What's behind Cliven Bundy nutfuckery?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/20/1293342/-EXPOSED-The-Source-Of-Cliven-Bundy-s-Crackpot-Constitutionalism?

The unfolding drama in the Nevada desert over a deadbeat cattle rancher's refusal to pay customary grazing fees like every other rancher, continues to excite the Tea Party pseudo-patriots who believe that threatening a range war in defense of personal greed is a mark of virtue. However, Cliven Bundy's domestic terrorism serves nothing more than his own selfish financial interests, and the crusade he purports to lead is rooted in the worst sort of perversion of constitutional principles.



Bundy has resisted paying to graze his cattle on federal land because he doesn't recognize the authority of the government to assess those fees. His argument has lost repeatedly in court, but he continues to ignore his responsibility and to defy the law. His malfeasance amounts to the theft of over a million dollars from the American people. Ironically, if his argument prevailed he would be subject to paying the state of Nevada for grazing rights at $15.50 per head of cattle, rather than the federal rate of $1.35. But simple math, like simple logic, is too complicated for these cretins. So instead, they take up arms against their fellow Americans and pretend to defend their twisted misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Now we have evidence of where Bundy may have picked up his constitutional delusions. In a recent media appearance, Bundy was proudly displaying a copy of the Constitution in his shirt pocket.

After searching for the distinctive cover of the document in Bundy's pocket, the publisherturned out to be the innocuously named National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS). However, the NCCS is not the commendable educational organization it purports to be. It began life as the Freemen Institute, a vehicle for the far-right, Mormon, anti-commie, history revisionist, W. Cleon Skousen. Skousen taught that the Constitution was inspired by a God who intended America to be a Christian nation. He also professed the canon of white supremicism that Anglo-Saxons are descended from a lost tribe of Israel. The Southern Poverty Law Center chronicled the NCCS curriculum based on Skousen's philosophy saying that he...

"...demonized the federal regulatory agencies, arguing for the abolition of everything from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency. He wanted to repeal the minimum wage, smash unions, nullify anti-discrimination laws, sell off public lands and national parks, end the direct election of senators, kill the income tax and the estate tax, knock down state-level walls separating church and state, and, of course, raze the Federal Reserve System."Sound familiar? Skousen's warped ideology was syncs up perfectly with the Tea Party and other purveyors of fringe fear mongering like politi-vangelist Glenn Beck, who literally begged his audience to read Skousen's book, "The 5000 Year Leap," which Beck said was"divinely inspired." The conspiracy-obsessed NCCS shares with Beck and Bundy an animosity toward government that exceeds the boundaries of common sense. Along with Skousen's books, the NCCS website features anti-UN screeds ("Confronting Agenda 21""Repeal 17 Now!"), harbingers of one-world government ("The Rise of Global Governance"), and appeals for institutionalized theocracy ("America's God & Country"). No wonder Bundy was sporting a version of the Constitution that was distributed by the NCCS, an organization that advances ultra-conservative conspiracy theories and promotes anti-government hostility.

The threatening hysteria and deception emanating from Bundy, and the armed militias that came to his defense, are emblematic of the apocalyptic doctrine of the NCCS. It is no accident that Bundy's Constitution was provided by a group whose teachings have been denounced by historians and constitutional scholars. But it does explain the extremism and advocacy of violence that Bundy et al have espoused. All of this makes it all the more inappropriate and irresponsible for Bundy to be hailed as hero by conservative media outlets like the National Review and Fox News who, just last week, compared Bundy to Gandhi in a feat of epic cognitive collapse.

[stromboli]

Yup. Welcome to the land of Mormon nutbagery. This is the shit I grew up with. The utter stupidity of it is that Bundy is blatantly breaking the law and has been for decades, and the people who are rallying around him are the people he is actually shafting by not paying his fees. 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The legal term sedition comes to mind. If this bullshit doesn't fall under sedition it damned sure is pretty damned close.

[Elect]

Convenient Constitutionalism. This guy wants all the guarantees of freedom, but none of the responsibility of being a good citizen. 

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I don't care if he's right or wrong, you don't respond to unpaid fines by threatening an American repeat of Tienanmen Square. If the US government is going to act like a band of thugs to get its way, I'll support Bundy whether his name is Cliven or Ted.

[Elect]

I'm not really buying the Tienanmen square comparison. That was a peaceful protest. These Bundy supporters are armed and threatening violence. Tienanmen was a demonstration. These guys are protecting a criminal with a dangerous delusion that they are taking a stance against an abusive federal government. frankly I have a problem with paranoid gun nuts and playing overthrow-the-govt in the woods, but they weren't bothering anyone. Now they are out in the open threatening an assault based on lunatic fringe philosophy. These guys need to be dealt with. The only prob is that engaging these guys would be the self fulfilling prophecy other extremists would use to mimic this behavior. Plus, these militia guys may not be concerned about bloodshed, but the US definitely is, and any peaceful resolution would be seen as a victory for the extremists. What a pain in the ass. If these guys had at least one single legit grievance it would be a lot easier to side with them, that's not the case here. 

[Solitary]

What would Jesus do?  :fU: Solitary

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The land did belong to his family until the government pronounced it theirs and started charging for its use.

It is as if I moved into your house and started charging you rent.

[stromboli]

The concern is how the Justice Department handles it.

(edit) yeah, Jason posted the same time I did. good point. I'm not making any judgment beyond what I've already said, that Mormon nutbagery  is definitely involved. Read about 2 steps right of John Birch and you get the idea.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Even nutbags can have a legitimate grievance.

[Poison Tree]

The land did belong to his family until the government pronounced it theirs and started charging for its use.

I've seen this claim before, but have been unable to find a source for it. I have, instead, found several (most notably the 1998 court ruling) stating that "The public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because theUnited States has held title to those public lands since1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States."

[billhilly]

From what I've been able to gather, it isn't about who owns the land in question but rather about the grazing rights.  Bundy's family had been grazing their cattle along with several other families on this "open range" and paying the government a grazing rights fee for generations. 

Apparently the government decided some years ago to alter the deal and limit the number of cattle he could run on the land in question due to concerns over an endangered tortoise of some sort.  Bundy continued to run the same amount of cattle so the feds considered the grazing deal null and void and refused to accept his grazing fee.  Years went by in limbo and then the feds showed up to remove the cattle.  Add nuts, a federal swat team, slowly simmer while stirring frequently and you get stand off stew.

There's more to the deal I'm sure.  State governments wanting more control over the huge percentage of western states that are controlled by the feds, militia types fappin over the possibility of another Waco or Ruby Ridge, and some kind of deal with the land involving Harry Reid.  I'm not sure what to think about it but it doesn't really seem like a black and white,  good guy/bad guy scenario.  A bit grey if you ask me.

[stromboli]

CLIVEN BUNDY LIED. Turns out that the Bundys bought the ranch in 1948 and they have only been grazing cattle since 1954. That whole "generations" story is bullshit.

http://www.newshounds.us/cliven_bundy_lied_about_his_family_s_ancestral_rights_and_fox_news_let_him_04222014

[Shiranu]

Fuck him and fuck his followers. This is not Tienanmen Square, this is your run of the mill pack of conservative redneck, anti-government nutbags that think themselves some sort of martyrs to their cause. The people at Tienanmen Square didn't lock themselves in the buildings with guns threatening to shoot anyone who came near them. The people at Tienanmen Square didn't threaten to put the women and children out infront of the tanks to send a message. And the people at Tienanmen Square weren't pissed off because they felt they were (wrongly or rightly) owing illegitimate taxes.

The people at Tienanmen Square numbered nearly a million at it's height and wasn't a small pack of loonie fucks. The people at Tienanmen Square held nonviolent protests (hunger strikes, chaining themselves to trees and posts, etc) instead of threatening armed violence. And the people at Tienanmen Square were mourning the death of a reformist who was standing up for workers rights, as well as were protesting the oppression that they were suffering both physically and economically. They didn't have a snassy ranch to hide on, they didn't have guns and threaten to put their wives and children infront. The military responding to an armed compound is not in anyway, shape or form comparable to the military coming in to shoot and kill unarmed civilians who are simply mourning and asking for fair working and education rights.

Comparing the two is disgusting, that's like saying the Lord's Resistance Army or McVeigh are more or less the same as the Civil Right's Movement or Ghandi.

Hate the government for their response all you want, but don't act like this guy is some sort of hero or that his cause is righteous. He and his followers are worthless shitstains that hopefully realize how moronic they are acting before they get themselves killed.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

The land did belong to his family until the government pronounced it theirs and started charging for its use.

It is as if I moved into your house and started charging you rent.

If that is true that changes the whole thing. To be honest I haven't followed this, so I thought dumbass not wanting to pay reasonable taxes, and I may have misjudged. I still don't agree with his methods, but if that is true I can understand his outrage.

Fuck him and fuck his followers. This is not Tienanmen Square, this is your run of the mill pack of conservative redneck, anti-government nutbags that think themselves some sort of martyrs to their cause. The people at Tienanmen Square didn't lock themselves in the buildings with guns threatening to shoot anyone who came near them. The people at Tienanmen Square didn't threaten to put the women and children out infront of the tanks to send a message. And the people at Tienanmen Square weren't pissed off because they felt they were (wrongly or rightly) owing illegitimate taxes.

The people at Tienanmen Square numbered nearly a million at it's height and wasn't a small pack of loonie fucks. The people at Tienanmen Square held nonviolent protests (hunger strikes, chaining themselves to trees and posts, etc) instead of threatening armed violence. And the people at Tienanmen Square were mourning the death of a reformist who was standing up for workers rights, as well as were protesting the oppression that they were suffering both physically and economically. They didn't have a snassy ranch to hide on, they didn't have guns and threaten to put their wives and children infront. The military responding to an armed compound is not in anyway, shape or form comparable to the military coming in to shoot and kill unarmed civilians who are simply mourning and asking for fair working and education rights.

Comparing the two is disgusting, that's like saying the Lord's Resistance Army or McVeigh are more or less the same as the Civil Right's Movement or Ghandi.

Hate the government for their response all you want, but don't act like this guy is some sort of hero or that his cause is righteous. He and his followers are worthless shitstains that hopefully realize how moronic they are acting before they get themselves killed.

As I said before, I can't really pass judgement because I haven't followed it closely. I disagree with his actions, and I'm not exactly pro any government, but I can understand the reason the government would need to nip this in the bud.

Basically I see it as both sides overreacting.