Try pink fake diamond diamond encrusted flexi handle...

Comically Incorrect is right.

BabyEagle,

It's just the world we live in, it's only going to get worst.

From cattle to soybeans and the ground you stand on.

You already know my thoughts form a cure......:)

Yes jump on Reid and support someone who would say something like this, disgusting. BE, how do you feel now. I really wonder how many in the GOP privately agree with this turd? Isn't he taking welfare in the form of not paying his grazing fees?

 

 

GOP Scrambles to Condemn Rancher's Remarks on Race

By Carrie Dann

Offering words of encouragement for a rancher leading an armed standoff against federal rangers turns out to be not so great of a political move – especially when the rancher in question muses publicly about the benefits of slavery.

Republicans – including possible 2016 candidate Rand Paul -- are scrambling to distance themselves from defiant Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy after he made startling comments about slavery and African-Americans in a New York Times article published Wednesday night.

From the Times’ Adam Nagourney:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Bundy had previously drawn support from some GOP lawmakers for his clash with the Bureau of Land Management.

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bundy and his allies “domestic violent terrorist wannabes,” fellow Sen. Dean Heller countered last week that they are “patriots.” Paul urged Reid to “calm the rhetoric” and criticized the federal government for what he described as an intimidating presence during the standoff. “The federal government shouldn’t violate the law, nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” he told a Kentucky radio station.

In statements after Bundy’s remarks, both Paul and Heller condemned his comments.

"His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” said Paul.

And a spokesman for Heller told the Times that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

When all else fails - flip out the "race" card. Huh ?

Typical.

Even if Bundy did honestly owe these grazing fees.

900 cattle at $1.35 a head per month over the span of 20 years equals $291,600. If the federal government says Cliven Bundy owes 1 million plus dollars for those cattle to graze then what (?) $608,400 is interest, fees and penalties imposed by the feds (?) sooo that is just more extortion by this defacto government.

 

 

 

 For over 20 years, the BLM has been engaging in criminal conspiracy according to federal courts. Now a federal judge has stepped up and slammed them for the true intent of the BLM.

Kit Daniels from Infowars discovered a case that over throws any idea that Clive Bundy was even close to wrong out of the water. In fact it has the federal judge’s opinion from a recent court case that throws this logic of back taxes to the BLM out the window. It reveals a 20 year old conspiracy by the BLM, that the judge calls “literal and intentional”, against Nevada ranchers to force them to sell their land at a loss and kill their business. The judge doesn’t mix words and uses an actual case to expose this vast land grab and undermining of the Constitution.

It is actually an insightful and wise case that everyone in America should pay attention. There is an old saying, “follow the money and you will find the truth.” In fact, this “battle” at the Bundy ranch was settled 20 years ago, While it seems that the liberal outlets are touting a court decision against Bundy for failure to pay fees, they are using the local courts. If they would have paid attention to the appeals courts, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones, they would have found that it wasn’t a valid case against Bundy. They are using the normal smoke and mirrors to distract, while the real reason for the fight is completely illegal and immoral.

In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

Judge Jones continued:

In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.

It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.” ~Kit Daniels