Federal rangers face off against armed protesters in Nevada 'range war'

Dispute over cattle land causes Cliven Bundy, a rancher, to mobilise hundreds in ongoing standoff with government agency

• Share559
• inShare0
• Email

• Daniel Hernandez and Joseph Langdon in Nevada
• theguardian.com, Sunday 13 April 2014 23.36 AEST

Supporters of Cliven Bundy rally against the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada. Photograph: Daniel Hernandez

The morning began with hundreds of protesters joined in prayer, singing and in recitation of the pledge of allegiance. By the afternoon it had escalated into a militant standoff with federal rangers, who would surrender citing "grave concern" for public safety.

Cliven Bundy, the last remaining cattleman in southern Nevada, mobilized hundreds of sympathizers on Saturday to his "range war" in Bunkerville, Nevada, after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rounded-up nearly 400 of his cows which were grazing on protected land.

For 20 years Bundy, the 68-year-old patriarch of a family of 14, has defied federal regulators by refusing to pay grazing fees and ignoring court orders to relocate his herd, insisting he has a "preemptive" right because his Mormon ancestors worked the land decades before the BLM was established.

"We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy reminded his supporters.

The heavily armed crowd rallied under a banner that read "Liberty Freedom For God We Stand". Camouflaged militiamen stood at attention, communicating with earpieces. Most had signs, many of which chided "government thugs".

In interviews, Bundy had used the language of the "sovereign citizen" movement as a rallying call, beckoning passionate support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard.

Supporters of Cliven Bundy fly the flag. Photograph: Joseph Langdon

Wielding a sign that read, "Obama, no more Wacos", one man said: "I studied what happened at Waco and I've seen the way they burned those people out of their church. I'm not going to allow that to happen again."

The legacy of that deadly standoff – in which the FBI sieged a religious group's compound and 76 people died in a fire – loomed heavy in the desert air and on multiple occasions members of the Bundy clan warned the situation "could turn into that".

Despite such fears, Bundy remained on the offensive. A BLM announcement that the round-up was suspended failed to placate him. Behind a guard of militia, Bundy suggested his followers block a nearby interstate and demand the immediate release of all livestock.

"We're about ready to take the country over with force!" Bundy said.

A tense, hour-long standoff then ensued at the mouth of Gold Butte, the preserve where the cattle were corralled.

Militiamen took position on a highway overpass, offering cover as horse-mounted wranglers led protesters to face off against heavily equipped BLM rangers and snipers.

Cliven Bundy, his wife and son Ammon survey the scene of the protest. Photograph: Daniel Hernandez/Joseph Langdon

The crowd converged on the gate to Gold Butte, prompting BLM rangers to warn over loudspeakers that they were prepared to use tear gas.

Moments later, Deputy Chief Tom Roberts, of Las Vegas Metro, diffused the situation by delivering the announcement that Cliven Bundy's cattle would be returned within 30 minutes. Responding to the Ammon Bundy's demand that the BLM stand down, Roberts said: "I'm getting them out of here. That's why I'm here."

Like something out of a spaghetti western, the dustup had already seen several climaxes before its finale: cows lassoed by government wranglers, women knocked to the ground and men shot with stun guns.

And it all came to a head because of the reclusive desert tortoise.

Although Bundy is in arrears for $1m in grazing fees, the BLM didn't move in on his cattle until he herded them onto Gold Butte, the endangered reptile's protected habitat. The deployment of heavily armed rangers and restrictions of protests to a "first amendment zone" escalated tensions, made headlines, and attracted the condemnation of the governor.

A protester aims his weapon from a bridge next to the Bureau of Land Management's base camp. Photograph: Jim Urquhart/Reuters

The first physical confrontation took place soon after, when Bundy's son was arrested while filming the operation. The firebrand rancher then issued a call to arms.

"They have cattle and now they have one of my boys," he wrote in a terse press release. "Range War begins tomorrow at Bundy ranch at 9.30am. We going to get the job done!"

Bundy later told FoxNews.com: "This is a lot bigger deal than just my cows. It's a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution."

David Damore, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas political science professor, told the Guardian: "This goes back to the days of the Sagebrush Rebellion, where essentially the idea is that 'this is our land, not the federal government's land.’"

"The federal government owns 85% of Nevada," Damore added. "It's an ongoing fight. The related issue is that you have a great ability on the part of these folks to overlook the reality of how much the federal government subsidized Nevada in terms of big projects – the Hoover Dam, the mining subsidies. It's a welfare cowboy mindset."

Protesters gather at the Bureau of Land Management base camp. Photograph: Joseph Langdon

William Rowley, an professor of western agricultural history at the University of Nevada-Reno, partially attributed Bundy's politics to Mormonism's "strong devotion to local institutions and to seeing a threat from outside forces … the conservation movement and the establishment of land management agencies brought the federal government a lot closer to their lives."

Although the standoff ended peacefully on Saturday, Bundy and BLM will continue fighting over his $1m in unpaid grazing fees.

The agency has announced that it will pursue the matter "administratively and judicially", but Roger Taylor, a former district director for the BLM, told Reuters that Saturday's capitulation "will make it difficult getting those cattle off the land and getting Bundy in compliance with regulations".

His analysis neatly evokes a question that literally hung over the protest on Saturday.

"Has the West been won?" the banner read. "Or has the FIGHT just begun!"

Will the vanity of centrists doom us to climate disaster?

Knee-jerk moderation is not the same thing as sensible risk management

By Ryan Cooper | April 7, 2014


How much global warming is acceptable? (Jenny E. Ross/Corbis)

S

ince the release of the new IPCC report on the current and future effects of climate change, climate hawks (including myself) have made the same very basic argument that we always do: Climate change looks bad, potentially very bad, and therefore we should curtail the greenhouse gas emissions which cause it.

Clive Crook writes that this is approach is somehow responsible for public skepticism of climate change:

The main reason for the disconnect between the science and the public is the gross tactical incompetence of the climate-science community, as it's called, and its political champions. Consider this latest installment of the IPCC's survey of the science. It's more carefully hedged than its predecessors — and rightly so. There are fewer specific claims about the future that the science can't fully support or that might turn out to be simply wrong...

Yet look at how U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance,responded to the new publication: "Read this report and you can't deny the reality. Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice. ... The costs of inaction are catastrophic."

The new report doesn't say any of that. The science doesn't predict a catastrophe that would threaten the American way of life. The most cost-effective responses to the risks of climate change are measured and gradual, not dramatic and quick. [Bloomberg View]

As I'll explain in detail below, Crook is completely, 100 percent wrong with his description of the new report. But his basic attitude reveals a deeper mistake which is unfortunately incredibly common.

First, the details. Crook asserts that the new WGII report is more carefully hedged and doesn't predict catastrophe — that it is less alarming than its predecessors. This is simply false. Comparethis summary for policymakers to its predecessor from 2007: The new one is much more confident about its attribution of current negative effects, and if anything more blunt about future risks.

Then he all but accuses Secretary of State Kerry of lying, asserting that the IPCC doesn't predict catastrophe from unchecked climate change. To which I can only say, did he even read the report? (If past history is any guide, probably not.) Here are some handy excerpts from page 12 of the summary, all identified with high confidence:

Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones... Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding... Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services... Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat... Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding... Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity... Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods... Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide…[IPCC]

I don't know what definition of catastrophe doesn't include that lot. But I'd think, at a minimum, he owes Kerry a detailed explanation as to why not. Remember Clive, page 12.

This lack of detail brings me to Crook's most serious mistake:

I take seriously the harms that man-made climate change might cause. Action does make sense: It's a question of insuring against risk. I'm for a gradually escalating carbon tax and for ample public support for other mitigation and adaptation efforts — including more nuclear power and research and development on cheap alternative fuels. But this cause isn't advanced by exaggerating what is known in order to scare people into action, nor by denouncing everybody who disagrees with such proposals as evil or idiotic. [Bloomberg View]

The striking thing about this tone of high-minded, serious moderation is that it contains no engagement with the evidence whatsoever. So if the greens are wrong about the dangers of climate change, how much warming is acceptable? Is the international consensus that two degrees Celsius is the maximum allowable wrong? If so, why?

He doesn't even begin to answer these questions.

Here's the nickel summary of the climate hawk case: According to the IPCC, to keep warming under two degrees Celsius, human society can emit roughly one trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide. As of 2011, we have emitted 531 billion tons, leaving 469 billion tons remaining to stay under the one trillion ton cap. We are releasing roughly 29 billion tons per year, which is increasing — meaning on our current path we will blow through the cap by 2040.

You can dive in to the details here, but given the rough magnitudes of those numbers it is very easy to understand the case intuitively: To stay under two degrees of warming, we must sharply reduce our emissions very soon. The longer we procrastinate, the steeper the drop must be to stay under two degrees.

Even just stabilizing our emissions now and cutting them at a rate unprecedented in human history is totally inadequate. If we peak in 2015 — which, in case you've forgotten, is next year — then rich countries will probably have to cut their emissions by roughly 10 percent per year, an utterly unprecedented amount. And remember, this IPCC report barely even considers levels of warming of four degrees Celsius or higher. Studies on that kind of thing are truly the stuff of nightmares.

If you believe in the risks of climate change, as Crook claims he does, then that's the reasoning that really matters: How much greenhouse gas is being emitted, and how much we can emit overall. That leads directly, using nothing more than simple arithmetic, to a rough calculation of how fast emissions must be cut.

This is the problem with Crook's brand of High Broderist faux-moderation. Crook says he supports some kind of carbon tax and public funding for research and mitigation, but he quite obviously hasn't given the slightest thought as to whether that policy would be enough to achieve his climate goals, or even what those goals are. Instead, he just implicitly assumes that the best solution is one that doesn't disrupt the status quo very much.

Any position called "moderate" with respect to climate science would, at a minimum, engage with the evidence and predictions, which leads straightforwardly to a need for extremely aggressive action as soon as possible. But Crook's position is political moderation — that is, simply picking a point somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.

Political moderation on climate change is many things, but perhaps the most important one is that, as we've seen, it is incredibly risky. Such a position is, in effect, courting tremendous damage to human civilization to avoid admitting that the greens might be right about something.

The Supernatural Thing an Ex-Muslim Claims Guided Him to Christianity

Author Nabeel Qureshi has detailed his journey from Islam to Christianity in his new book, “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus,” describing how he believes a God-given vision and dreams led him to embrace Jesus Christ.

Image source: Zondervan

Qureshi, a lifelong Muslim who was born in the U.S. after his parents immigrated from Pakistan, recently recalled a series of events that led him to appeal to God to answer a spiritual question that was eating away at his soul: Should he follow Jesus or Muhammad?

“I needed to hear from God himself who he was,” he wrote in an op-ed for Christianity Today.

Despite years of embracing and defending Islam,Qureshi said he became “overwhelmed by the evidence” for Christianity during his college years as he more intensely studied Islam, feeling as though the faith of his childhood couldn’t withstand scrutiny.

Qureshi met David Wood at Old Dominion University in Virginia, a classmate and a Christian who quickly became his best friend. The two would frequently debate theology, leading Qureshi to begin questioning Islam’s pertinence.

After graduating college, Qureshi said he began regularly praying and asking God to show himself, and he said the Lord answered.

“I remember in the Quran it says, ‘Allah hears those who call out to him.’ In the Bible it says, ‘Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened,’” Qureshitold the Christian Post. “So when I was asking God for these dreams I’m basically saying, ‘God of the Quran and God of the Bible, both of you are saying that you will answer me if I call out to you, so whoever you are God, I need you now.’”

He claims to have had a vision and three dreams by the time he completed his first year of medical school. There was one dream that he said was particularly memorable.

“In it I was standing at the threshold of a strikingly narrow door, watching people take their seats at a wedding feast. I desperately wanted to get in, but I was not able to enter, because I had yet to accept my friend David’s invitation to the wedding,” he wrote. “When I awoke, I knew what God was telling me, but I sought further verification. It was then that I found the parable of the narrow door, in Luke 13:22–30. God was showing me where I stood.”

While he felt God was guiding him toward Christianity, Qureshi struggled with the idea of abandoning Islam — something he knew would separate him from his family and bring his parents shame. But he said he simply couldn’t escape the inevitable.

He converted, finding intense comfort in the Bible, but says his parents were “shattered” and remain that way even today.

In his interview with the Christian Post, Qureshi explained that Muslim countries don’t share the Western ideal of being able to “commune with God,” noting that this is a Christian concept. Dreams, many times, are the solution to this connective problem.

“In Islam, for example, people don’t expect to have God talk back to them personally, as the Holy Spirit isn’t living in them,” he said. “They ask God for guidance through dreams; that’s like the one way that Muslims expect to hear from God.”

Qureshi shared examples from his own upbringing, including his father’s use of the salat istikharaprayer, an invocation to ask God to guide one’s path. He said his father would use this when attempting to get answers about taking a new job or when making other major choices.

This practice comes from a hadith, or Islamic tradition, in which the Prophet Muhammad said, “The dreams of the faithful are prophetic,” according to Qureshi. Another hadith reads, “dreams are 1/46th of revelation.” Both of these sentiments are part of Islamic tradition.

This isn’t the first time a Muslim-turned-Christian has claimed that Jesus reached out through a dream.

(H/T: Christian Post)

–

Featured image via Zondervan/YouTube

Goodbye Chupie: Mysterious hairless creature Texas couple believed was the chupacabra is put down

he small, black critter that some believed to be the legendary beast was put down to end its suffering

• Most believed it was only a raccoon with mange that caused the animal's hair to fall out
• The story of El Chupacabra began in Puerto Rico when farmers found their goats dead and drained of all their blood

By JOSHUA GARDNER and DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 19:47 GMT, 4 April 2014 | UPDATED: 21:50 GMT, 4 April 2014

A strange animal captured by a Texas couple and believed to be the legendary 'goat sucker' beast el chupacabra has been put to sleep.

Jackie Stock and her husband Bubba discovered the hairless, growling creature eating corn outside their Ratcliffe home on Sunday but have since had it euthanized because it appeared to be suffering.

'It went to sleep peacefully,' she told TMZ. 'I had gotten attached.  I was calling him Chupie.  He will be missed.'

Scroll down for video

+8

Is this El Chupacabra? A Texas couple found this mysterious creature in their yard on Sunday and believe it is a legendary chupacabra

+8

'He called me to come and look, and I said "Bubba that looks like a baby chupacabra,¿' said Jackie Stock after her husband first happened on the creature

Officials at the DeWitt County Sheriff's Office referred inquiries about the animal to local game warden Mike Hoffman, who has yet to respond to interview requests from MailOnline. 

The woman also told the gossip site that she had received several complaints over the bizarre animal being kept in a cage and not receiving proper care.

The couple was in disbelief after first discovering the creature, which she said is likely only a raccoon with mange. 

'He called me to come and look, and I said 'Bubba that looks like a baby chupacabra,' Stock said.

The animal was not very large--perhaps the size of a house cat.

But its wrinkly black skin and bulbous eyes still lent it a look of menace. 

The couple kept it in a cage, fed it and made sure it had water.

More...

• Hungry hippos who try swiping calf from its mother get taught a fierce lesson as she singlehandedly fights them both off in Botswana watering hole
• Hope the dog who SET ON FIRE by her owner is making slow recovery in intensive care unit at Tampa veterinary hospital

They also gave friends and neighbors the opportunity to come take a peek. 

Neighbor Arlen Parma spoke from experience, and insisted it was likely the blood-sucking chupacabra.

'I hunted coons for 20 years with dogs and I ain’t ever seen anything that looks like that right there,' Parma told KAVU.

+8

'We've never seen anything like it before': The couple has kept the animal around in order to show it around in hopes someone can ID it

+8

Jackie Stock shows where she first happened on the animal she thinks is a chupacabra

+8

+8

'I hunted coons for 20 years with dogs and I ain’t ever seen anything that looks like that right there,' said the Stocks' neighbor Arlen Parma

And his identification wasn't just based on looks:

'A coon doesn’t make that noise, or a possum. What makes that noise? I guess a chupacabra does,' Parma said.

Stock and her husband say they kept the animal in a cage, not to harm it, but out of curiosity.

'We were just trying to figure out what it is because we've never seen anything like it before,' Stock said.

No chupacabra has ever been positively identified, of course, and if the Stock's find is ever ID'd, it will likely be as a mammal, possibly with a parasitic infestation that has caused its hair to fall out.

+8

The Stocks are feeding the animal and making sure it has plenty of water

+8

Mangy? Many believe chupacabra sightings are nothing more than mammals like foxes or raccoons with hair loss caused by mange

EL CHUPACABRA: ELUSIVE BEAST OF LEGEND OR MANGY RACCOON?

 LEGEND OF EL CHUPACABRA

The word comes from two Spanish words - 'chupar', to suck, and 'cabra', goat.

The first reported sighting was In 1995, when eight sheep were found dead in Puerto Rico with identical puncture wounds to the chest and completely drained of blood.

Thus, the legend of the livestock killing, vampire-like chupacabra was born.

Since then, the legendary beast has been spotted across the Americas and even the world.

A Mexican incident where 35 sheep were found mysteriously dead was blamed on El Chupacabra in 2012.

Earlier this year, yet another Mississippi sighting came when a Leake County man actually shot and killed what he claimed was El Chupacabra.

Even a Belarusian town had a Chupacabra sighting this past July

SCIENCE ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN

Scientists often speculate that hairless creatures believed to be El Chupacabra are actually wildlife like coyotes, foxes, and stray dogs infested with parasites.

Most commonly pointed to is the parasite Sarcoptes scabiei, which causes mange.

Mange is a painful, potentially life threatening condition which can cause complete hair loss in mammals and can also cause their skin to shrivel, making for an even more ghoulish looking beast.

In humans, Sarcoptes scabiei causes scabies and a consequent itchy, painful rash as the parasites burrow around, leaving their feces under the skin.

'Goat sucker': The legend of El Chupacabra likely originates from a 1995 case in Puerto Rico where 8 sheep were found dead with puncture wounds. It has been described as hairless, or as having spines along its back, and as having blue or red eyes

UFO on Mississippi trail camera potentially identified

UFO on Mississippi trail camera potentially identified

Posted by: Jason McClellan April 7, 2014 0 1,748 Views



Photos showing unidentified lights captured by a couple’s trail camera in Jackson County, Mississippi made considerable headlines on Friday, April 4, and continue to make headlines. Since then, a couple possible explanations have been offered.


Mysterious lights captured on a trail cam. (Credit: Rainer and Edith Shattles/WLOX)

The most mysterious photo shows a deer in the foreground, with two apparently aerial lights in the background. The owners of the camera originally pointed out that the lights look like a car’s headlights, but there is reportedly no road in the direction of the lights. The lights also appear to be well off the ground.



A truck with two spotlights.

Some have suggested that the lights are, indeed, from a vehicle. OpenMinds.tv commenter Mac states, “Sorry but the ‘UFO’ is just a tall pick-up truck with spot lights on the roll bar. A very common thing in the rural South . . . Some guys were out that night looking to poach some deer. If there had been a buck in that herd of does there wouldn’t have been any mystery whatsoever. Spotlighting deer is illegal so nobody is going to come forward. Show that photo to a game warden and he’ll know exactly what it is.”

But as the Daily Star adds, “There were apparently no [tire] marks in the field and there is no road nearby.”

Another theory that has been offered by some is more likely the explanation for the mysterious lights. OpenMinds.tv commenter Stephane explains:


I work in animation and special effects, and I’m a big photo geek. I’ve watched carefully the photos of these supposed UFO lights. It seems to me that these lights are actually the reflections of the deer’s eyes in the lens of the camera. You can see this aberration in many photos and films where the bright lights produce and mirrored ghost picture in the lens. The weird shape appearing is easily recognizable as what some water on the lens can produce. And finally, the light projected on the deer and the ground, to me is just the flash of the other infrared camera. If you compare this photo with the other one with the deer facing the camera, you’ll notice that he’s in the same position.
As much as I believe in UFOs, I think this case is only a misinterpretation of lens flares and reflections.