Archive for the ‘Texas’ Category

From a little while back, something I’m reminded of due to Paris, via HotAir:

The gun used during the attempted terror attack on the “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas may have been bought from the Arizona store linked to Fast and Furious. Los Angeles Timesbroke the news yesterday which also included the nugget that Nadir Soofi’s purchase was known by the federal government (emphasis mine).

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

The terrorist bought his gun from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Arizona.  Lone Wolf was one of the gun dealers the ATF instructed to sell guns to the cartels.

The tapes Issa and Grassley refer to were recorded by Andre Howard, owner of the Lone Wolf Trading Co., after he suspected the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was lying to him about the guns they recruited him to sell to buyers of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Papers reporting this story still refuse to get Fast and Furious right.  The ATF told gun store owners to sell guns to people they knew were illegal buyers – illegal buyers they knew would send guns to Mexico.  The ATF did not have anyone in Mexico to intercept the guns (they did during Operation Wide Receiver in 2007), they simply sent guns south.

But at least the papers are getting the same answers that greeted actual reporters before:

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

“We’re still sorting that out” is the same answer as “it’s still under investigation so we can’t talk about it and the investigation will remain open forever so we will never talk about it”, which was the standard claim the DOJ used to avoid answering any questions about Fast and Furious, except for the ones covered up by the use of Obama’s executive privilege.

Wonder why he got to purchase guns that he shouldn’t have?  Look no further than the FBI’s involvement assisting the ATF in Fast and Furious, where people who would’ve been denied under NICS (National Instant Check System) and now allowed to buy a firearm were allowed:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won’t say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun. …

When asked about the breakdown, Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the NICS System, said the FBI had no comment. However, an ATF agent who worked on the Fast and Furious investigation, told Fox News that NICS officials called the ATF in Phoenix whenever their suspects tried to buy a gun. That conversation typically led to a green light for the buyers, when it should have stopped them.

The ATF was greenlighting criminals to buy guns.  Not something new, but with the terrorist Soofi, it’s a new twist.

Of course it’s a new twist that will result with “no comment” and “ongoing investigation” stonewalling.

It seems I have to do this every time a gunwalker story comes up, but Fast and Furious wasn’t botched.  It did exactly what it set out to do.  It sent guns to the cartels, it “proved” the “Iron River” lie, and it implicated US gun culture as something that needed to be targeted (mind you there are additional reporting requirements now for gun purchases in CA, AZ, NM and TX).

Again:

Operation Wide Receiver used the common law enforcement tactic of “controlled delivery” in which the illegal sales of weapons were allowed to take place, the movements of the weapons were closely monitored and the end purchasers were then apprehended. It involved gun-tracing, not gun-walking.

Under the “controlled delivery” of Wide Receiver, agents didn’t just write down the serial numbers and let the guns disappear as in Fast and Furious. They closely and physically followed the guns from American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.

Most importantly, Wide Receiver was run in close cooperation with Mexican authorities, who were kept in the dark on Fast and Furious.

In contrast ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have testified that they were ordered not to track the weapons and in cases where interdiction was possible they were ordered to stand down and actually watch the weapons walk.

ATF Special Agent John Dodson has testified how in one instance guns were sold to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Against orders from his superiors, Dodson kept the stash house under surveillance and when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. His superiors refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.

Fast and Furious, the gift from Obama and Holder’s ATF that keeps on giving.

Advertisements

Whole lotta stuff to go back and note.  Hopefully not too jumbled up, just going through stories of interest from the last couple weeks.

Birthright citizenship was recently the subject of no small amount of discussion – especially how exploitation of jus soli “the law of place” meant that anchor babies are a viable means of getting into the US.  First off – it costs the US taxpayers and existing US citizens a huge amount of money.  Ultimately the reason you have a country is because it’s either bonds of ethnic kinship (for most of the world) or bonds of creed (for the US – ideally – and a handful of other nations).  You joined together to take care of your own first, then depending on the nature of your country, help others as you see fit.  Not put yourself at a disadvantage to someone who breaks in to your home.

In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal [California’s Medicaid program] births. Now [2005] they account for substantially more than half.

The article goes on to mention how once they hit 18, they bring in family.  That was intended back when immigration laws were modified in the 1960s.  Democrats saw their opportunity to bring in low-skilled, low-wage labor that would gravitate towards their pandering and handouts.  Ted Kennedy was no small part of the push for it as well.

Ho brings up some points, but also misses some:

We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause. To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government.

And with a simple policy and interpretation change, that could go away.  Someone who’s illegally in the country wasn’t inspected by an immigration official and can be considered to have border nexus and even being on “the functional equivalent of the border” definition could be moved to apply to them – meaning they wouldn’t legally be in the country because they weren’t allowed in, even if they were physically in the country by breaking in.  They’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government – they’re simply here illegally.

The law has two terms for people who come to the country – immigrant and non-immigrant.  The definitions are pretty lame, with non-immigrant being someone who comes in on a non-immigrant visa, and immigrant being anyone else.  Take away the idea the word immigrant from illegal aliens and you have someone who’s not blurring the lines between legal immigrants and illegals.  It also gives room for returning to “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US – which was originally written to exclude Native American tribes who were on US soil but not US citizens, because they were considered members of other nations.

Go back to illegal aliens being members of their own foreign nations, and the problem is solved.  No more anchor babies, and those poor aliens can be repatriated to their ancestral homelands to once again share in the bounty of success of their rich, diverse cultures.

An Alabama detective feared being labeled racist… so he let himself get roughed up.  When the choice is between temporary pain of a whooping and the longer term legal suffering and targeting that comes with the charge of wrongthink by the media especially when you’re innocent, it’s probably better to just get roughed up.

Instead of following policy to try to get the man back in the car, the officer says he hesitates. It’s just enough time police say for 34-year-old Janard Cunningham to sucker punch the officer, knocking him unconscious. He then allegedly takes the officer’s gun and uses it to pistol whip him.

From Bob Owens at Bearing Arms:

This is the world that the criminal-coddling, police-hating mainstream media hath wrought…

There’s no small amount of irony in CNN reporting this story, and the attack’s callous aftermath, which saw sick criminal supporters take mocking photos of the unconscious officer instead of attempting to help him. After all, they’ve done so much to fan the flames of discord that have bought us to this point, with their serially dishonest portrayal of lawful self-defense shootings by police officers and citizens alike…

And this is the world that the police hating mainstream media hath wrought…

Miles is accused of killing Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, in northwest Harris County. Investigators say Deputy Goforth had worked an accident scene at around 8:30pm, then went to a gas station on Telge and West Road. As he was pumping gas, detectives say Miles approached Deputy Goforth from behind, said nothing and fired multiple shots. Once he fell to the ground, authorities say Miles fired more shots at the deputy. Deputy Goforth was pronounced dead at the scene.

It’s not yet a return to the bad old days of the 70s as far as the violence goes, but the rhetoric and justification for the violence by the leftist media is certainly at a fever pitch.

Meanwhile, in Waller County, TX:

Armed-Black-Panthers-in-Waller 150812

WALLER COUNTY, Texas — A group of armed members of the New Black Panther Party marched on the Waller County Jail Wednesday afternoon chanting “The revolution is on… Off the pigs,” and “Oink Oink… Bang Bang!” The group of about fifteen Black Panthers exercised their First and Second Amendment rights. The group was met in Waller County by a large contingent of Harris County (Houston) Sheriff’s Office deputies.

It went peacefully, mostly because it was a standoff, and because when you’re chanting “kill the cops” in front of them, if you do something stupid you’re going to get mowed down.

First off, I’m supportive of them exercising their First and Second Amendment rights.  An armed society is a polite society – presence of arms kept both sides from acting the fool because both sides knew the consequences of their actions.  But I don’t think it’s terribly productive to protest someone while armed saying “we want to kill you”.  Not exactly from the pages of Dale Carnegie’s books.

I’ve said it before with regards to gun control in California – no small part of that state’s slide into draconian laws was done as a response to a Black Panther march on Sacramento that scared the white people in power.  Everybody lost for that.  It was a loss for the average citizen who committed no crime but lost a right, it was a loss to the CA government and the Panthers because it ended discourse and started a backlash by the power structure.  The grievance wasn’t really heard when a threat was made.

Same goes here.  If you don’t chant “die pigs die” (yes, it’s only reported they said “off the pigs” but it’s the same thing), you might get a better response.  Sling your arms like Open Carry Texas does and have the same march without the death threats and you’ll get a much better response.  The action also further illustrates the hypocrisy of the left – if a group decided to protest other government officials with “off the ____” – making threats against higher elected officials (especially Democrats), they’d be jumped on by the FBI so fast their heads would spin.

This is a lot more effective display anyway – assuming one’s concern is about lives:

his life matters 150814That turns down rhetoric and shows a desired goal of racial/ethnic harmony.  Of course, that’s assuming one believes that groups like #blacklivesmatter (apparently run by white leftists) actually give a crap about any lives and aren’t just pushing for their own hard left political angle.

The effects of that kind of ramping up of hate and distrust of local/state authorities is a good way to build up more demands for federalizing the police and controlling everything from DC.  The answer is always more power for those who want even more power.

It’s also why the “police acted stupidly” with the professor, why “if I had a son he’d look like Trayvon”, etc., is always the first thing the pres says, while at the federal level, anyone who questions Eric Holder about the Obama ATF sending guns to narcoterrorist cartels is racist because Eric Holder is black.  (And to the Obama administration, Mexican lives don’t matter unless they’re illegally in the US voting for Democrats).

It’s also how people started making excuses for a narcissist news reporter murderer:

Revenge race murder: Bitter black reporter who gunned down white ex-colleagues live on air and posted the video online blames Charleston shootings and anti-gay harassment in manifesto

…he professes a deep respect for other mass shooters like Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

‘Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin’.

He goes on to say that he has faced both racial and sexual discrimination as a black, gay man and that he was just waiting to explode.

‘Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace…’

‘The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!’

At one point in the manifesto he even confesses to killing his cats in a forest close to where he lives, blaming the news station for the animals’ deaths.

Except that apparently nobody really discriminated against him.  He just blamed other people for his problems.

Flanagan, 41, had ‘a long series of complaints against co-workers nearly from the beginning of employment at the TV station,’ said Dennison, now an official with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

‘All of these allegations were deemed to be unfounded. And they were largely under along racial lines, and we did a thorough investigation and could find no evidence that anyone had racially discriminated against this man.’

Yeah, no one disliked him because of his skin color or his orientation.  But the media provided and he readily took in a steady stream of toxic “everyone hates you because you’re black/gay/something and they’re racists/homophobes/somethinghaters and thus you’re justified in your actions“.

Welcome to the new leftist America, where if someone has a different opinion than you that you find distasteful and against leftism, you can go tell them how to live, and when they tell you to get lost, you can attack them.  And the police.

RACINE, Wis. (AP) – Authorities say a Racine man was arrested after forcing his way inside a home to take down a Confederate flag placed in a window. …

A criminal complaint says a woman and Boatner told police he had politely asked her to remove the flag from her kitchen window Friday, and she moved it to another window.

According to the complaint, both started yelling, and the woman used a racial slur toward Boatner. Authorities say Boatner pushed the woman down and walked into the house to remove the flag. According to authorities, Boatner later argued with police and struggled to avoid being handcuffed.

Sticks and stones will break your bones if you use words that hurt my feelings.

Everything’s Trump these days (rather than Cruz, Walker, or Paul), but a reminder… people hate leftist ideas from Obama but love them from Trump.

By being loud and obnoxious, he’s bringing things to the forefront that sometimes need to be discussed – illegal aliens murdering US citizens, for example.  He’s also getting free airtime that’s being redirected away from better, actually conservative candidates with voting records who weren’t Democrats a couple years ago and didn’t invite Hillary to their weddings.

If you think that “people hate ideas from Obama but love them from Trump” is an exaggeration, consider this:

obama trump health care

My broad opinion of Trump is negative for reasons I listed a couple posts ago, but he is shaking things up.  There is some good in that, and assuming he sticks to his “I won’t run third party” pledge, hopefully he loses the primary and directs his energy more towards Democrats rather than Republicans.  It’d be nice to see him go after Clinton or Obama as tenaciously as he’s gone after Jeb Bush.  Jeb Bush probably deserves it, but Clinton and Obama deserve it even moreso.

And finally, despite being a eulogy, still a story of the success a heroic aviator:

BALTIMORE — Frank E. Petersen Jr., the first black aviator and brigadier general in the Marine Corps, has died.

Frank E. Petersen III said his father died Tuesday at his home in Stevensville, on Maryland’s Kent Island, of complications from lung cancer. He was 83. …

According to a news release on the Marine Corps website, Petersen was commissioned in the Corps in 1952. The Marines say Petersen served in the Korean War in 1953 and Vietnam in 1968. He received the Purple Heart for wounds suffered when he ejected over the demilitarized zone in Vietnam, The Post reported.

During his career, Petersen flew more than 350 combat missions and more than 4,000 hours.

frank e petersen

He, Roy Geiger and Alfred A. Cunningham are probably having a few beers and swapping stories now.

While it’s a clever stunt, much of Hudspeth County is the middle of nowhere.  The six miles to I-10 are six miles of nothingness, and I-10 is one of those routes with Border Patrol checkpoints there to look for vehicles carrying the illegals who did that six mile hike and agents looking for vehicles carrying illegals away from the border.  Plus no one is looking for James O’Keefe.

Hudspeth is also a region of the Texas/Mexico border that’s rather famous for Mexican military incursions in the late 90s & early 2000s.  Usually the Mexican military only runs interference for the cartels further west, but in Hudspeth, they ran interference and ran drugs for the cartels many miles inland.

But the real issue is almost less one of physically securing every mile of border and one of defense in depth.

If you don’t catch an illegal alien at the border but you still deport them any time they come in contact with any government official, whether it be city cop or social worker or DMV, you’ll solve the illegal immigration problem fast.  And you’ll prevent the terrorism problem as well, because there won’t be a community of illegals for them to hide in or a thriving business in smuggling to get them across the border.

Also, Hudspeth is not the same as the Rio Grande Valley.

In the Rio Grande Valley, Border Patrol is being overwhelmed by 15-17 year olds and people dragging their children in tow because they know that Obama will not deport them.  Those people are looking to get caught, because they know they’ll be released and given handouts.  Cartels are bringing more people north immediately after they send teenage “kids” to the BP, because they know they’ll be busy processing those “children” to be shipped off to US cities inland where no one but Obama and Luis “My Only Loyalty Is To Illegal Aliens” Gutierrrez will want them.  While the BP is busy doing that paperwork, the cartels slip their high-value people and products in.

Big empty areas have been a concern for a long time, but ultimately they’re less of a concern than the mess in the Rio Grande Valley.

BLM, Oklahoma, Texas, and the Red River

Posted: April 23, 2014 by ShortTimer in FedGov, Government, Texas
Tags:

As I’ve previously noted, I break with some on the right out of my own concern for rule of law, and I don’t have much sympathy for the Nevada rancher who’s simply disregarded the law because it’s inconvenient for him.  Every word written about that situation is one wasted that should be used to talk about the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.

I certainly am very concerned for folks living on the northern border of Texas and souther border of Oklahoma, who are facing the BLM taking 90,000 acres that is and was always private land.

This story is much more black and white:

BYERS, Texas (RFD-TV) Most people think the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially along the part of the river where Tommy Henderson and his family ranch.

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

This is an issue for the states to deal with.  As nice as it would be if the federal government actually did its job and made commerce regular by acting as a neutral party between disputes, the BLM has considered simply taking 90,000 acres of private land and making it off-limits.

“How can BLM come in and say, “Hey, this isn’t yours.” Even though it’s patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours,” said Henderson.

It’s private property.  It’s not a lease, it’s not public land, it’s private, and has been since Texas was an independent nation.

The border pretty much is the river.  It isn’t that complicated… but it is a land grab.

Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.

In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.

Over time the river moves. This movement north toward Oklahoma is the sticking point.

The sandy soils erode in a process called accretion, which wipes out the bank. So the property line follows the river.

BLM claims that the river moved by another process called avulsion. With avulsion, the land may be changed by flood or currents, but the property line isn’t. So BLM claims that when the river moved back north the property line stayed put.

It doesn’t help that Oklahoma defines avulsion differently than Texas and the U.S.

“Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north,” said Henderson.

That the BLM could come in and just take 90,000 acres and rule it off-limits because the river moved is absurd and is not their function.  They’re not managing federal lands, they’re not dealing with delinquent grazing lessees, they’re taking land.

Sympathy and The Bundy Ranch

Posted: April 23, 2014 by ShortTimer in FedGov, Government, Nevada, Texas

I find myself again breaking from a lot of folks on the right on this issue, and mostly out of concern for the rule of law.

Powerline had this piece last week on the Nevada ranch standoff that’s worth reading for another viewpoint.  John Hinderaker argues that folks should feel sympathy towards the Bundys.  But he has to preface it with this:

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’s why I can’t be on the side of the Bundys.  And no matter the cries for sympathy, I have find myself having no more for them than I would for yesterday’s example of a hypothetical where Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright used a church owned as a historic site by the National Park Service and then decided to ignore the law.

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.

I don’t think he does deserve much sympathy.  He’s broken the law for decades.  Rather than create a conflict back in 1993 when he “fired” the BLM (which would be analagous to you or I “firing” the IRS… or a traffic cop) by choosing not to pay them, and with the BLM derelict in enforcement, he just kept on breaking the law.  He didn’t make it an issue then to get the law changed, he just operated in violation of it because the BLM didn’t enforce it.  I don’t have sympathy for Tim Geithner when he forgets to pay taxes and the IRS doesn’t bother to enforce it for a long time, and I don’t have sympathy for an illegal alien who ICE doesn’t deport until they finally do, so why should I have sympathy here?

The argument that he was there first by virtue of his family being there is meaningless.  Working land that wasn’t yours in 1870 but before there was an enforcement structure for the owner to control it doesn’t mean it’s yours – especially when the owner of the land owned it since 1848.

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.

Like the Blaze article yesterday noted… maybe other ranchers were “chased off”.  Or maybe it’s part of Bundy’s yarn to make him the heroic last rancher standing.  Alternately, that could mean he’s just a monopoly in the region.

Reducing the number of cattle on federal land, whether due to tortoises, or due to the kind of drought that has been hitting the west for the last decade doesn’t really matter.  It’s not his land.  The key word is privilege.

The land belongs to the federal government, not to Bundy.  It’s up to them how they want to manage their land – it’s up to us as the people who direct that federal government how we want to manage our land.

If the law passed by our elected representatives says no and we don’t like that, then it’s time to pressure our reps and change the law.  It’s not time to let one lawbreaker continue to violate it just because he’s managed to draw down on some BLM agents and wrap himself in some dramatic western martyrdom.

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?

Business models sometimes have to change.  If the landowner says “no more grazing”, then maybe it’s time to find some greener pastures, rather than just declare “these are my pastures now”.

Frankly, the Bundy situation smacks of the self-righteous entitlement of a general strike where communist workers claim the factory is really theirs because they work there.  It’s not the workers’ factory, and it’s not the Bundys’ land.

Hinderaker ends with this:

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?

I’d like to have sympathy, but just because the Obama administration is lawless doesn’t justify actions of individuals who’ve been ignoring the law since the beginning of the Clinton administration.

The Bundy’s family’s way of life is on the outs because they refused to change.  Their business model didn’t advance because their cattle were grazing for free since 1993.

They didn’t need food stamps because they were feeding their livestock on taxpayer lands.  They’re no different than if Weyerhauser decided to start cutting down national forests without permission, and then cried that their lumberjack way of life was dying because the Forest Service finally told them to stop two decades later.

They subsisted entirely because of government subsidies.  They subsisted entirely because of regulations that hamstrung their competitors – the other ranchers who were “squeezed out” were legal – the Bundys just chose to break the law.

Update: From a local Nevada news outlet, contrasting the Bundy claims:

…the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

And federal grazing districts were established nationally in 1934 and in Nevada in 1936.

Furthermore, every word written about the Bundys is a word not written about the Red River along the Texas-Oklahoma border, where the BLM is looking at seizing 90,000 privately held acres of land.

Really, it’s a much bigger story, and it is black and white:

BYERS, Texas (RFD-TV) Most people think the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially along the part of the river where Tommy Henderson and his family ranch.

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

That’s not leases that they haven’t paid in over 20 years, that’s their own land.

From iOwnTheWorld, via JawaReport:

obama fifth greatest president a&m study

I’m kinda surprised Lincoln wasn’t bumped in favor of Coolidge.

In a dispassionate, purely economic view, she has an economic incentive to not work.  Her behavior is reprehensible to those who work, but in an amoral view, her behavior is quite logical.

Parasitism is rewarded, and if it provides all she desires, why not be a parasite?

Margaret Thatcher gave conservatives/libertarians/classic liberals the answer in a simple sentence years ago:

margaret-thatcher other peoples money

To the individual riding the socialist gravy train, however, that’s not a concious concern.  The welfare recipient isn’t concerned about where the next handout is going to come from as long as they keep coming, and if the handouts stop, there’s always someone to blame and some politician willing to buy votes.  The career welfare recipient is almost always someone who isn’t concerned about their long-term well-being, otherwise they’d be actively working to improve their lot in life.  Those rare few that are concerned are those who demand more from others simply because they exist.

At the point that the handouts stop completely, they’ll either starve or work.  Whether that’s because of welfare reform that stops giving people disincentives to work or whether the system collapses and no longer can give handouts, either way, the practically Randian caricature of the moocher exemplified by that caller will simply cease to exist.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare goes away by reasoned economic decision-making in government, there’s going to be gnashing of teeth, bleeding hearts bleeding, and knee-jerkers jerking knees.  There will also be private charities for those who truly need, rather than the taxation at gunpoint that leads leftists who “care about the poor” to ignore the poor since they have government to care for them.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare has gone away because of collapsing government

mad-max2

That’ll make things interesting.