Not sure what anyone else's personal definition of "para-military" is, but these look fairly "para-military" to me. To each his own, however.... View attachment 2474 View attachment 2476
Here's an interesting point-of-view. Not saying he's right or wrong, just that he has some interesting points: WHY YOU SHOULD BE SYMPATHETIC TOWARD CLIVEN BUNDY On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are. First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument. That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence. Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that? 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. That is only a slight exaggeration. One could say that Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores. The federal government has gotten more environmentally-conscious, and now we really, really care about desert tortoises. (It was the designation of desert tortoises as an endangered species that gave BLM the opportunity to squeeze Bundy in the early 1990s.) But here’s the thing: the Bureau of Land Management–the federal government–is not necessarily anti-development. Rather, its attitude depends entirely on what sort of development is in question. Thus, BLM has developed a grandiose plan to develop vast solar energy installations on federal land across the Southwest. Wind power projects are favored, too. In fact, the same BLM that has driven Nevada’s ranchers out of business has welcomed solar projects with open arms. Some have claimed that Harry Reid is behind the BLM’s war against Cliven Bundy, on the theory that he wants the land for a solar project in which his son Rory is involved, along with the Chinese. I don’t believe this is correct. The solar projects are located north of Las Vegas, 30 miles or so from the area where Bundy ranches. But the connection is nevertheless important in two respects. First, BLM has promulgated a regional mitigation strategy for the environmental impacts of the solar developments. Let’s pause on that for a moment: the excuse for limiting Bundy’s rights is the endangered desert tortoise. But wait! Don’t they have desert tortoises a few miles away where the solar projects are being built? Of course they do. That’s where they get to the mitigation strategy, which may involve, among other things, moving some desert tortoises to a new location: The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ.Gold Butte is the area where Bundy ranches. There are a few problems with the Gold Butte location as a mitigation area; one of them is that there are “trespassing” cattle: The resource values found in the Gold Butte ACEC are threatened by: unauthorized activities, including off-road vehicle use, illegal dumping, and trespass livestock grazing; wildfire; and weed infestation. (continued)
So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor. Solar energy projects don’t draw BLM snipersThe new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family? Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political. So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php
So the Federal Gov'T decided to raise his rent after 100 years. I think most people have faced rent increases far more often than that. I really could care less about desert turtles or Cliven Bundy's cattle for that matter. Pay your rent or get the hell out. If the new rent is too high to turn a profit find other land to rent. If you can't find other land - then sell-out and find a job in Vegas dealing Black-Jack or something.
The one with the white trucks appears to be genuine, i.e. the photo was actually taken where the poster claimed it was taken rather than in a different country a few thousand mile away. Note how heavily armored those white vehicles are. One even has a brush bar. There is no way that normal federal agents would have war machines that formidable and well protected.
Is it our "friends on the Right" who have called it an issue of non-payment of taxes, Takiji? Or perhaps they're just quoting what Harry Reid said? “He says that the United States is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees, unlike the rest of Nevada ranchers. And he doesn’t follow the law,” Reid said. “He continues to thumb his nose at authority.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-nevada-ranch-harry-reid-105811.html#ixzz2zJ0QhMZP Well, which is it?
I guess my question is this: Does this dispute merit the actions taken by the BO administration? Have grazing rights, rare turtles, an unpaid tax bill...whatever the root of the issue happens to be...risen to the point where we need to send in armored vehicles & para-military forces, armed with assault weapons? Does this dispute merit the money BO is spending to recoup what he thinks is his? Is the potential risk of injury or the risk of an escalating situation really worth it? And why wouldn't BO go after Al Sharpton with the same gusto rather than pal around with him?
Question, should the law be the same for all citizens or should some be exempt? If you break the law should you be punished? Now on to this, if as has been stated here this guy has refused to comply with more than 1 court judgement what consequences should he face if any? As for Para military types using the definition supplied by coin are these armed individuals a unofficial force or are they part of a legitimate government force for example the FBI, Police, ATF or a similar organization? If yes then they are not unofficial. Now lets look at those with weapons who are opposing them. What official status do they hold? are they a state regulated militia? or simply private citizens? Regardless of your political viewpoint do you believe in the rule of law (no matter how stupid it might appear) or the rule of the gun? I think this is what this boils down to. The landowner in my opinion (and this is just my opinion) should take this issue as far as he can using legal means, I do think simply going by what I have read that he might well have a valid case, due to the longevity of his families claim to have grazed this land. Has the government provided any proof that his cattle have in any way damaged the ecosystem?
These types come out of the woodwork from time to time in this country. This is nothing new or unprecedented. They make a lot of noise stomp around and then are forgotten. In my opinion, this nut Bundy is ripping you and I off since he is using our jointly owned land for his private enterprise. The same as if some guy decided to go logging in a National Forrest. Why should he be able to get away with stealing from you and I? This seems to come down to money. Not state's rights, not freedom, not a tyrannical government but plain old greed. No matter how anyone tries to frame this, it's really about greed. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Ok Mr Obvious...but what about BO's response to the situation? Does Bundy's offense merit this level of response? If so, why wouldn't Al Sharpton's $1 million tax debt be just as important?
I've never heard Obama make one comment about this situation so it would be hard to comment on "his" response.
Are there armed citizens in place around Al Sharptons home? If not then there is no need for such a government response David but if there were, I for one would expect to see the same. Wouldnt you?
Actually, they are armed members of the Bureau of Land Managment (BLM), an official government agency. Let's take a look at the definition of "military": View attachment 2478 Now, when one thinks of the BLM, the "military" (i.e., Army, Navy, Marines, etc.) doesn't spring to mind. However, being an official government agency of this country and being armed, the argument could be made that they are, indeed, part of the military being ultimately commanded by the Commander-in-Chief. Similarly, one doesn't think of the FBI as part of the "military", however, they are a national security agency and are tasked with the command to protect the United States by armed means, if necessary. The FBI certainly has some military-grade weaponry at its disposal. So, the term "military" is a rather broad definition, but I believe armed BLM agents, carrying military-grade weaponry, outfitted in military gear, conducting a military-precision operation under the auspices of the federal government might qualify to be considered "military".
And your point is? I was commenting on your use of the word Para military as you took the time to post a definition of it. They (BLM) are a authorised part of the federal government so not Para military using your definition. I do not think that I claimed that they were military, so have no idea as to why you quoted my post then posted a definition on the word military.
I posted the paramilitary definition since David mentioned it. I was confirming your supposition that they are part of an official government force, hence they can't be paramilitary. I quoted your comment as reference for my argument that they could be "military" instead.
If you want to see what it was really like, try watching this - shot by an independent film maker. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
