Cliven Bundy asserts that the federal government has overstepped what rightfully is the jurisdiction of Nevada local and state officials. This is based on the Constitutional principle of and framework for a limited federal government and largely autonomous individual states. Of course, the federal government has become vastly bloated since the Bundy ranch was established in the late 1800's, when there was no BLM. The establishment media and, most heinously, Senator Harry Reid, have not even acknowledged that this is complex, multifaceted legal issue. Instead, they have acted and spoken as if the BLM's authority is a given and so all of their actions are right, upstanding, and lawful. Thus, thinly-veiled socialist operations like MSNBC have repeatedly referred to the Bundy family and their supporters as "unlawful", and, even more inaccurately and vindictively, as "domestic terrorists". Harry Reid -- who is a major player in the effort to take out the Bundys, entangled with a Chinese solar energy company who've signed a "deal" with Reid's son to seize a huge chunk of Nevada land that includes Bundys' ranch -- has himself spewed the "terrorist" line. In light of his personal interests in removing the Bundys' from the picture, his sniveling, snake-like, duplicitous, vengeful, malevolent nature is all too apparent.
Many of the east coast (and probably many in California, as well) are unfamiliar with the concept of grazing rights. I grew up in a small Massachusetts town where dairy farmers (as they're called here) kept their cow herds fenced in on their own property. But I've seen and read westerns -- I know that all herds were free to roam across the rangeland wherever they so pleased. Herds would end up intermingling, and were at times unsupervised -- hence the reason for branding. And hence why the villains in many a western are cattle thieves rebranding herds in the dead of night. The Bundys are the last ranch family standing, after all of the others giving in over the past couple of decades to aggressive pressure from the federal government. Bundy's use of the land for grazing is merely the continuation of a practice that was instituted generations ago and has continued since. It's not as if he just started using others' property out of nowhere without permission a couple of months ago. But, of course, MSNBC, Harry Reid and their allies behind the scenes and in the media have left of all of this out, and shamelessly and maliciously pushed the erroneous claim that Bundy is an unrepentant deadbeat mooching off of "government" land.
Leftists so despise property rights and the traditions of rugged individualism and free market farming, that they've cheered on the BLM surrounding the Bundys' homes armed, amongst their ranks actual snipers, poised to shoot. Outraged to see a nice old man threatened with lethal force by virtual military squadron, reportedly around 1,000 fellow citizens, most of a libertarian/Constitutional bent, gathered at the Bundy ranch to stand with the family in protest. When they marched on the corral where some of Bundy's cattle that the BLM had stolen, the BLM's mercenaries repeatedly warned, "If you take one step forward, we'll shoot." Heroically and bravely, the protesters marched on, and for reasons unknown, the invading enemy military unit received orders to stand down. Liberals on Twitter reportedly expressed lament that the Bundys and the protesters hadn't been murdered. One liberal even Tweeted at Dirty Harry himself, "Senator, wouldn't it be easier to just take [the Bundys and the protesters] out with a drone strike?"
Myself and many other libertarians objected to the tactics police used against Occupy protesters in late 2011. Even though we disagree with that movement's heavy socialism, we still recognize the right to protest/redress one's grievances and their civil liberties. Clearly, the feeling is not mutual. MSNBC, Reid, et al are pushing the Southern Poverty Law Center's "domestic terrorists" line so as to dehumanize the Bundys and their supporters, so that if and when they are killed Waco-style, they'll have little sympathy from the public. Liberals are either buying this farce, or want to take out their opposition by any means necessary, and so are happily pushing it, hoping to see conservatives and libertarians executed.
To justify the "terrorists" moniker, they point to the fact that SOME of the protesters were armed. They ignore that it was the BLM who aimed first, issued verbal threats to kill, and that the protesters who were armed, and who -- except one -- never aimed or raised their weapons, and that they had their guns with them as a safety precaution, since it was very likely that they would need to defend themselves from those who were unjustly, tyrannically lording over them with and promising lethal force. Of course, liberals don't understand or just don't care about such distinctions. They care about the results suiting their "cause", a part of which seems to be killing innocent people. MSNBC's twerpy Chris Hayes has played oblivious to the violence imposed upon the Bundys and their supporters. In his broadcasts, its implicit that anything the BLM does is in the right because its acting on behalf of the federal government. Therefore, pointing their firearms in the protesters' faces is okay. It's the protesters who have holstered guns on their hips who are "lawless" "terrorists", Hayes would have it.
And then there's the New York Times story that came out earlier this week "breaking" Bundy's "supposed" racism. This very weighted smear was based on an out-of-context quote in which Bundy used the word "negro" -- because he's old and was using it the way we now use "black" people" -- and appeared to be saying that black people should be made slaves again. If you look at his actual -- and much longer -- unedited statements, he was actually lamenting the plight of poor black and Hispanics in the U.S. He was essentially comparing two forms of slavery, not comparing slavery to freedom and saying that blacks, or anyone, rightfully belong to the former. Of course, the usual suspects have ignored how kind-hearted Bundy's sentiments actually were and the socioeconomic issues he raised. They're giddy with joy to run with the line that Bundy's non-existent "racism" has been "exposed" and that he and his supporters are "finished". (See? The easier for the BLM or another federal agency to kill them.)
Glenn Beck, who has always vacillated between claiming to be and kind of sounding like a libertarian and towing the establishment line, has actually acted in accordance with Reid and MSNBC, throwing out without hesitation the "domestic terrorist" and "racist" Scarlett Letters. With insurmountable ill will, he has even mercilessly painted Alex Jones' InfoWars as "wanting a violent overthrow of the government", the type of people who would lock up Beck up "in a kangaroo court without a trial" if they "took over" (despite the fact that Jones and his staff are very vocal in their support of the right to due process), and outright stating -- out of thin air, with no supporting evidence -- that InfoWars is a racist organization itself and that they're "embedded" on the Bundy ranch and knew of his racism before the New York Times story, but had been covering it up. Deliberately intending harm and even death, this is possibly the most disingenuous, deceitful, vicious, heartless, malicious behavior Glenn has ever indulged in -- and he already had quite a track record. All the while, again, he's acting in lockstep with MSNBC, Harry Reid, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Media Matters -- for all intents and purpose, with the Obama administration.
Their is legitimate reason to be worried for the Bundys. What's happened to them thus far is a grave injustice, and it may get worse. That their mistreatment has been cheered on by certain segments of the population is endemic of a societal mental illness. This situation should not be taken lightly.
-- Ryan
