Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) claimed on Thursday that armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists” and reckless individuals who put their families in danger.
Speaking at a Las Vegas Review-Journal event, Reid was clear: “They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists. I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”
The rhetoric certainly will do nothing to ease already-high tensions after the Bureau of Land Management prematurely shut down its operation to round up Bundy’s “trespass cattle” on Saturday. The federal agency cited fears of public safety after having run-ins with armed militia members who traveled to Bunkerville, Nev., to support the rancher.
Bundy reportedly owes the federal government roughly $1 million in grazing fees, an amount he accumulated after he “fired” the Bureau of Land Management in 1993 over its decision to turn public land into a protective habitat for the state’s desert tortoise.
There are two court orders that permit BLM to execute a roundup of 500 to 900 of Bundy’s “trespass cattle,” Reid reportedly said.
Reid, who recently said the situation is “not over,” revealed on Thursday there is a federal task force being assembled to handle to the tense situation.
“Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States,” Reid said. “The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees. And he doesn’t follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority.”
“It is an issue we cannot let go, just walk away from,” he added.
Many conservatives in the west HATE the BLM to start with. I know people who I know are Clive Bundy supporters without even asking them about it. These same folks also called Janet Reno a murderer in the aftermath of the Waco event with the Branch Davidians. They have similar feelings about Ruby Ridge.
Is Harry Reid correct? Are these supporters and Clive Bundy himself domestic terrorists? Do they fit the definition of terrorism?
From another perspective, dailymail.co.uk reported:
- Cliven Bundy said he expects officials with the Bureau of Land Management to make another attempt to seize his cattle
- Bundy, 67, won the first round of his fight with agents after they released hundreds of cows seized as part of a dispute over grazing rights in Nevada
- Fears of an armed confrontation with dozens of militia who’d camped out in a field leading to Bundy’s ranch led officials to call off their operation
Bundy should pay his bills. Why does he want to live off the federal government, free of charge? Why not keep his cattle on his own property? I can’t just go let my animals roam all over the National Battlefield a couple miles from me.
The Blaze seems to want to slam at Harry Reid For calling out a dangerous situation. Bundy’s rough-riders are acting like domestic terrorists when they attack the BLM agents.
Stay tuned….
Many Mormons are experts at genealogy. It is a part of their theology. If Cliven Bundy says his “family” has grazed that federal land for a fee since 1877, he probably has a family tree to back up his claim.
Mrs W’s Mormon relatives were among the first to establish settements in eastern Nevada. Her great-great-great aunt from England gave birth to a child in the Nevada wilderness at a campsite in an area that probably looked like the place where the Bundy cattle have been grazing. Just that one family had, over time, 10 wives and 50 children in the 19th century. That was just one family in a big mix. I mapped out that single family for three or four generations and was nearly exhausted by the search. Mrs. W has Mormon relatives all over Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Texas, and California. I don’t have enough years in my life to chart it all out.
Ask to see Mr. Bundy’s family tree.
Is Mr. Bundy Mormon?
Can we go back to the point that he doesn’t own the land?
From what I have read, it does appear that the “ancestors” which Mr. Bundy has referenced in his claims were Mormon, going way back to 1877 in Nevada. Those ancestors in eastern Nevada may well have known some of Mrs. W’s ancestors.
I think the vocabulary may be getting kind of confusing in this thing. Bundy doesn’t “own” the land which is in dispute. It is federal land. But, other than mining operations, there was little the feds could get out of that wilderness. They needed people to settle the West, and the 1870 law which allowed grazing on federal land for a fee did serve to get some settlers there. I suspect, therefore, that what Bundy is trying to say is that, after over 100 years of grazing their herds there for a fee, that deal became an integral part of their economic existence. They got used to the arrangement with the government as virtually a “right.” When the feds pulled the rug out in 1993, Bundy and his family decided to fight for their longtime legacy. Anyway, that’s my take on it.
In any case, there has been a meeting of some elected officials from a number of Western states looking to find a way to get more state involvement in policy regarding these federal lands. But the bigger deal for the moment may be a very stern letter sent by the Attorney General of Texas to the BLM concerning any thoughts the latter may have about going after a big chunk of private cattle land along the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.
I guess my take on it is that things change. What was ok several decades ago might not be now. The rules change, whether we like it or not. I think the response was inappropriate on many levels.
That”a a bunch of crap
Bundy is thumbing his nose at law-abiding American taxpayers who are paying for Federal Lands to be protected. He needs to respect the law.
@Starry flights
Now why would you say that?
Wolverine is recounting his OWN efforts. Are you calling him a liar?
Why so rude?
@Starry flights
You mean the same federal lands that have been damaged by the solar plant construction and the BLM protection of the tortoises…..the same ones that they killed?
The BLM’s agreement with the ranchers was that the fees go towards assisting them in ranching.
Bundy was ordered to pay his fees. He apparently didn’t. You are either for rule of law or you aren’t. Apparently you aren’t.
My post 69 debunks Bundy’s ancestral rights BS.
And if grazing fees go toward ranching, then what’s his problem?
@Moon-howler
I’m against sending snipers to collect a debt. Put a lien on his income and property. The IRS does this every single day. Why haven’t they done so? No need to get rid of the cattle by force. Merely co
@Starry flights
His grazing fees ended up going to an agency trying to cheat the ranchers out of their property.
Regardless…. why haven’t they just garnished his income from the sale of cattle? Do that enough and he will stop grazing them.
Your link is bad. No evidence. Just googled for the info…..no luck. Got another source?
The IRS also sticks its hand in your bank account as does the state, even if it isn’t YOU who owe them the money. All it takes is a co-signer.
You sure aren’t seeing any wrong doing on the part of Bundy and his band of merry rough riders.
Shutting down I 15 would have done it for me.
Damn it, can’t you city slickers understand anything? The BLM didn’t want Bundy’s grazing fees. They wanted him to get his cattle off the public land, which meant he would have to cut his herd and his income way back or sell out to the feds for whatever price they would decide to cough up for his private property. The rest of the ranchers apparently couldn’t fight it and left. Bundy was the one who decided to stand up to the federal bullies. Rule of law, hell.
Why are people entitled to graze their animals on public lands? Name me one place in the east where that flies. People graze their animals on their own property. That’s the American way. Bundy must be a communist.
I repeat. The 1870 federal law setting up grazing for a fee on federal land was viewed as a means to get people to settle the Western territories. It made sense. If a man could only afford a small spread, he could settle near the federal lands and still have a chance to grow his wealth by grazing cattle on the federal lands for a fee. It was also in the interest of the ranchers themselves to do improvements on that federal grazing land such as water supplies. That cooperation between the feds and the ranchers lasted until 1993, when the feds decided to put wild critter and plant preservation above the livelihoods of Americans whose families may have been working the land and paying grazing fees for a long time and made that a normal part of their business plan.
Bundy is communist? Sounds to me like the feds are sort of playing a Stalinist role and trying to beat up on the last surviving kulak in Clark County, Nevada.
This is 2014. Things have changed since 1870.
@Moon-howler
When the you can show me enough “public” land for them to graze on in the East…then I can answer your question.
The BLM’s goal is to put the ranchers out of business. There is big money involved. Some of it belongs to Harry Reid.
What possible point would the BLM have for putting ranchers out of business. Buy a ranch if you want to graze your cattle or sheep. The American public doesn’t owe that racist a living.
Oh.. and if the Feds would do what they agreed to do…and SELL THE LAND, then they COULD be using their own land. But the Feds reneged and kept the land.