1830. What the BLM did is backed up by precedent all the way to those 19th century tactics. Its a losing argument. It seems as if the Feds say they own the land, then there is little recourse.
The IRA at least had the benefit of going before elected representatives. Who is this BLM, who is its head, where is its headquarters? Its one of the more obscure departments and people do not understand what its power and oversight is.
What are the court summaries of how this land came into the BLMs control? What were the opinions of the various judges? Into what account to these payments go? How many degrees of separation is Mr. Bundy from his vote to this taxation (or wtf it is getting called)?
Check out the picture of dude at the What Now White Cowboy? page, listed just below this one. Now what is officer friendly dressing up like?
I have not come across anyone defending the BLM. Their court order, authority, but not them or their tactics. Taking grandpa's cows, killing them, dressed up in the same kit gun grabbers are trying to ban on account that our government would nevah evah sends military type units against our own people.
by Mark Steyn Excerpted:
During my battles with Canada's "human rights" commissions, defenders of the racket liked to point out that the people it targeted were generally pretty unsavory. And I'd respond that the reason the standard representation of justice in statuary is a blindfolded lady is because justice is supposed to be blind: If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian, it makes no difference whether the pedestrian you hit is Nelson Mandela or Cliven Bundy. Or at least it shouldn't: one of the basic building blocks of civilized society is equality before the law.
Likewise, if what the Bureau of Land Management is doing is wrong, the fact that Cliven Bundy is a racist sexist homophobe whateverphobe doesn't make it right - any more than at Ruby Ridge FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shooting Vicki Weaver in the back of the head as she was cradling her ten-month-old baby and running away from him is made right by the fact that she allegedly had "white supremacist" sympathies. As I wrote last week, I've little doubt that, in the era before cellphone video, the bureaucratic enforcers would have been happy to off Bundy and then come up with a reason why it doesn't matter. At Waco, there were supposedly children being abused. So Generalissimo Janet Reno killed them all, and now they're not being abused. In that sense, Mr Bundy is a lucky man: He got to live, and to trash his own reputation rather than having the feds do it for him. More at the link...
[DAWN] ... Rani Khatoon, as her name now reads on the marriage certificate, is said to be 19 years old. But she looks much younger as she sits quietly, holding one end of her dupatta tightly around her chin. The haq meher in her nikahnama is a mere Rs1,000.
Her eyes remain blank until one mentions her parents. That's the only time her big brown eyes moisten. Otherwise, she gives monosyllabic replies when asked about her 'love marriage' to 22-year-old Mohammad Saroor. Sitting beside her, he's asked by one of the men to close his buttons and appear "respectful". Another quickly blames the weather.
Saroor says: "She used to sell clothes near our home in Jano Bhelo village while I'm a labourer and own a donkey. One day she told me she wants to marry me, and loves Islam, so we decided to marry." When Rani was asked how while living in Jacobabad she knew she could take refuge at the shrine, she said a "friend informed her", before once again lapsing into a state of blankness.
Whenever she's asked about her decision to become a Muslim, she looks at the Bharchundi attendant, Abdul Wahid, who after every few minutes asks her to "khill" (smile).
When asked if she's carrying her CNIC, she shakes her head in the negative. Her lawyer Mir Ali Mehboob interrupts, "An identity card is not needed in the high court when they know a couple wants to marry. Only a picture is needed which a court attendant matches with the picture we give them."
A newspaper editor in Daharki says there are many cases of young girls marrying outside their community. "But this is more of a business, where everyone knows what's happening but no one can report or speak about it openly."
Dr Hari Lal, general secretary of the Upper Sindh Hindu Panchayat from Pannu Aqil, says, "Our courts have been hijacked. Until the system is shaken up nothing we do or say will matter. Why didn't anyone inside the court demand to see her ID card or determine whether she is actually at an age to decide for herself? Even if a girl, as they tell us, decides to marry a Muslim of her own choice, why is she accompanied by armed men who keep an eye on each move of hers, as in the Rinkle Kumari case? If a party has to approach a court to solve matters, as in Rani's case, why does the shrine goes to the higher courts every time? Why not a district and sessions court?"
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] HOW many have died in sectarian violence in Pakistain since 2008? More than 2,000 was the answer Minister of State for Interior Balighur Rehman gave in the Senate on Wednesday. The bald number may be grim enough, but so are the details that Mr Rehman shared: from Fata to Islamabad and Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... , no part of the country has been spared sectarian violence. What the raw numbers do not tell though is the evolving pattern of the violence. What began as assassinations of members of the Shia community (and, on a much lesser scale, reprisal attacks against virulently sectarian Sunni elements) has now escalated to indiscriminate attacks on markets, buses, religious sites and really any place where a gathering of a particular sect can be identified and targeted. It is a war on entire communities, even if it has not reached anywhere near the term 'genocide' that is unhappily bandied about without much regard for reality. What is real is the pervasive fear that has gripped certain communities and many parts of the country.
What happens next depends on how seriously the state takes the threat and how the communities themselves react. So far, other than in small pockets, there has been no communal violence, but tensions are rising because of the continuing proliferation of hate speech and paraphernalia. The question is really that of a tipping point and how far society is from it at the moment. Historically, despite all the allegations of a proxy Saudi-Iran war playing out inside Pakistain, sectarian violence has been sporadic and, usually, quickly contained. Part of that may have to do with demographics, as the sectarian equation is not overwhelmingly lopsided and sects are not confined to a few geographical zones, so there is much side-by-side existence. In fact, the communities do mingle and mix a great deal. Yet, this much is also clear: the historical pattern can be changed and tolerance can be eroded if elements bent on doing so are allowed to operate freely and the narrative of hate is not pushed back against.
So, what is the state doing about any of that? The interior ministry provided the province-wise breakdown of sectarian violence over the last six years, but how many of the murders have been investigated, how many of the killers identified and how many prosecutions secured? Surely, it is only a fraction, if that, of the violence that has been enumerated by the interior ministry. Meanwhile, ...back at the argument, Jane reached into her purse for her .38... the tentacles of fear continue to spread. In Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... , the Majlis-e-Wahadat-e-Moslemeen have claimed several Shias have been killed in recent days, while the Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat has alleged their members have also been killed. And Karachi is just one part of the national sectarian cauldron that is bubbling ominously. Does the state have any answers?
Posted by: Fred ||
04/26/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
