Cliff Gardner is sentenced to a month in a Reno halfway house, along with a $5,000 fine and a year of probation. He has been under house arrest for the three previous months for not taking his cattle off of federal land. When his sentence — which affirmed the U.S. Forest Service's authority over the disputed land — was announced, more than 50 states' rights protesters were in the courtroom with him.
Thursday evening, a small bomb went off in the U.S. Forest Service office in Carson City, Nev.
Though no one has taken responsibility -- and no one was injured -- it has sent chills through government agencies involved in Western land management.
"If it was sent as a message," says Forest Service spokeswoman Erin O'Connor, "we got it."
A bomb blew out windows and ripped a hole in the wall of a Toiyabe Forest Service office in Carson City, Nev., in the early evening of March 30. No one was injured in the explosion, which scattered debris and damaged computer equipment in the office of District Ranger Guy Pence in downtown Carson City. The day before, a pipe bomb blew up a concrete toilet in a Forest Service campground near Elko, Nev., and on March 31, the Toiyabe National Forest headquaters in Sparks, Nev., had to be evacuated after a receptionist reportedly received a call saying: "You're next."
yep, those SWAT members were Americans, too. they made a mistake. a huge one. but there is nothing which indicates they were intending to do the wrong thing. little different than friendly fire taking out our own. by accident, in the midst of chaos. Americans, thinking they are doing the right thing at the moment they inflict their damage. you do understand the difference between intentional and unintentional outcomes? well, that post indicates otherwise. possibly you fired for effect and unintentionally hit the wrong target with your words: Americans doing their jobs as they understood them to beYou know those SWAT teams which bust into people's homes with No-Knock raids, shoot and kill people and then realize that they made a mistake, well they're Americans too. You remember those LA cops shooting 78 rounds at a newspaper delivery woman and her mom during the Dorner manhunt? Why did they shoot? Why was the life of a Police Captain worth so much more than the lives of two old women? Those cops were all Americans too. They placed allegiance to fellow officers and superiors above allegiance to their oath.
and the problem you have identified is that there are people who are willing to subscribe to such hokum. every federal employee takes a oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. and if they are found failing to do so, they lose their jobThere is a problem here and it's that many citizens now believe that Federal employees grant greater allegiance to the Federal Government, their bosses, their coworkers and their paychecks than they place do the nation and its citizens.
most of those employees are good Americans doing their jobs, serving their country, as they understand their assignments to be. they have union representatives who can act on their behalf to inquire about assignments they see as inconsistent with their sworn duties. they have whistleblowing ability to report wrongdoing. what i see from that portion of your post is the envy of someone who resents that federal employees have the security of employment that is all too rare in the private sector these days. rather than resenting that positive attribute we should be finding out how to expand that job security to other aspects of employment in our nationWe've all seen the statistics about how DC is pretty much recession proof - the government keeps growing, its employees continue to do well for themselves, and the rest of the nation suffers. How many employees are going to jump off that gravy train. How many employees are going to abide by Nuremberg Rules, that illegal orders do not have to be followed when they stand to lose their job, their pension, their good name. We see what happens with NSA whistleblowers from the pre-Snowden era.
and you look at the situation and come away with the wrong conclusion about what initiated it. this is nothing more than a federal office taking appropriate action on behalf of the American people. the bureau had completed the litigation portion of noncompliance with federal rules and regulations such that a court found against a rancher who used public lands without authorization and without compensation to the public. the bureau was using time tested methods to secure the available assets of that debtor, such that those secured assets could then be sold at public auction with the proceeds being used to pay down/pay off the debt owed to the American public. notice the actual theme here? American workers, following federal laws, rules and regulations. federal employees taking action to protect the interests of American citizensWhat went down in Nevada is serious stuff, not because a bunch of yahoos took up a cause, but because a bunch of people have had enough of how powerful and unjust and unaccountable the Federal Government has become and this case was, to them, a good enough symbol of all that is wrong and how they don't trust DC to be working in the interests of the people.
NO, NO, NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO,NO, NO! i can understand why you would seek to co-opt the actions of America citizens who were publicly protesting public policy which works against the average citizen. but there is a massive difference. the OWS protesters did not set up sniping positions to fire upon other American citizens. i can understand why you would want to imbue the legitimacy of the OWS protests with the wrongful actions of these traitors on horseback. it is because there is no justifiable defense for the cowboys' willingness to act against its country. you want to paint the passive protests of the OWS protesters as the equivalent of extremist ranchers who were prepared to shoot and kill other citizens who were doing their jobs, and doing them legally and peacefully. i cannot adequately express how wrong it is to equate the actions of the OWS with those of these ranchersThis is cut from the same cloth as the OWS protests but instead of focusing on Big Business, this is focused on Government.
what will keep our country free from such an outcomes is for Americans to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA. which is exactly what the federal employees were doing. and that was what the ranchers opposed. and yet, you defend their unAmerican actions. patheticThese kinds of events are going to increase in the coming years because we're no longer a nation bound together, to each other. These protesters didn't see the Feds as part of them, they saw the Feds as overlords, as foreign rulers. And as for the agents being Americans, look through history and look at the people who were the blunt hammer of the oppressors, it's always people drawn from the population. Who do you think will be the oppressors of Americans, the Guatemalans?
The Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a Market Failure. Even libertarians recognize that there is a government role in cases of market failures. If you have a finite resource: Public Land. With finite resources on it: Forage, Water, Plants and Animals, then there has to be a way of managing that resource for future generations and all interests.
Thats great have you files a suit yet?
And libertarians argue for minimal govt. An illegaly created federal bureaucracy operating 1000 miles away from what they are managing with arbitrary decisions is not minimal. A libertarian would support LOCAL people deciding whats needed and what to do about it, among themselves. Libertarians do not support the concept of centralized common ownership of property.
Of course they're not... are you trying to be obtuse here or what?
Its funny to me that some libertarians always call the entire concept of public land "illegal" and unconstitutional, yet it has never been successfully challenged in the federal court system. Just because you believe something to be illegal does not make it so, at some point you actually have to get the courts to agree with you.
...every federal employee takes a oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. and if they are found failing to do so, they lose their job...
You're not making much sense.
So you were talking about the Panthers then? Maybe I wouldn't have to ask questions if you didn't write everything in the vaguest language possible.
So, losing his case in court multiple times means nothing to you?
You want anarchy, just as long as it is anarchy you agree with.
Public land, but he still has to pay grazing fees. You keep admiring deadbeat scofflaw moochers...
How was this group being mistreated? They are taxpayers, they are owed money from this welfare queen, they should demand that someone pay their bills...
Originally Posted by Kobie
The Kent State students didn't dredge up a bunch of militia hicks to threaten federal officials. I'm not sure to what Black Panthers incident you're referring.
Originally Posted by mac They all stood in defiance of the govt, some armed, some not.
It made perfect sense.
There was nothing vague. You're being obtuse while trying to be witty and condescending. I quoted two groups and said some were armed some were not. Anyone that knew anything about the two groups wouldn't have needed further clarification.
Of course it means something to me, and further pursuit in the legal system is what was warranted. Not a heavily armed seizure of private property.
First....it's public land with no other use. His use is not precluding anyone else from using it. That's what public land is for. There are legal ways to pursue the fines he owes, and from what I've read....he's further appealing the court decisions. There is a fair bit of wiggle room between anarchy and an oppressive govt.
If you think that there was "nothing vague" about your lumping together Kent State students and the Black Panthers in a statement about armed groups - I must ask if English is your first language. Or perhaps you are deliberately inciting those of opposing political persuasion.
"Radical" would be a better Lean for you
Would you care to wager this public land has no other use? Yes Bundy's cattle do preclude other citizens from using the land. I thought extended court cases were one of those items on the conservative tick list - you know, they call it "tort reform". How many more times do you want to pay for federal attorneys to stand before judges, all of whom have sided with the government case?
IOW, they should not start going after tax delinquents until they first start going after tax delinquents
Since two wrongs make a right, you do have a good point there.
If this is public land, then this guy is one of the owners of that land. So since he is an owner why cant he use it?Would you care to wager this public land has no other use? Yes Bundy's cattle do preclude other citizens from using the land. I thought extended court cases were one of those items on the conservative tick list - you know, they call it "tort reform". How many more times do you want to pay for federal attorneys to stand before judges, all of whom have sided with the government case?
You petulant plastic patriots, always looking for a free ride, sponging off the work and dues of others.
If this is public land, then this guy is one of the owners of that land. So since he is an owner why cant he use it?
Well that explains it. lolOh, because he's a rich cattle rancher....Didn't you know? Wealth makes one evil, and should be stripped of all rights, unless they pay protection money to the federal mob.
What specific use is being denied to what specific group?
Of course it means something to me, and further pursuit in the legal system is what was warranted. Not a heavily armed seizure of private property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?