Nevada Ranch Dispute Getting Ugly, Another Waco Or Ruby Ridge Coming?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Apr 10, 2014.


    This is a 20 year old dispute involving complicated issues of grazing rights on barren desert land. The federal government asserts the rancher has violated restrictions on using federal land and owes grazing fees. He claims ancestral rights to use the land.

    The problem is the Bureau of Land Management has resorted to heavy -handed gestapo tactics that are reminiscent of the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Commenters posting to the above article pointed out the difference in the government's response to this incident and to the Benghazi attack, or closer to home, their studied indifference to widespread immigration law violations.

    It is not just the rancher's rights which are in jeopardy. To "protect" the agents and contractors, the federales have set up "Free speech" zones where citizens can protest. Protesting anywhere else will earn you an arrest and possibly a tasering and beating.

    The head of BLM is a former Harry Reid aide, so more may be involved here than the fate of desert turtles and cows.

    The government is determined to make an example of this rancher. Others see the incident as a frightening portent of what to expect when highly unpopular government programs are forced down our throats. We can assemble in a "Free Speech" zone to complain and be fingerprinted and photographed for later IRS examination.

    I was under the impression the entire country was a Free Speech zone, but apparently not any more.
  2. Ricter


    Those "free speech" zones started (if not before) under Bush II, during the protest before the Iraq invasion. They were used again at the height of Occupy.
  3. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Thank you for pointing out it "is Bush's fault". Has nothing to do with the fact that it's BS and an example of Government overreach.
  4. Ricter


    "I was under the impression the entire country was a Free Speech zone, but apparently not any more. "
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Perhaps you should google the word "sarcasm". It is highly unlikely the OP believes that this event removed the 1st amendment.
  6. There is a huge difference between balancing the need to maintain order in a crowed city with free speech rights and herding protestors into a government-designated venue in the middle of Nowhere, Nevada.

    Of course, the government will claim they don't want their goons being interfered with, but that is the price of a free society. If someone interferes, arrest them but don't censor protestors based on unreasonable or exaggerated fears of confrontation.

    We're talking about a few hundred head of cattle in a vast expanse of open rangeland and desert. For some reason, BLM thought the reasonable way to handle this was to bring in a large group of heavily armed federal agents and basically lay seige to this guy and round up his cattle. Is he in violation of court orders? If so, there is a procedure for enforcing compliance, which involves contempt proceedings, fines and possible arrest. Why there was a need for an armed invasion escapes me.

    Of course, this is the same government that ignores an invasion of illegals and thumbs its nose at congressional oversight. The Attorney General is in contempt of congress and should be in jail, along with obama thug Lois Lerner and the IRS commissioners who lied to congress about the campaign to harrass Tea party groups. Instead, we get Ruby Ridge ver.2.0. Some poor guy trying to eke out a living ranching is targeted for the full weight of the federal government. But for Rand Paul, they would have probably sent drones in to kill him.
  7. Ricter


    Perhaps you should google the meaning of "not any more".
  8. LEAPup


    It's time we end the war on Americans, and freedom before it's too late...
  9. Ricter


    How convenient.
  10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a federal court ruling that the rancher is violating. Moreover, the court specifically gave the rancher 45 days to comply or face the forcible removal of his cows from federal land. In fact, it appears that it's the courts which specifically instructed the BLM and the NPS to remove the animals. If that's the law and the court's decision, isn't the idea that everyone has to abide by it, whether they like it or not?
    #10     Apr 10, 2014