Guns, Cows, and the BLM

Yonder wrote:

I really don't want anyone to "get their asses out there" I am hoping for absolutely nothing to happen for three to four months. Let 90% of his supporters leave from boredom and monetary concerns before you go in with overwhelming force. Besides, the break apart a bunch of type A extremists like this is to just provide as little of an external threat as you can so that their own personalities in a confined living place drive them apart.

It may be a little optimistic to think that the boredom and monetary concerns will lead to these people leaving instead of escalating, but I really think that just stepping back and keeping quiet is going to be the best way to calm this down and end it without blood shed.

IMAGE(http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2014/04/15/0415BundySupporters16_t653.JPG?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b)

The militia member in the foreground is Reid Hendricks of Camden, Tennessee.

This is Hendricks lecturing to a crowd of "freedom lovers" about the evils of liberal college professors, ACLU, and a perverted version of American history (and current events) that would make even Glenn Beck spin.

What's clear is that folks like Hendricks aren't going to get bored. They believe deeply that they are in the right and are fighting for the very soul of America. And being True Believers (tm) makes them extremely dangerous as in "let's put the women up front so they get shot first" dangerous.

How is it clear that they aren't going to get bored? I'm not saying that they are going to get bored as in "welp, I'm bored of my political views, time to start voting for black socialist atheists" I'm saying they are going to get bored as in "welp, it's been four months, there isn't a lot of work in this area, it feels like I've never done anything but patrol this ranch for as long as I can remember. No one has talked about arresting me or anyone else for a month and a half, I haven't seen a journalist in two months, and they haven't taken my picture or interviewed me for a month before that, and every time we turn on the news to see what They are saying about us they're still just looking for that damned airplane! I guess we won! It's time to head off and help out some other poor soul that needs protection from the government."

Edit:

OG_slinger wrote:

Part of the problem is that the militia *wants* a direct conflict with the FBI or other federal agency. This is the right wing wet dream of revisiting Waco or Ruby Ridge, but this time with more "freedom fighters" than federales.

This is my point exactly! These people WANT to be fought. They WANT to be heroes. Why on Earth would you knowingly give them exactly what they want? Just don't give them what they want and they will start to disperse.

Is it just me or is it the same people that generally argue (just like I do!) that if you fight and kill extremists in the Middle East you always make more fighters than you kill. Anyone trying to make the argument that the same exact thing won't happen in New Mexico needs to overcome a freaking enormous burden of proof. Good luck with that.

OG_slinger wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I really don't want anyone to "get their asses out there" I am hoping for absolutely nothing to happen for three to four months. Let 90% of his supporters leave from boredom and monetary concerns before you go in with overwhelming force. Besides, the break apart a bunch of type A extremists like this is to just provide as little of an external threat as you can so that their own personalities in a confined living place drive them apart.

It may be a little optimistic to think that the boredom and monetary concerns will lead to these people leaving instead of escalating, but I really think that just stepping back and keeping quiet is going to be the best way to calm this down and end it without blood shed.

IMAGE(http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2014/04/15/0415BundySupporters16_t653.JPG?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b)

The militia member in the foreground is Reid Hendricks of Camden, Tennessee.

This is Hendricks lecturing to a crowd of "freedom lovers" about the evils of liberal college professors, ACLU, and a perverted version of American history (and current events) that would make even Glenn Beck spin.

What's clear is that folks like Hendricks aren't going to get bored. They believe deeply that they are in the right and are fighting for the very soul of America. And being True Believers (tm) makes them extremely dangerous as in "let's put the women up front so they get shot first" dangerous.

Exactly. If they are running illegal checkpoints, they won't sttop there. Illegally detaining their enemies, attacking or killing "valid" targets, or really doing just about anything.

To clarify, the local municipalities need assistance from federal resources but those local counties need to assert the rule of law.

Reaper81 wrote:

To clarify, the local municipalities need assistance from federal resources but those local counties need to assert the rule of law.

Seriously. I just can't get behind the idea that we're supposed to let these Taliban f*ckheads essentially take over a town, set up illegal checkpoints, and threaten and intimidate citizens until they get bored, because otherwise they might escalate the situation.

Yonder wrote:

How is it clear that they aren't going to get bored? I'm not saying that they are going to get bored as in "welp, I'm bored of my political views, time to start voting for black socialist atheists" I'm saying they are going to get bored as in "welp, it's been four months, there isn't a lot of work in this area, it feels like I've never done anything but patrol this ranch for as long as I can remember. No one has talked about arresting me or anyone else for a month and a half, I haven't seen a journalist in two months, and they haven't taken my picture or interviewed me for a month before that, and every time we turn on the news to see what They are saying about us they're still just looking for that damned airplane! I guess we won! It's time to head off and help out some other poor soul that needs protection from the government."

Extremely clear. They aren't there for the media coverage. I mean there were hundreds of them at Bundy's Ranch days before this broke as a national story. They're there to fight a battle against what they view as a tyrannical government. As long as there's still a possibility of the BLM coming back, those militia members will be there to "protect freedom."

Nor do I imagine that they care too much about a steady paycheck. Again, true believers aren't exactly in the believing racket because of the steady hours and good benefits. They're in it because they're extremely passionate about an idea. Besides, there's most probably quite a few like-minded folks across the nation who are supporting the militia members either financially or in kind.

And it doesn't exactly set a good precedent for the government if they let bunch of armed and angry white dudes set up the country of Militiastan for a couple of months. I'm not calling for bloodshed, but I really fail to see why the government needs to walk on eggshells around a bunch of miseducated and pissed off idiots and allow them to directly flaunt the law.

Podunk wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

To clarify, the local municipalities need assistance from federal resources but those local counties need to assert the rule of law.

Seriously. I just can't get behind the idea that we're supposed to let these Taliban f*ckheads essentially take over a town, set up illegal checkpoints, and threaten and intimidate citizens until they get bored, because otherwise they might escalate the situation.

I'm starting to think it's going to take one of these militia chucklef*cks actually shooting someone before the government is going to take this situation seriously enough.

If they are trying to build popular support for the use of Predator drones on American citizens, they are sure as hell doing a great job of it.

Can we outfit Predator drones to drop poop?

They'd be getting hit by the government, and they'd have their conflict, but everyone else would be like, "Ha-ha, you're covered in poop."

They *are* cattle ranchers, I don't think anyone would blink. :-/

When reading about their illegal checkpoints I just kept imagining The Humungus out there with his hockey mask and biker buddies demanding drivers hand over their gas. I know some extremist have been arguing that Obama was turning the US into a third world nation. I guess they got tired of waiting on Barry to do it himself so they decided to take matters into their own hands.

Kehama wrote:

When reading about their illegal checkpoints I just kept imagining The Humungus out there with his hockey mask and biker buddies demanding drivers hand over their grass.

Couldn't the Feds bill the state and then make it the state's problem to collect the dues from the citizen that incurred them?

Rezzy wrote:
Kehama wrote:

When reading about their illegal checkpoints I just kept imagining The Humungus out there with his hockey mask and biker buddies demanding drivers hand over their grass.

Couldn't the Feds bill the state and then make it the state's problem to collect the dues from the citizen that incurred them?

That seems like an unnecessary burden to place on the State. New Mexico is cooperating and assisting the federal government, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Having the federal government bill States directly for the revenue it should be acquiring from it's citizens seems to be an unnecessary step that would lead to a host of problems.

The most obvious and relevant one here is that it's a lot easier for some nutjob to amass enough power to directly compete with the state of New Mexico, or Wyoming, than it is to stave off the United States of America. Another problem is that once you bill New Mexico that State has a debt. Once the federal government has wiped it's hands of the issue and walked away what is stopping New Mexico from collecting that debt from other, easier targets. The Federal Government? You've just ceded the Federal Governments authority in that area in a big way.

Now if New Mexico officials were supporting and assisting Bundy you'd have a case.

Yonder wrote:

Now if New Mexico officials were supporting and assisting Bundy you'd have a case.

It was a question, but I'm not saying that this is how the feds should ALWAYS interact with its citizens. I'm saying that if we have a person whose beef is the 'nonexistence' of the Federal Government, couldn't the State Government just nod, wink, buy the debt from the Feds and pull the rug out from under the whole premise? I mean, I'm sure there are laws against that and precedents that would be set.... But if people are making the case that stealing from the federal government is okay as long as the water is muddy. Then just unmuddy the waters for a few seconds, and now he's stolen from the government he actually recognizes. De-facto nothing changes, except that in this one instance Mr. Delusional Rancher is buying his grass from Nevada State, with some service charges tacked on for making them go through the trouble.

Rezzy wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Now if New Mexico officials were supporting and assisting Bundy you'd have a case.

It was a question, but I'm not saying that this is how the feds should ALWAYS interact with its citizens. I'm saying that if we have a person whose beef is the 'nonexistence' of the Federal Government, couldn't the State Government just nod, wink, buy the debt from the Feds and pull the rug out from under the whole premise? I mean, I'm sure there are laws against that and precedents that would be set.... But if people are making the case that stealing from the federal government is okay as long as the water is muddy. Then just unmuddy the waters for a few seconds, and now he's stolen from the government he actually recognizes. De-facto nothing changes, except that in this one instance Mr. Delusional Rancher is buying his grass from Nevada State, with some service charges tacked on for making them go through the trouble.

First, you don't change national policy to accommodate a$$holes.

Second, the precedent set would be deeply damaging and would likely result in every swinging Libertarian phallus demanding an end to federal income tax.

Paleocon wrote:

First, you don't change national policy to accommodate a$$holes.

Then why did they return the cattle after they had been seized to settle the debt?

Second, the precedent set would be deeply damaging and would likely result in every swinging Libertarian phallus demanding an end to federal income tax.

I also challenge the premise that a precedent is needed for that demand to be made.

Right now the waters are completely crystal clear. The best way to muddy the waters would be to say "you're right, you don't owe money to the federal government, you owe money to the state government, and the state government owes money to the federal government.

Rezzy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

First, you don't change national policy to accommodate a$$holes.

Then why did they return the cattle after they had been seized to settle the debt?

Because the feds wanted to avoid armed conflict. That's not a change of policy, that's a change of tactics (and possibly strategy).

Yonder wrote:

Right now the waters are completely crystal clear. The best way to muddy the waters would be to say "you're right, you don't owe money to the federal government, you owe money to the state government, and the state government owes money to the federal government.

There's no "You're right." Capitalism has solved this problem. It's not like no one has ever sold a debt to a collections agent before... It's a service for precisely the kinds of situations where having an Angels of Mercy Community Hospital employee carrying your microwave to her truck might send the wrong message. It's a PR tool and a growth industry.

Edit: Hell, put out a bounty for the debt and see how many of the mercs hoping to cash in turn coat.

Rezzy wrote:

Edit: Hell, put out a bounty for the debt and see how many of the mercs hoping to cash in turn coat.

Yes, that is the course of action likely to turn out best for everybody...

Yonder wrote:

Yes, that is the course of action likely to turn out best for everybody...

Rezzy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

First, you don't change national policy to accommodate a$$holes.

Then why did they return the cattle after they had been seized to settle the debt?

Because not all the cattle had been seized, meaning the BLM would have to come back and wade through hundreds of angry rednecks armed with AR15s who were clearly itching for a fight with BLM or any other federal personnel. The situation was fundamentally unstable and unsafe for federal personnel.

Now we have a situation where if the BLM comes back in to confiscate the cattle again, they are going to have to come in armed to the teeth because of the very real threat the militia members represent. This, of course, will make the militia members' paranoia kick into high gear, making things even more unstable and unsafe.

But the reality is that this standoff can't continue forever. Bundy is in the wrong and, armed militia members or not, he has to be made to comply with the court order. We can only hope that the militia members aren't completely f*cking stupid or want to be martyrs for their cause.

OG_slinger wrote:

We can only hope that the militia members aren't completely f*cking stupid or want to be martyrs for their cause.

I'm not sure I'd want to take that bet.

Do we know who Bundy (used to) sell his beef to so that we can write in and make sure they don't buy it anymore? It's likely Bundy's bank accounts will be frozen soon, but I'd like to do what I can to make sure that I don't support any company that takes Bundy Beef.

Soon he'll only be able to sell cows to his friends and follower's in exchange for gold bullion, although to be honest, he's probably 100% ok with that.

What I don't understand is why BLM simply won't build a fence on the border of the property in question.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

What I don't understand is why BLM simply won't build a fence on the border of the property in question.

Because cattlemen in the West have a long history of simply cutting down any fence that gets in their way of their grazing herd.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

What I don't understand is why BLM simply won't build a fence on the border of the property in question.

Building and maintaining a fence with proper gates for those grazing fees? /thumbs-under-suspenders Cheaper just to pave the damn thing. /spit

I'm waiting for that land to be grazed out and Bundy to complain about how the government isn't properly keeping the land up.

By then the turtles that started this whole thing will be long dead.

Yonder wrote:

Do we know who Bundy (used to) sell his beef to so that we can write in and make sure they don't buy it anymore? It's likely Bundy's bank accounts will be frozen soon, but I'd like to do what I can to make sure that I don't support any company that takes Bundy Beef.

Soon he'll only be able to sell cows to his friends and follower's in exchange for gold bullion, although to be honest, he's probably 100% ok with that.

That's what I was wondering. Why haven't they frozen his accounts? Or just leaked that they're coming "any day now" and just bleed the militiamen financially. Worked for Russia.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Do we know who Bundy (used to) sell his beef to so that we can write in and make sure they don't buy it anymore? It's likely Bundy's bank accounts will be frozen soon, but I'd like to do what I can to make sure that I don't support any company that takes Bundy Beef.

Soon he'll only be able to sell cows to his friends and follower's in exchange for gold bullion, although to be honest, he's probably 100% ok with that.

That's what I was wondering. Why haven't they frozen his accounts? Or just leaked that they're coming "any day now" and just bleed the militiamen financially. Worked for Russia.

Because the court order doesn't empower the government freeze his bank accounts.

US v. Bundy[/url]]
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cliven Bundy’s Motion to Dismiss (#28) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior.

#18 was the 1998 court injunction that forbade Bundy from grazing his cows on public land and #28 is Bundy's various claims that the federal government doesn't really exist or have any authority over the land in question or him.

This ruling was from July of last year, so the dude has had plenty of notice that this was going to happen.