Bundy & Assemblyman Cresent Hardy

Dear Mr. Hardy,

I read in the local paper of your appearance at the Bundy rally and your statements condemning the federal government, state government and local government. You state the Bundy fiasco is about rights and freedoms but your anti-government stance tells the real truth.

Bundy’s rights do not trump everyone else’s rights.  If it really was about rights and freedoms, I would be the first one standing beside him.  But it is not and you know it. Bundy broke the law and has to pay up.  It is NOT about rights and freedoms but about a law breaker like any other thief who steals from the rest of us.

But this is not about Bundy, it is about you. As a legislator, you had my vote all along but then your history shows you only supported your own special interest group and those who had some anti-government rant.  You never did one thing in the legislature for Mesquite.  In fact, your overcharging for land sold to the water district, quite frankly, makes me question your honesty.

I put my life on the line many times in the military (unlike you) and as a law enforcement officer and supervisor for over thirty years. For you to condemn the law enforcement action forced on the BLM because of your support for the deranged and preposterous antics of one of your anti-government co-conspirators reveals your contempt for all of the rest of us.  Throughout my career, I have had to face off in many dangerous situations with the Bundy’s of the world and it is always the same, just another liar, cheat, lawbreaker or demented person claiming it’s about  his rights and freedoms that he wants to have for himself but take away from all the rest of us.

Mr. Hardy, you sir, are disingenuous, underhanded and your record as a legislator is a fraud.  For you to  condemn the men and women thrust into this drama is cowardly. Those people out there doing this roundup are just doing their jobs.  They got an assignment from their superiors and are doing their job. You, Mr. Hardy, are the government, you-the legislator, you-the assemblyman, you-the politician are the government.  The problem isn’t “that other government”, the problem is you.  If you want to only represent one slice of our society, just man up and say so.  You, sir,  have lost my vote.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Comments

  1. King Curmudgeon says

    He HAS my vote! Do you really think all politicians don’t support their own special interest groups?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • dave mcnall says

      Your service (I should not type until I get caffinated:)

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Bob says

    I also thank you (and all) veterans for their service. In my view there is no difference between Cliven Bundy and his armed group and the Boston marathon bombers or Timothy McVey. They all had their complaint about some issue and pulled out guns, force and intimidation to get their message enforced. You are right about their mentor too, Cresent Hardy. What we don’t need in our community is the likes of domestic terrorists like Bundy (who is now getting his messages directly from God). Thank you for standing on the front lines of these battles for all of us.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Brian says

      While you have a right to your opinion, your extreme exaggeration is part of the problem.

      To compare Mr Bundy and the protesters that showed up to “terrorists” is ridiculous. You state that Bundy is a “domestic terrorist”. What act of terrorism has he committed? Do you understand the word?

      By redefining a terrorist as someone that has allowed his cattle to graze on public lands without paying for a proper permit is a slap in the face to all of the veterans that you pretend to thank.

      Call Mr Bundy a “Lawbreaker” if you wish. Even stretch it to “criminal” if you wish. Do NOT dismiss the extreme nature of terrorism by applying the term to this situation.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • John Williams says

        Many people think that folks who show up brandishing heavy armaments and assault rifles in a civilian area to assist a criminal lawbreaker resist legitimate law enforcement efforts pretty darn near fit the definition of domestic terrorist. Definition: “the use of violent acts or threats to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal”.

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Bon Kruder says

        Brian,
        When a group of people in tandem aim their firearms at law enforcement representatives, that’s domestic terrorism. Feds will go after all of them, one by one. Bunch of gapped toothed hillbillies. Bundy belongs in prison.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Brian says

          Aiming their guns at law enforcement is NOT “terrorism” it is a “criminal act”.

          Stating that you will defend your property is not “terrorism” it is “free speech”.

          By comparing a protestor out in the open with a gun that has not been fired to a terrorist setting off a bomb and killing random victims is silly.

          Read the OP again. ” In my view there is no difference between Cliven Bundy and his armed group and the Boston marathon bombers or Timothy McVey.”

          Are you agreeing that there is “no difference”? If so, then things are worse than I thought.

          Domestic Terrorism is the USE of force to facilitate a political or social objective. It is not the threat to defend against armed federal agents that are using excessive force against unarmed civilians.

          While I agree that guns should not have been aimed, aiming them is NOT the same as setting off a bomb and killing people. The inability to see the difference will push our country down a path that leads to those guns being fired.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            Terrorism Definition: “the use of violent acts OR THREATS to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal”. You can try to sugarcoat the actions of these folks, but they made a lot of people afraid! Blocking freeways with guns brandishing, blocking hotel driveways, driving down City Streets with guns waving in back of pickup trucks is not acceptable. You can argue the fine details of definitions, but to me that is simply someone trying to justify and minimize the seriousness of their actions. Try to look at the big picture instead of nitpicking the details of a definition.

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            C’mon John, you aren’t really that ignorant are you?

            So where is the line? If I threaten to pinch you if you don’t agree with closing off the public land to motorized vehicles, then I deserve the same punishment as someone that sets off a bomb that kills hundreds?

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            Foolish statement Brian. Most of us wouldn’t consider a pinch as serious “VIOLENT ACTS OR THREATS”, But most of us DO consider aggressive actions with loaded assault weapons to be such.

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            Ahhhh, so there IS a difference.

            Thanks for pointing it out, John. So let’s move up the scale a bit. How about if I punch you in the shoulder for voting for Obama? Life in prison for me? Is THAT the same as setting off a bomb that kills hundreds? Same as hijacking a plane and flying it into a building?

            You ignored my question (which seems to be the norm here). Where is the line, John?

            If pointing the gun is the same as blowing up a building, as was claimed, then why not just go ahead and shoot? Might as well commit the crime being accused of.

            Feigned ignorance of the difference is just an inflammatory act that invites more people to pick up a gun in defense of the rights they feel are being threatened.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • King Curmudgeon says

            Well John, by your definition it was the BLM acting as terrorists!

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Dennis says

    John, as a police officer and supervisor, what would you suggest to the officials dealing with Bundy’s mis-deeds? Why was he not put under arrest years ago for failure to pay grazing fees? People are attested and end up doing jail time for not paying child support.

    Is Cliven now too big to jail?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • John Williams says

      Actually Dennis, I don’t believe that the federal Law Enforcement officials thought that Bundy would assemble an armed militia army, and they were handling the situation just fine until those folks showed up.Keeping the lid on and dong the job of gathering trespass cattle pursuant to a court order. The Hannity and Tea Part “call to arms” that brought in the outside groups is what took this situation into dangerous territory and the Federal officials made the absolute right call. The law enforcement officials absolutely had the firepower to overwhelm and quell the lawless rioters, but acted like the adults in the room and did not resort to undue violence – they should be commended. This is not over and additional procedures will be used to enforce the law. They MUST, or we are truly a lawless nation.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Brian says

        Handling “just fine”, John?

        The only reason that I even knew about the situation (or cared about it) was due to the use of excessive force on unarmed protestors and the establishment of 1st Amendment areas. Those actions occurred before the armed protestors came into it. Why do you think the Militia people came out? To protect a cow?

        Could you please go ahead and post me the link of your complaints about the excessive use of force. Or do you feel that bringing attack dogs within inches of unarmed protestors is ok? Having guns out and aimed with fingers on the trigger is the right response to unarmed protest?

        Using violent methods on unarmed protest WILL lead to armed protest. There have been too many incidents in American history to quell the fear at this point. We teach that the revolutionary war was a good and necessary insurrection to establish and protect our freedoms, but is not ok to threaten or disobey authority figures now. We teach that it is not ok to release your dog on someone or shoot unarmed civilians, but it is ok when a heavily armed group of park rangers does it?

        I don’t believe that Bundy would have gotten anywhere near the amount of support he did if they were “handling the situation just fine”.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • dave mcnall says

          Am I the only one that views the video taken during the dog bite/taser incident this way: at the start of the video the large truck is moving down a hill coming to a stop prior to getting on the highway. Evidently from eyewitness accounts it struck one of the protesters (from the little that can be seen in the video it appears that that person was moving toward the truck and the driver thankfully put on their brakes, coming to a stop to avoid hitting this moving person). Then in front of the camera a line of our governments law enforcement personnel were positioned roughly at the front bumper of the truck. The animated mob continued to press forward toward the law officers w/ a person later id’d as a bundy yelling “who’s the aggressor here?, who’s the aggressor here” – my take; that would be you (I believe the jury will agree). Then the man in the middle advances with provocation again toward the law officers (who have hardly moved from their same position in front of the bumper) to within a few feet of the officers and is dog bit – he kicks the dog and Katy-bar-the-door he gets what anyone should expect in the same circumstances.
          This was a very successfully spun video by the protagonists but has had its shelf life as a recruiting tool – now, just as the video from the bridge will most certainly come back to bite again.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Linda says

            I’ve watched this video many times. What you can also see is one of the Bundy Sons on an ATV plowing into the right front of the same truck, to stop it. I agree with you….who was the agressor here?

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            I see it pretty close to the same way, Dave. That is what protesting is though.

            The only differences that I see is that the dog was brought closer. It is obvious that the handler was having trouble holding it back and he should not have been that close. As far as kicking the dog goes… that statement is what got me interested in the situation, but it appear that he was reacting not attacking. I like dogs, but I have had to defend myself from one before. It is instinct not desire that brings your foot up. Neither he nor the other protesters had “attacked” and yet guns were drawn and aimed.

            While protesting often gets out of control, the burden of maintaining the situation lies with law enforcement. Had he willingly acted first and attacked an officer, then they should do whatever they need to do to subdue and arrest him. The attack dogs should not have been that close.

            You do not maintain order with barking dogs inches from a crowd and drawn aimed guns.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Linda says

    Well said John. Lots of us are wondering what the heck are some of the elected folks are doing? In Nevada, don’t you have to take an oath to upload the law? If so, I guess “oaths” only apply to some. That’s a bunch of bull…..

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Brian says

      Do you understand the difference between local and federal?

      People keep asking the Local Officials to “do something” but agree that it is Federal Land and that the Federal Government is right in sending in the armed agents.

      Pick a group. If Local Government should handle it, then Bundy is correct. If it is a Federal issue, then don’t blame the Local Government.

      People have posted various biased accounts of the situation. Why not go back just a wee bit farther and include the actions that sparked Mr Bundy’s defiance of the law? Who was he suppose to pay in 1994? 1995? 1996? Don’t complain about him not paying a fee for his cattle that no one would accept. The issue is not about money.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Linda says

        Brian, I didn’t make my point clear. I was talking about members of the Nevada Assembly, that have been elected, that are protesting with Bundy. Why would any politician stand with law breakers. It just doesn’t make any sense. I’m certain they took an oath to uphold the law when going into office. Again, I didn’t ask my question clearly.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Willy says

          Linda, The President and all Congresspersons took a oath to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States of America. Are you comfortable that they are carrying out that oath of office?

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Linda says

            Here is the oath they take. Now, you tell me, are those protesting with someone that doesn’t even recognize the federal government, and has no problem breaking the law…..are these folks following the oath that they took? I think not.

            Oath in State Constitution
            Article 15, Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 2. Oath of office.

            Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

            I, ……………., do solemly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ……………., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury. (Nevada Constitutional Debates and Proceedings, pp. 104-107, 609, 610, 662, 744, 809, 847.) [Amended in 1914: proposed and passed by the 1911 Legislature, agreed to and passed by the 1913 Legislature, and approved and ratified by the people at the 1914 General Election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1911, p. 458; Journal of the Assembly, 26th Session, p. 20 and Journal of the Senate, 26th Session, p. 37.]

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • John Williams says

        Who was he supposed to pay? The BLM. The ones he Quit paying earlier. The ones who have always had the right to manage the land.

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Brian says

          Maybe I am confused. Are you saying that if he had sent a check to the BLM each year, for the actual amount of cattle he had grazing, there would be no issue at all?

          If so, my apologies. As I had understood it, the BLM told him to reduce his herd to protect the turtle and when he refused to comply or pay the removed his right to graze and retired it. I didn’t know that they would have allowed him to continue sending 500 or more cattle out to graze as long as he kept paying.

          (btw, “always” is a bit misleading since they did not exist before 1946)

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            If he had sent a check each of those years for the rent that was charged for the allowed number of cattle it would have been fine. You keep ignoring the pesky fact that the BLM has the right, the authority, and the responsibility to manage the land for the co-existence of all the native species with whatever number of non-native species that they deem compatible. Again, a pretty simple concept. Please read up on Western cattle grazing, and the Taylor Grazing act.

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Brian says

        Yes, it sums it up very nicely. He is Mormon.

        Why do so many of the articles have to mention his religion?

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • dave mcnall says

          When I read that your take away from the article was his religion I had to go back and reread it – the author mentioned it once. It seems that some take exception to mentioning it at all, fair enough. I believe the authors central theme remains the same if omitted (religion).

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            “Whether it is a mental defect unique to 1870s Mormon settlers, severe schizophrenia”

            That isn’t just a mentioning of his religion Dave, it is a wide sweeping insult to them all. He is labeling Mormon settlers as having a mental defect and implying that Mr Bundy has one as well due him being a descendent and a Mormon.

            Look a bit into their history and is becomes obvious that they had a reason to move west. Once again, a judgment is being made without looking at the situation on the whole.

            People at all levels are spitting out bits and pieces of information ( much of it wrong or conflicting) in regards to the situation and molding it to fit their own agenda. That is bad enough, but his religion is also being used as insult.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Bob says

          All of my wifes family is LDS and every single one of them are mad as hell that the entire Bundy incident makes Mormons look like a bunch of inbred hillbillies. And even worse Bundy doesn’t care that Mormons are looking really stupid.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • dave mcnall says

            This seems especially timely (w/ apologies if I’m on the wrong blog)

            http://blog.tomgrover.net/
            The libertarian case against Cliven Bundy April 15th, 2014 · No Comments · Uncategorized

            Believe it or not, Cliven Bundy and I have a lot in common.

            We both claim to believe in limited government. We both have a deep appreciation for our Mormon pioneer heritage. In fact, both of us can look to Mormon pioneer ancestors who helped settle and tame the Mojave Desert.[1]

            That’s why it’s like nails on a chalk board to hear Bundy invoke ideals of limited government as he stands off – literally – with the federal government. Cliven Bundy isn’t a champion of libertarian ideals, but rather a limited government charlatan who has cloaked his criminal activity in libertarian rhetoric. It saddens me to see so many libertarian friends and politicians rally around Bundy. As libertarians, Bundy deserves our scorn, not our support.

            This matter is simple. Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat who has refused to pay his range fees for the past twenty years. He’s a scofflaw for, in direct defiance of court orders, refusing to remove his cattle from land that does not belong to him.

            That doesn’t stop Cliven Bundy from wrapping himself and his indefensible acts in the flag. From the Las Vegas Sun:

            Bundy said he stopped paying grazing fees because he believes the land is owned by the state and that he has a right to use it for his cattle.

            When challenged about why he stopped paying, Bundy said he attempted to pay what he considers the proper authorities —not the BLM.

            The fight, Bundy said, has become more than just about cattle.

            “I feel it’s a constitutional thing; it’s a state sovereignty thing; it’s a county government thing,” Bundy said.

            Fortunately, ownership of public lands isn’t determined by the ignorant delusions and legal fantasies of a rogue Bunkerville rancher. In fact, this issue is explicitly resolved in the Nevada Constitution:

            …the people of Nevada to form a constitution….do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

            Emphasis added. As part of our admittance to the Union, we, the citizens of Nevada, disclaimed title to all unappropriated public lands to the federal government. Legally – and constitutionally – it doesn’t matter whether Bundy’s Mormon ancestors grazed their cattle on the same land. It belongs to the federal government.

            Even more, as noted by the Atlantic, Nevada’s constitution includes a “paramount-allegiance clause,” wherein “the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen [of Nevada] is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers…” Additionally, “the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.” Emphasis added.

            From the Atlantic:

            Nevada isn’t the only state with a paramount-allegiance clause. Republicans added similar clauses to Reconstruction-era state constitutions throughout the South, although few survived subsequent revisions after federal troops departed. Even the states that retain the phrase “paramount allegiance” today, like North Carolina and Mississippi, don’t share Nevada’s explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.

            The Atlantic then notes that the Nevada constitution predates the arrival of Bundy’s Mormon pioneer ancestors by a full two decades, concluding, “It’s doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.”

            Ouch.

            Backed into the corner of this legal reality, some of Bundy defenders pivot from a misstatement of what the law is to an argument of what the law should be.

            John Hinderaker at Power Line makes just such an argument:

            The bedrock issue here is that the federal government owns more than 80% of the state of Nevada. This is true across the western states. To an astonishing degree, those states lack sovereignty over their own territory. Most of the land is federal. And the federal agencies that rule over federal lands have agendas. At every opportunity, it seems, they restrict not only what can be done on federal lands, but on privately-owned property. They are hostile to traditional industries like logging, mining and ranching, and if you have a puddle in your back yard, the EPA will try to regulate it as a navigable waterway.

            I’ll agree that it would be better policy to have the State of Nevada own and manage public lands than the federal government. However, that is completely irrelevant to Bundy’s situation. Bundy doesn’t get to wiggle out of accountability to the law by invoking the law as he thinks it should be. We are all governed by the law as it is. Further, we don’t make these kinds of changes to law in response to or during an armed stand-off in the desert.

            Imagine the year is 1975. The nation has a national speed limit of 55 MPH. Jim gets a ticket for driving 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Jim doesn’t get to avoid accountability under the 55 MPH law by arguing the speed limit should be 75 MPH. Similarly, Cliven Bundy and his defenders can’t excuse his misconduct by mounting a defense on what he thinks the law should be. Like all of us, Cliven Bundy is accountable to the law as it is.

            In response to AG candidate Adam Laxalt’s incredulous claim that the standoff, “is yet another example of why it’s important for Nevadans to gain more control over our lands and the decision-making process in how it is managed,” Steve Sebelius at the Las Vegas Review-Journal correctly noted as follows:

            Here, Laxalt descends into the ridiculous. This is not about federal control of Nevada lands. This is a case of a rancher refusing to pay fees that are entirely legal and which all other law-abiding ranchers pay. Laxalt must know this. But instead of characterizing it properly, he panders to a conservative base in order to get votes. No, that’s not unusual, but it is always despicable.

            Indeed.

            This leads to the very core of why Bundy’s actions can’t be defended by libertarians. Critics of libertarianism often conflate our philosophy with anarchy. This a major libertarian pet peeve.

            Anarchists shun the very need for the state. Libertarians, in contrast, recognize that the state is necessary to define and protect property rights, which, in turn, are required for a voluntary market based economy.

            Bundy flouts these libertarian principles.

            As libertarians, we balk at government subsidies and bailouts of businesses. We believe the government should not intervene into the market on behalf of one person or entity over another. And yet by taking grazing rights without paying for them, Bundy’s cattle operation is receiving a de facto federal subsidy.

            Bundy has shown a disregard for legally defined property rights by grazing his cattle on land that doesn’t belong to him without authorization or payment.

            Even after a Court of law ruled against Bundy, Bundy doubled down on his cowboy anarchy.

            From Politico:

            “My Clark County sheriff, Doug Gillespie, didn’t finish his job,” Bundy said. “What the mandate from we the people was, Saturday was to disarm the park service and BLM. And when he didn’t do that, and his time was up, then we the people took it into our hands and had to do the sheriff’s job and the governor of Nevada’s job.”

            Bundy said his supporters marched “and they faced an army of bureaucrats, and they faced those guns with courage and faith and much danger, and they backed those bureaucrats down and they run out of this county into Utah.”

            Bundy prevailed in driving the BLM out – temporarily – not because the government enforced a property right in his favor, but because he had more guns. Like medieval times, might made right.

            From Elaine Hurd on Let’s Talk Nevada:

            Cliven Bundy won. Through threats of violence fueled by armed militias called in by our local tea party “patriots,” he won. The Bureau of Land Management was forced to dismantle their operation to rectify 20 years of his lawbreaking with court orders to back up removal of his cows from public land because Clark County Sheriff Gilllespie made the BLM stand down. He didn’t want a shoot-out on his watch.

            Law abiding citizens, especially libertarians, should be offended that in the United States in 2014, an anarchist like Cliven Bundy has been able to subvert the law through threat of violence.

            Even so, some politicians have turned their back on the rule of law. Niger Innis, for example, has made the preposterous claim that “Cliven Bundy’s fight is a civil rights issue,” in this Las Vegas Review-Journal article. Explain to us, Niger, how refusing to pay range fees for 20 years, thus taking a resource that doesn’t belong to Bundy, and defying federal court orders, is a “civil rights issue.” Ridiculous. Anyone with basic critical thinking skills should recognize that this is an issue of (1) theft by a deadbeat and (2) contempt of court by a scofflaw.

            The core ideals behind libertarianism include personal property rights and individual responsibility. Bundy’s actions are in direct defiance of both ideals. He is a deadbeat who refuses to pay for the use of property that does not belong to him. He maintains that he is entitled to a de facto federal subsidy for his cattle operation. He insists that he is literally above the law and does not have to obey court orders, like the rest of us. No libertarian, in good conscience, can or should support Cliven Bundy.

            ………..

            [1]Bundy’s family settled what is now the northeast corner of Clark County, Nevada. My great (x3) grandfather, Charles C. Rich, for whom my newborn son is named, lead the Mormon settlement of San Bernardino, California.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            Thank You Dave. I have posted several of these pieces of information in different discussions here on this site, but then the same commentors just wait a while and then post their falsehoods about the property in question being State or county land. They just ignore the FACTS and keep repeating their lies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts!

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • dave mcnall says

            Thank-you for reading – our thanks to the author Tom Grover for taking the time to put the facts in writing.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Lawrence says

    I am a Mesquite resident, ashamed of it a planning to relocate after this debacle.
    Governor Sandoval’s actions during this this incident were a disgrace.

    I am retired and fortunate enough to travel with season’s. I hike into the back country of many western state’s. The damage I have seen done to our public lands by cattle and sheep is beyond belief. That being said the vast majority of people who put their livestock on public lands are doing it lawfully, pay their grazing fees and follow the dictates of BLM or Forest Service land managers. Most of them struggle to make a living and are decent hard working people.

    A fine resource for understanding livestock on public lands is a book: WELFARE RANCHING. THE SUBSIDIZED DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN WEST. You can get it used on Amazon for ten bucks. A huge book filled with photographs and data. It will open your eyes to the amazing stupidity of grazing livestock on public land.

    Cliven Bundy is an embarrassment, a thief, a criminal and a loudmouth jackass. We the American people can not allow him and his thugs to take control of our land. Write a letter to the Governor and Senator Reid today!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Elaine Hurd says

      Please don’t leave. Many of us felt the same way at first. They will win if good people go. We can preserve the great life we have here — but only if good people stay. This is not over.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Brian says

        “Good People”?

        I do not mean this as a personal attack Elaine, but why are you a “good person” for moving into a community from somewhere else and attempting to change it to your liking? You are a “good person” and people that disagree with you are “bad people”?

        I have seen in the short time that I have been reading this board that yours seems to be a prevailing view. I have expressed a difference of opinion and my posts get quickly thumbed down. Even the short ones that just ask a question. It makes it difficult to believe that this is a place “Where Communities Communicate” when people are labeled as “good people” or “terrorists” depending on their opinion of a topic.

        King was accused of considering racists as his hero based on a racist showing up at the protest. How many “good people” have stepped up in his defense?

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Cindy says

          Brian, Elaine is a very good person. She is not trying to change the community as you say. All she wants is people In This community to follow the laws of the U.S. Government, Sate and Local. Does that seem wanted to change things to suit her?
          I feel the same way. People need to follow the rules or we’ll have a real problem.

          This has No bearing in where you came from, it’s just common sense.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            My apologies to Elaine. As I said, I was not trying to say that she is NOT a “good person”. It is just a bit inflammatory to start labeling people as “good” or “bad” based on their opinion.

            Her describing herself and others that share her opinion as “good people” implies that anyone that does not agree are “bad people”. Since I do not completely agree with her opinion, that means that I must be a “bad person”. I don’t like being called a “bad person” just because I can understand both sides of the issue. I have seen how quickly someone can go from a “bad person” to a “terrorist” on this forum.

            Where you come from DOES have a bearing in this and other similar issues. Mr Bundy was not breaking the law until someone else changed the agreement that his family had with the government for over 100 years. This is similar to people moving into Vegas and complaining about the gambling or moving to Nebraska and complaining about the corn.

            I don’t think that Elaine is a “bad person” for having a differing opinion. I do think that she and others are simplifying the issue. This family was told that they had to give up the life and business that their family had known for generations. Would you be so willing to give up everything you had ever worked for? Everything you had invested in? Everything you had planned for your children?

            I feel that every situation needs to be looked at from both sides. Try to understand where the other side is coming from. The situation got out of hand and was mishandled by both sides, but it didn’t start last week. This situation was sparked when someone told a family that a tortoise was more important than they were.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            No, the organization that has the job of protecting and preserving the land for the collective owners of the land determined that it was being overgrazed to the point that it was further endangering native species, so they legally and lawfully reduced the number of cattle that the renter can put on it. He didn’t like the representative of the owner telling him that, so he refused to rent it any more under the terms the landlord offered. The rest is history. We the people are not responsible for the business that the Bundy family chose to be in. The business model always relied on renting property from others and there was never any guarantee that they would be able to rent it for that same amount and use forever. Sustainable business plans do not rely on insecure futures. The way I see it, they were extremely fortunate to be able to use our land for over 100 years, but there was NEVER any guarantee that they would be able to do so forever. Pretty simple concepts really. Kinda like the buggy whip business. Raising cattle in a desert on land you rent on a year-to-year lease is pretty risky business. When it failed, he refused to vacate and the landlord is finally fed up with him squatting and freeloading. Can’t feel too sorry for him, though, he’s a millionaire and still has thousands of acres and extremely valuable water rights that the government gave his relative several generation ago. He got his assets the old fashioned way, he inherited them

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • Brian says

            Thank you for agreeing with me, John.

            This event was sparked when the grazing rights that his family had been granted and paid for were limited.

            Whether YOU agree with the concept of grazing rights or not is immaterial. If you are a “law abiding citizen” as so many on this board are trying to use as a weapon, then you should have supported his grazing rights and fought against anyone that was trying to change them. After all, they were the law at the time.

            Claiming that the laws you agree with are written in stone and the ones you do not agree with are written in sand is hypocrisy. Laws are ALL written in sand or they are ALL written in stone.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          • John Williams says

            C’mon Brian. Did you miss this part of the “law of the land” at the time: “so they legally and lawfully reduced the number of cattle that the renter can put on it”. The law was NOT that he could rent the land forever, it was that he got grazing rights that he could rent (or not) allotted for one year at a time. This enabled the managers of the land to keep it fit for all native species and preserve it from over-grazing so as to protect its characteristics for all future generations!. Again, pretty simple unless you believe that a temporary rental contract grants you permanent ownership, which of course, it does NOT.

            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Linda says

      I agree with Elaine. I hope people do not flee the area because of a bunch of law breakers. I feel this is not overwith and the law will prevail. Wish there was something those of us law abiding citizens living here in NV could do to help. Just remember, you are not alone in your beliefs…..not alone at all!

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. Doug says

    One of the comments criticized this writer for calling Bundy a domestic terrorist. Bundy is no different than Osama Bin Laden or Timothy McVey. Bundy set all the wheels in motion, told his militia to bring their guns, told news media he was “receiving messages directly from God” and was ready to start killing people to create another Waco. The government saw it coming and backed off to save lives and avoid bloodshed. That makes Bundy a domestic terrorist, same as McVey and Bin Laden. Now he is opening a campground on his ranch for all the militia to move to Bunkerville permanently. Call it a training camp, just like Bin Laden did. He is a domestic terrorist.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Brian says

      That criticism came from me. Now he has reached the level of Bin Laden?

      I guess the answer to the situation is clear now. Send in a seal team.

      Btw, people have differing opinions as to what set the wheels in motion. As I have mentioned before, coming in and attempting to remove a man’s livelihood and way of life will sometimes achieve a negative response. I’m not talking about last week, I am talking about what happened in the early 90’s. While I do NOT agree with the way Mr Bundy has dealt with the issue, I can only imagine what it would be like to have to fight the government for 20 years just to maintain your way of life that was legal before.

      Now he has gone from being a law abiding rancher, to law breaking rancher, to criminal, to domestic terrorist, to Osama Bin Laden all because he did not agree with the decision to give up his ranch for a tortoise.

      I think you may have managed to insult Mr Bundy AND Osama Bin Laden in one fell swoop. Well done.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • King Curmudgeon says

        Brian,all I can say is the mind of a liberal is a scary thing.Apparently Doug has information nobody but he has heard. I seriously doubt he could provide a link to any of his claims to what Bundy has said about God telling him anything, OR how he was going to start killing people to create another Waco.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. Kit says

    Lawrence, I also don’t want you to leave. The dust will settle soon enough. The rable rousers who arrived to supposedly help Bundy can’t stay forever. They must have jobs to return to. I liken them to school yard bullies.
    One way to get a message across is to vote out all of the irresponsible people in office. To do that we need people like you to help make that change and show that Mesquite and the Virgin Valley is a wonderful place. So please reconsider.

    Ok, now I’ll put my other two cents in. What happened to unlawful assembly, intent to incite violence and/or a riot, threat of violence by brandishing firearms, malicious mischief, obstructing traffic and chief among them all, obstructing justice. Some of those people should have been arrested for that. As for the dog, what did they expect to happen. It is a trained attack dog and was doing it’s job. It perceved a threat and acted on it. If one plays with fire your going to get burned (or bit in this case).
    I must agree with Doug. Bundy is terrorizing the entire community with his tactics. He is disrupting the peace and tranquility of the entire valley because of his warped, irresponsible, personal agenda. I’m even shocked he is now crying about the condition (or potential) of the calves. He had cattle wandering all over the valley. How could he keep an eye on them to insure their health in the first place?
    Thank you Dave M. for restating the Nevada constitution clause about the areas the state reliquinshed to the Federal Government. This was done about 1864. Upon viewing Bundy’s interview with Sean Hannity, he said his ancestors settled in the valley in 1877. Do the math. If that’s the case, he loses again. His family came AFTER the constitution was written and the land given to the Federal Government.
    (note: As much as I like Fox News, I was shocked at Hannity’s one sided interview and shot of an e-mail telling him so).
    Terrorism? I now expect that because of this, Homeland Security (and no doubt the FBI) has an eagle eye on the situation, as well as pictures of each person and all of vehicle license plates and is doing backround checks on everyone.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Dave Andrews says

      The headline in mediamatters dot org tonight
      Sean Hannity Floats Possibility That Federal Government Will Kill Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy
      Hannity Brags About His Role In Escalating Standoff

      Wow, what a wicked web we weave when we practice to deceive.

      So hannity (in order advance up the ladder toward one percent land) whips up his audience to come out to bunker ville, whereupon the feds will martyr bundy and he’s proud. Then when they get there they find out its women first.
      I don’t think this is what they meant by the “war on women” this one might leave a mark.
      Is there anything this me-first twisted arse won’t say for advertisers and book deals?
      Any bloodshed going forward is on his hands and he won’t get out of the sentence in this lifetime.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • King Curmudgeon says

        I’ll have to agree with you on this one Dave. Hannity seems to be frothing at the mouth for bloodshed.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. Doug says

    Cresent Hardy and Bundy will be real proud when one of their militia plants an IED to injure or kill a lawman. Real proud Cresent and it is on you.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Brian says

      Wow! This IS getting out of hand, I hadn’t seen that article yet. Got a link?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Have Something to Say?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commenting requires a valid email address that will not be published.

Comments are NOT moderated by Lets Talk Nevada. Our goal is to generally allow anonymity to the poster if it is requested and NOT to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed when reported.

Click here for Full comments policy.