Craig Bowden: Perspective on Bundy Ranch

Craig Bowden is a Libertarian Party candidate for Congress in Utah’s first district. The following was posted on his blog, Marine Vet for Freedom:

Many of us have formulated opinions on the case of the Bureau of Land Management and their handling of the Bundy case in Clark County, Nevada. I’d like to share my perspective. I will not be going into the past between the two, only the current situation that has rocked a nation.

My first observation was the fact that his cattle were being seized. I’m sorry, but you cannot take another man’s property without due process of the law. Had there been a legitimate warrant, the local sheriff would have been the one serving the papers, not a federal agency.

My second observation is that if this was really about turtles (as this is why the cattle are supposedly prohibited from grazing), then why was there heavy equipment assisting in the capture of the “trespassing” cows. I’m sorry, but a backhoe is going to do far more damage to a habitat than a cow eating some brush.

Third, the video seen around the world shows a clearly oppressive group of “law enforcement” agents. Who throws down a 56 year old woman, then tazers the person trying to assist her three times? If this isn’t brutality, I’m not sure what is. Not to mention the show of force with snipers, K9s, and as President Obama calls them, weapons of war. Why does the BLM have access and need for such? Clearly not to manage land.

The fourth observation would be the fact that over 3 million dollars were spent on this operation, which failed due to patriots responding to help the Bundy family, over a 1.3 million dollar debt. That was your money wasted on this. It shows the brilliance of our federal government: let’s spend almost 3 times what we need to collect, only, we won’t end up succeeding because people showed up to defend liberty. I’m sorry, but this is how the federal government is. Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.

The last observation I will make is this: there is only one 1st amendment zone. It begins right after the Mexican border and ends at the Canadian one. There is no way any federal agent is in the right by attempting to corral citizens. We get to speak anywhere in this nation, as enshrined in our Constitution.

Those are some of the things I noticed, and frankly I only have one thing left to say:

PATRIOTS: 1 FEDS: 0

26 thoughts on “Craig Bowden: Perspective on Bundy Ranch

  1. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.”

    Doesn’t sound very libertarian, does it? Bowden is a Tea Party guy, not a libertarian. I hope Utah Libertarians are aware of this.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    That is indeed an offensive paragraph. I made this observation here before, and I know that everyone did not agree with me: Those who use he term “patriot” tend to be more associated with conservatives and tea partiers; Libertarians and the people I usually agree with use the term “liberty lovers” or some other use of the word “liberty”.

  3. Deran

    I would take the position that this is not a “last stand” of liberty, I would say that this is land legally (via federal regulation and constitutional court decision) own by all the citizens of the United States. And when an individual enterprise is making money via use of public resources I feel those enterprises should pay fees and taxes on such to the public that owns the resources. It’s contractual, between the enterprise and us, the owners, the public, the citizens who are covered under the compact of the US Constitution. Imo.

    I do think it was the right thing to step back and not make this a violent confrontation. But the rancher is in violation of my contract with him (as a member of the public), and I am not willing to let that enterprise make money off the resources I am part-owner of with out paying to use those resources.

  4. Jed Ziggler Post author

    If we all own it, then we all, including Mr. Bundy, have every right to do as we wish with it (aside from harming, defrauding, or stealing from others) without penalty or fine. That is the whole point of difference between private & public property: private property keeps order, as each man & woman cares for their own plot of land & possessions & can set boundaries, whereas public property is mob rule, each can exploit as he or she wishes. For after all, if we all own something, then we have every right as the next person to use it to our own whims.

    Mr. Bundy’s only crime was believing the lie that this was public land, that he did have a stake in it, and that he could do as he wished. This government frequently & with relish tramples on ownership rights, be they privately owned or publicly owned. Their decree trumps the laws of nature, or so they believe. I am thankful that, for once, the State lost, and the people won.

  5. Mark Axinn

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    The militia, conservatives, patriots–whatever they want to be called–are clearly on the right side in this battle. We have many allies on the right and left with whom we agree only some of the time.

    Incredible that the Feds. stepped down, and unlikely they won’t be back.

  6. paulie

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    The militia, conservatives, patriots–whatever they want to be called–are clearly on the right side in this battle. We have many allies on the right and left with whom we agree only some of the time.

    Agreed!

  7. Bondurant

    If it is my land then I am perfectly happy to let his cows graze.

    Curious that the Feds decided to pull back for “safety”. Could it be that the revelation that Harry Reid was involved with this land played a part in the decision?

    Even if Bundy is a Tea Party whack, he’s right and I applaud his stand against our criminal government that act in my “best interest”.

  8. Mike Kane

    It disgusts me when I hear so called Libertarians saying things like “Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.”

  9. paulie

    It disgusts me when I hear so called Libertarians saying things like “Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.”

    Me too!

  10. Brain

    “It disgusts me when I hear so called Libertarians saying things like “Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.”

    Although an odd point. It does question why the feds do not deal with problems that would seem to be in their original job description.

    Why does this go against Libertarians? As far as im concerned they do not really either way. Libertarians are for an open border? I dont think so. I’m not for a militarized border patrol driving around away from our borders like they are now harassing citizens. However on the actual border let them do their job. Unless you confuse your words and thought of “Liberal” which is current code for NWO Authoritarianism.

  11. paulie

    “Sealing the border” is not the feds “job description,” and cetainly not libertarian. Calling human beings “illegal” is far from libertarian, much less saying people should be treated like cattle. Yes, libertarians are for an open border! Doesn’t matter what you think. It is a long standing part of libertarian ideology. Liberal is what libertarians were called before progressives hijacked and then discarded the term liberal. We’re against NWO, against authoritarianism at all levels, against border fascism, and for individual sovereignty. Trespass is only a crime against legitimate owners of property. Does the gang that calls itself the US government legitimately own or part-own all property within its claimed borders? If not, it has no right to define trespass; that is up to each individual property owner to define in his or her own criteria. Otherwise it is the regime that is the trespasser, not the welcome guest, customer, tenant or employee.

  12. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “Libertarians are for an open border?”

    Yes, we are. The border between Texas and Mexico should be treated the same as the border between Texas and New Mexico. It exists, and people may cross freely.

  13. paulie

    The border between Texas and Mexico should be treated the same as the border between Texas and New Mexico. It exists, and people may cross freely.

    Exactly. It was also how the border between Texas and US was until the 1960s/70s and how the border between US and Canada was before the 2000s.

    Tangent:

    Bumper sticker I saw recently

    New Mexico: Not Really New…Not Really Mexico

    LOL

  14. marinevetforfreedom

    The point I was trying to make with the Southern Border quip is that both the cattle grazing and Southern Border have laws. I tend to get a little irritated with the Federal Government going all out enforcing one law, but disregarding another. It is the feds who are stating that something needs to be done with the border, but then spend 3 million on a cow round up.

    There has been an arbitrary enforcement for years, which just goes to show that maybe we have too many laws. Personally, I have no problem with people seeking the American dream, and welcome them. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their circumstances.

  15. paulie

    Yes, we have far too many laws, and the feds should stop enforcing the southern border as well as whatever they have against Bundy’s cows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *