Cliven Bundy celebrates anniversary of armed insurrection.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... year-later

It’s hard to forget the armed confrontation between federal law enforcement and Cliven Bundy’s well-armed supporters in Nevada. In fact, the standoff, which the Obama administration, in the interest of public safety, chose not to escalate, was exactly one year ago.

The L.A. Times noted that the controversial rancher, who claims not to recognize the legitimacy of the United States government, threw a “shindig” over the weekend – a “freedom celebration” to honor the anniversary.
This weekend marks the one-year anniversary of when federal agents swooped onto the public lands near Bundy’s ranch to round up hundreds of cattle that the 67-year-old had been grazing without permits. The land is administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

The raid didn’t go well: Hundreds of supporters – self-named citizen militiamen, many with semiautomatic weapons – rallied around their new leader, creating at tense standoff between two armed camps. In the end, on last April 12, the federal government backed down, released the cattle agents had corralled and – poof! – vanished.
The underlying dispute has not been resolved. Bundy has still ignored multiple court orders and still owes the United States more than $1 million after he was fined for grazing on protected land.

Bundy’s posture, as a long-term proposition, remains unsustainable – a fact he seems to realize. “It’s hard to tell, but the feds, they’re probably going to do something,” Bundy told the L.A. Times. “[T]hey’re probably just standing back, looking at things.”

He added, however, in reference to the Bureau of Land Management, “They know if they make a move, they’ll upset America. And I don’t think they want to do that.”

It’s an ominous choice of words from a fringe activist who may not enjoy quite as much support as he thinks he has.

Remember, Republicans and conservative media personalities quickly elevated Cliven Bundy to folk-hero status early last year, right up until some of his racist views came to light.

Suddenly, the right was forced to reevaluate whether they were prepared to stand behind a racist lawbreaker who doesn’t recognize the United States and whose supporters pointed high-powered weapons at American law enforcement.

I’m reminded, in particular, of Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) who said last April, “I am very quick in calling American citizens ‘patriots.’ Maybe in this case, too quick.” Around the same time, the Nevada affiliate of the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity started scrubbing their online messages offering praise for Bundy and his radical campaign.

In April 2014, Bundy was a cause celebre for the far-right and anti-government voices. In April 2015, his “freedom celebration” enjoyed less national support. If he’s assuming “America” will be “upset” if there are consequences for his defiance of the rule of law, he’s probably going to be disappointed.

Postscript: ThinkProgress noted a bill in the Nevada legislature, sometimes referred to as the “Bundy Bill,” intended to empower the state to seize federal properties Nevada wants to control. The legislation seems to be a brazenly unconstitutional scheme, but it’s nevertheless working its way through the Republican-led legislature.

I am livid with rage at this. Worthless motherfucker. And fuck the Obama Administration for not having Bundy arrested.

I understand why the government submitted. I understand that we might have fought at least a small scale civil war if they had not submitted. But a man was allowed to spit on the law because he was a conservative with a gang of armed thugs who were willing to threaten violence. That is unacceptable.

And then there's the question of hypocrisy and discrimination. Does anyone really believe that if Bundy's pet thugs had been Muslim radicals, the government wouldn't have stormed the place? Or that the Right wing supporters of Bundy wouldn't have demanded that they do so?

Fucking hell.

[Gandalf]

I understand why the government submitted. I understand that we might have fought at least a small scale civil war if they had not submitted.

Is there any actual proof of this aside from the threats of people who said that they would totally uprise against Obama?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as the article says, Bundy had hundreds of supporters and some of them were armed. If the government had gone in in force, their might well have been heavy casualties. That, in turn, would have made the Federal government look bad, inspired more fear and anger, and probably served to rally other militia nuts. "Civil War", might be stretching it, but an initial bloodbath, followed by a series of skirmishes between the federal government and militias, would be quite possible. But should we have risked that for the sake of enforcing the law?

Edit: To be clear, I'm glad that didn't happen. I just wish Bundy hadn't basically gotten away with it.

[Joun_Lord]

I believe that the government is probably being unfair to ranchers and others who rent land of the gubmint. However I also believe Bundy is a piece of shit who should be put in jail for about the next 200 years. Motherfucker thinks laws don't apply to him, this assclown threatened lives and armed insurrection over the fact he can't control his fucking cows. Protecting the environment, what the fuyck is that?

This guy made me rage, fucking rage hard. I have some conservatard leanings but I was screaming, literally screaming at my monitor, in conversations with conservatives who were defending this cunt, acting like he was a fucking saint for breaking the damn law.

These were the same damn people who whine constantly about black people acting in their words "ni##erish" for breaking into houses, stealing shit other people paid for, using stolen guns to shoot at police, and thinking the law doesn't apply to them. But couldn't see Bundy acting much the same way.

Same with Troy Knapp, the "Mountain Man" in Utah was breaking into cabins, stealing shit other people paid for, using stolen guns to shoot at police, and thinking the law doesn't apply to him. But him and some criminal black dude in "the hood" is totally different, totally.

Plus Cliven Bundy's fucking cows threatened turtles, endangered turtles. I love turtles, turtles are freaking awesome little armored dudes. But Bundy don't care that he is killing them and destroying his natural habitat, he's gotta let his fucking goddamn idiot cows run fucking free. They need to run free and trample his useless ass.


I did love the fucking backpedeling alot of conservative morons did after Bundy started spewing racist shit from his dick hole about how black people might have been better as slaves. I love even more the shitfucks who tried to defend his racist bullshit, saying Bundy meant how blacks are now slaves to the big bad gubmint and were better in the olden days when motherfuckers actually owned them because they protected them from the government......owning them.....?!

Also I'm really surprised I got this much anger still at him a year after. Just seeing his name makes my chest tighten and that adrenaline flow. I really fucking hate that man, I hate everything he represents, and I really hate those stupid fucking "fredom fighter" morons with Tapco'd AKs pointing their weapons at federal agents trying to arrest what is essentially by conservatard definitions a white "ni**er".

[Channel72]

It’s hard to forget the armed confrontation between federal law enforcement and Cliven Bundy’s well-armed supporters in Nevada.

Not really. I actually completely forgot about it.

Cliven Bundy is pretty much a forgettable idiot.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the one hand, I kind of like the idea of his name being forgotten. He deserves no fame or significance. But on the other hand, I feel that a small army of armed thugs defying the law and the federal government and getting away with it is, and should be, a fucking big deal.

In my opinion, what happened with Bundy and his supporters was terrorism.

Edit: The armed uprising, I mean. Though to be fair, innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, you can't have a trial when no one is brave enough to make an arrest.

[Joun_Lord]

In my opinion, what happened with Bundy and his supporters was terrorism.

No it was just proud patriotic Americans who swayed public opinion and made the cops back down with the force of their conviction and the good of their cause rather then their fucking guns and the fear they would start murdering people.....I mean defending themselves.

Plus they are white so they couldn't be terrorists, duh. And there was like one or two black people there so clearly they weren't racist.

[Channel72]

We'll always remember Ted Bundy for his heinous crimes, and Al Bundy for his hilarious marital shenanigans... but Cliven Bundy is pretty boring. I don't think he'll make much of a dent in the history books.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, he'll probably be largely forgotten. However, his story is a disturbing indication that one can flaunt violating the law if they're conservative and part of an armed gang.

Edited for accuracy.

[Patroklos]

Well, as the article says, Bundy had hundreds of supporters and some of them were armed. If the government had gone in in force, their might well have been heavy casualties. That, in turn, would have made the Federal government look bad, inspired more fear and anger, and probably served to rally other militia nuts. "Civil War", might be stretching it, but an initial bloodbath, followed by a series of skirmishes between the federal government and militias, would be quite possible. But should we have risked that for the sake of enforcing the law?

Edit: To be clear, I'm glad that didn't happen. I just wish Bundy hadn't basically gotten away with it.

Just like the Great Branch Dividian War? Or the Ruby Ridge War? Stop hyperventilating. There is nothing about that situation that in any way would have resembled a civil war no matter how it could have turned out. It would have had far more in common with the real Branch Dividian and Ruby Ridge incidents rather than anything else and those are not "wars" in any sense.

[General Zod]

Oh, he'll probably be largely forgotten. However, his story is a disturbing indication that one can flaunt violating the law if they're conservative and part of an armed gang.

Edited for accuracy.

Don't forget white. If he were black or Mexican the government probably would have gone in guns blazing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, he'll probably be largely forgotten. However, his story is a disturbing indication that one can flaunt violating the law if they're conservative and part of an armed gang.

Edited for accuracy.

Don't forget white. If he were black or Mexican the government probably would have gone in guns blazing.

I doubt his whiteness hurt his chances either.

Muslims are the strongest example though, I think, for pointing out the hypocrisy of it. The Right fear mongers so much about Islamic terrorists and the US government spends billions of dollars going to war with them (with too little regard for collateral damage or the law and the rights of the people), and yet here we have a group of armed insurrectionists who confronted the US government, and not only are they tolerated by the Right, they are supported by them, and the Federal government does jack because apparently its too risky.

Of course the people who have a problem with Muslims are probably by and large the same people who have a problem with black and brown people.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as the article says, Bundy had hundreds of supporters and some of them were armed. If the government had gone in in force, their might well have been heavy casualties. That, in turn, would have made the Federal government look bad, inspired more fear and anger, and probably served to rally other militia nuts. "Civil War", might be stretching it, but an initial bloodbath, followed by a series of skirmishes between the federal government and militias, would be quite possible. But should we have risked that for the sake of enforcing the law?

Edit: To be clear, I'm glad that didn't happen. I just wish Bundy hadn't basically gotten away with it.

Just like the Great Branch Dividian War? Or the Ruby Ridge War? Stop hyperventilating. There is nothing about that situation that in any way would have resembled a civil war no matter how it could have turned out. It would have had far more in common with the real Branch Dividian and Ruby Ridge incidents rather than anything else and those are not "wars" in any sense.

I don't know much about Ruby Ridge, but weren't the Branch Dividians a cult? Somehow I doubt they had much appeal outside their little group. Buddy, on the other hand, was basically basing his actions off ideas very similar to many other conservatives. The only big difference is how far he was willing to go in terms of actions.

Also, I seem to recall that the Oklahoma City Bombing was at least partly retaliation for either Ruby Ridge or the Branch Dividians, though I don't have a source for that at the moment.

Edit: So like I said before, "civil war" may have been stretching it, but further conflict/escalation was entirely possible.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, as the article says, Bundy had hundreds of supporters and some of them were armed. If the government had gone in in force, their might well have been heavy casualties. That, in turn, would have made the Federal government look bad, inspired more fear and anger, and probably served to rally other militia nuts. "Civil War", might be stretching it, but an initial bloodbath, followed by a series of skirmishes between the federal government and militias, would be quite possible. But should we have risked that for the sake of enforcing the law?

Edit: To be clear, I'm glad that didn't happen. I just wish Bundy hadn't basically gotten away with it.

Just like the Great Branch Dividian War? Or the Ruby Ridge War? Stop hyperventilating. There is nothing about that situation that in any way would have resembled a civil war no matter how it could have turned out. It would have had far more in common with the real Branch Dividian and Ruby Ridge incidents rather than anything else and those are not "wars" in any sense.

I don't know much about Ruby Ridge, but weren't the Branch Dividians a cult? Somehow I doubt they had much appeal outside their little group. Buddy, on the other hand, was basically basing his actions off ideas very similar to many other conservatives. The only big difference is how far he was willing to go in terms of actions.

Also, I seem to recall that the Oklahoma City Bombing was at least partly retaliation for either Ruby Ridge or the Branch Dividians, though I don't have a source for that at the moment.

Edit: So like I said before, "civil war" may have been stretching it, but further conflict/escalation was entirely possible.

Why is a conflict/escalation undesirable? Cliven Bundy and his scum-ilk flagrantly violated a ruling from the federal courts, threatened agents of law enforcement with violence in order to violate an order from the federal courts, and held civilians at gun point along the nations highways, checking their identity and local residency and setting themselves up as what amounts to a vigilante group enforcing their own edicts upon the local population.

These acts are sufficient to bring the Insurrection Act of 1807 into effect and trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus act. In other words, it justifies the use of federal troops to enforce the law.

What they did was not an act of civil disobedience that got out of hand, or even a run of the mill criminal act. They literally committed an act of insurrection against the government itself, and what is worse they did not even do it in defiance of unjust or immoral laws which might have legitimized some sort of insurrection. Rather, they did it for the benefit of one man who did not want to fulfill the terms of a lease agreement with the US government. No state can permit that if it wants little things like the Rule of Law to have any meaning, and the fact that the administration appeased those Rebel Scum is one of my major complaints with the Obama Administration

[K. A. Pital]

I am not sure Bundy and his bunch of morons are worthy of being called guerillas. They do not have any organization behind them. At worst, it would be another incident with mass firearm use.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why is a conflict/escalation undesirable? Cliven Bundy and his scum-ilk flagrantly violated a ruling from the federal courts, threatened agents of law enforcement with violence in order to violate an order from the federal courts, and held civilians at gun point along the nations highways, checking their identity and local residency and setting themselves up as what amounts to a vigilante group enforcing their own edicts upon the local population.

These acts are sufficient to bring the Insurrection Act of 1807 into effect and trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus act. In other words, it justifies the use of federal troops to enforce the law.

What they did was not an act of civil disobedience that got out of hand, or even a run of the mill criminal act. They literally committed an act of insurrection against the government itself, and what is worse they did not even do it in defiance of unjust or immoral laws which might have legitimized some sort of insurrection. Rather, they did it for the benefit of one man who did not want to fulfill the terms of a lease agreement with the US government. No state can permit that if it wants little things like the Rule of Law to have any meaning, and the fact that the administration appeased those Rebel Scum is one of my major complaints with the Obama Administration

Why is a potentially violent conflict undesirable? Well, I'd think that should be self-evident. At best, you can argue that risking such a conflict is better than the alternative (and I'd be tempted to agree with that).

But Bundy is trash and so are his supporters.