So, the fact that his family has been there using and improving the land after the federal government told his family to go homestead it for 140 years means less than chumps on capital hill deciding that BLM should manage the land?
Sorry, I was continuing my above post in edit mode while letting that first line stand. If you care, go to my little rant in the LTE today for a basic framework of my point of view. Briefly, I realize that "property" and precedents are are negotiable in politics. Things change, and governments change, and "ownership" or "rights" change.
Ambrose Bierce crystalized this concept in his Devil's Dictionary, I think it was his definition of speech. . .. "the music with which we charm the serpents that guard another man's treasure".
I actually support the priority of government, in it's ideal manifestation as described by Lincoln with the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people", but I realize we have a huge tradition of injustices to practically every minority that has gotten in the way of "progress" as envisioned by our movers/shakers in our entire history.
A reading of the history of the Cherokee nation would be just one example. My kids understand their mothers' belief that they are descendants of about sixth generations removed cherokees on that trail of tears.
I support good management of our lands, and even private lands, for the benefit of all life and for future generations. . . . but I rage about what I see as government policy hijacked by politically-connected interests.
I could rage about a lot of stuff. I worked for a corporation and saw it's owner deliberately take it into bankruptcy to shed over a hundred million in debt owed mostly to 401k accounts managed by Wells Fargo, and then buy it back at court auction because, conveniently his buddies in the BLM had just sued him for a Billion dollars and nobody else would touch his company. After the auction was over, the BLM dropped the lawsuit. . . .
I would characterize the BLM's dealings with Bundy as abuse of power, corrupt, and another outrage. It serves no good purpose to apply science or policy arbitrarily to individual cases for reasons of favoring other parties. . . . .It also serves no good purpose to move ranchers off grazing lands that they have used for generations, generally, because I believe such use is actually beneficial in several aspects.
But Bundy's rights originated in public land policy. A lot of folks don't understand he is objecting to arbitrary edicts, not public policy. I doubt even Cliven Bundy is correctly understanding what he is actually doing. . . . He might think he "owns" the land, he might think it should be administered by the State of Nevada or Clark County Nevada, but his position was taken because he was arbitrarily attacked by the BLM over a false claim of detriment to some turtles.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}