« Frugal Café Blog Zone

Government Overkill: Obama’s BLM in Nevada Shot Rancher Bundy’s Cattle Multiple Times, Son Believes It Was a “Fun Shoot” for Feds

Posted By on April 24, 2014

Pres. Obama's Bureau of Land Management killed a number of cattle on Cliven Bundy's ranch last week during its armed standoff

Pres. Obama’s Bureau of Land Management killed a number of cattle on Cliven Bundy’s ranch last week during its armed standoff


The feds were told to stand down from their armed standoff last week at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch… but not before killing off a number of his cattle.

Or, so it seems.

The evidence is pretty damning. And the BLM has admitted that cows died during their occupation at the ranch, saying they had posed “a safety hazard.”

They left out the part about them allegedly joy-killing some of them from a helicopter.

PETA? Where are you, PETA?

From Breitbart’s Big Government, Bundy Family Says ‘Euthanized’ Cattle Shot Multiple Times:

Ammon Bundy, son of embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, said some of the dead cattle the family found after the federal government backed down from a tense standoff over a week ago had been shot as many as five times – seemingly more than necessary to kill the animals.

“Well we know that two bulls were shot. And the one that they threw up in the mountain, Nickelcrick, he had a shot from above. He was shot by helicopter, but then he had four other shots to him as well. It looks like a fun shoot,” said the younger Bundy adding, “One hit him in the head and it ripped his whole face up. It was almost like a fun shoot. I didn’t know how or what was going on, but then one was definitely from the top down. Its pretty good proof that what happened in the helicopter that did that one.”

A BLM contractor hired to round up the animals did not respond to a voicemail about the allegations. A spokesman for the BLM did not respond to a request for comment.

Helicopters are often used during cattle roundups and their use for this activity is controversial. The Associated Press reported in June of 2013 that the BLM was taking comments and suggestions about its proposal to use helicopters to help gather wild horses over the next two years. Bundy described how he thinks the helicopter roundup killed Bundy Ranch cattle.

“Since Saturday they were in gathering this cattle by helicopter. They were pushing them all. When you do it that way, it was 90 degrees that week—in the 90’s, those cattle run too hard and it’s very difficult on them and they’ll overheat and die, but also this is calving season right now,” said Bundy. “So these cows are aborting their calves and they’re also separating their newborn babies from their mothers.”

Bundy believes that is the reason why the ranch has at least 27 calves that they know of that were separated from their mothers. At this point, the ranch staff and the family can’t find the mothers to the calves.

“So there’s that issue, because its just inhumane how they gathered the cattle. We do it through a trapping process. It’s very humane to them,” he said.

Greta – Possible BLM mass cattle grave at the Bundy Ranch


BLM Destroyed Water Tanks, Shot Bulls, Ran Over Tortoise Dens


From Washington Free Beacon:

Michele Fiore, a Republican Nevada Assemblywoman and Bundy supporter, posted a photo of one of the bulls killed, and another photo of her nursing a calf back to health that she said was retrieved “nearly dead from BLM.”

Fiore said she has heard of similar cases of the BLM mistreating animals.

“I have literally gotten e-mails from ranchers across Nevada telling me that the BLM does the same practices when they are herding horses,” she told Breitbart News. “The foals are getting killed. Horses are getting killed. It’s really horrible and cruel. I don’t know any other term than cruel.”

Nearly 200,000 acres of the Gold Butte, the area the Bundys have ranched since the late 1800s, were designated off-limits for the “critical desert tortoise” population in 1998.

However, the federal government has reportedly euthanized hundreds of desert tortoises because of lack of funding for its Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in Southern Nevada.

The conservation center has a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer,” where it houses roughly 1,400 tortoises, whose booming population forced Clark County to pass a regulation imposing a one tortoise limit per person. Government officials expect to euthanize more than half of the animals before the conservation center closes in December 2014.

At long last… PETA spoke out.

After a lengthy silence that fueled public outcry, they said that people who are upset by the bloody massacre of cattle by the federal government should… go vegan.

Yes, they did.

More from Gateway Pundit — Cliven Bundy Family Finds BLM Mass Cattle Graves – Dead Bulls:

The Bureau of Land Management destroyed water lines and water tanks belonging to the Cliven Bundy family. The feds also shot two prized bulls and ran over at least one endangered tortoise den.

Inquisitr reported:
Bundy ranch family members and friends spent much of their weekend moving cattle shot or run to death during the BLM standoff earlier this month. The graphic images have gone viral online, shocking both rancher and animal advocates alike.

The first mass cattle graves photos released by Cliven Bundy and his supporters on Sunday appear to substantiate reports by witnesses who first reported the cattle deaths. Nevada assemblywoman Michel Fiore was among those who maintained that BLM agents either killed cattle by either shooting them or running them to death during the Bunkerville incident. Fiore posted several images of the cow grave on Twitter last night, labeling the posting, “#BLM massacre. This isn’t how you herd cattle.”

Landmark Case: Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban of Affirmative Action Racial Preferences at Universities, Krauthammer Weighs In (video)

Posted By on April 23, 2014

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Michigan universities can ban racial preference affirmative action for college admissions

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Michigan universities can ban racial preference affirmative action for college admissions


In a landmark ruling yesterday, the US Supreme Court determined with its 6-2 vote (Justice Elena Kagan did not participate) that states are allowed to prohibit the use of racial preferences and considerations in university admissions. This decision upheld Michigan’s constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action.

Merit should determine who does and who does not get chosen to attend selective colleges and universities — not skin color, not race.

From NY Times, Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action:

In a fractured decision that revealed deep divisions over what role the judiciary should play in protecting racial and ethnic minorities, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities.

The 6-to-2 ruling effectively endorsed similar measures in seven other states. It may also encourage more states to enact measures banning the use of race in admissions or to consider race-neutral alternatives to ensure diversity.

States that forbid affirmative action in higher education, like Florida and California, as well as Michigan, have seen a significant drop in the enrollment of black and Hispanic students in their most selective colleges and universities.

In five separate opinions spanning more than 100 pages, the justices set out starkly conflicting views. The justices in the majority, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the longest, most passionate and most significant dissent of her career, said the Constitution required special vigilance in light of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and “recent examples of discriminatory changes to state voting laws.”

Her opinion, longer than the four other opinions combined, appeared to reflect her own experiences with affirmative action at Princeton and Yale Law School. “I had been admitted to the Ivy League through a special door,” she wrote in her best-selling memoir, “My Beloved World.” For years, she wrote, “I lived the day-to-day reality of affirmative action.”

In contrast to Justice Sotomayor’s outraged dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Law That Bans Affirmative Action


Political analyst Charles Krauthammer, as a panelist on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” responded to the Supreme Court decision, saying that it was right for states to decide on affirmative action policies. He also said that leftists have been trying to institutionalize affirmative action in an effort to make it impossible for any legislature or any referendum to ever abolish it in America.

Krauthammer said, “What happened today on affirmative action… will allow now a stable settlement as the country, very complex and diverse, works it out state by state, exactly as you want to do it in a democracy.”

Krauthammer’s Take: SCOTUS Right to Let States Decide on Affirmative Action


From Fox News, Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban:

The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan’s affirmative action ban, ruling that the state has the right to determine whether racial preferences can be considered in college admissions.

In a 6-2 ruling on Tuesday, the justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to bar public colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, suggested that right extends even beyond college policies.

“There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions,” he wrote.

Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences because they deemed them unwise.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. “But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

From Washington Post, Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in university admissions:

Tuesday’s decision was not a surprise. At oral arguments in October, a majority of the justices had been skeptical of the appeals court’s rationale striking down Michigan’s ban and questioned how requiring the admission process to be colorblind could violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Moreover, it follows decisions by the Roberts court that limited the use of race in school assignments and ordered lower courts to take a closer look at the use of race in admission decisions at the University of Texas.

While other courts had upheld affirmative-action bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit narrowly disapproved of Michigan’s constitutional amendment, which was approved by 58 percent of the state’s voters.

Many are happy with the SCOTUS decision, many are not. A random selection of tweets, both pro and con:

No surprise here: SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is receiving racist wrath from liberal, pro-affirmative action zealots:

And then, there’s the matter of Asian Americans:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...