It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

page: 2
72
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I agree with you, I think bloodshed is a bad idea and I also think that a large armed force just showing up at all sends a pretty strong message.




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
This could possibly destroy Harry Reid if there is a major confrontation by the feds and the people. I would be happy to see that lying criminal gone for good.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


What a shock...I'm so tired of our government....how horrible a person can one be..

Thanks Harry, I can only imagine what the OT paid out to the cops hanging about is costing the taxpayers...
edit on 11-4-2014 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


Well you would think Benghazi would have destroyed queen hatsi tatsi but she will most likely become our next commander in chief...don't think this is going to hurt harry at all
edit on 11-4-2014 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure it has to do with Mr. Bundy agreeing to pay to lease the land for his cattle, then never paying. For 20 years.

The federal government (the public) owns the land. Mr. Bundy is just taking advantage of public lands for his personal profit.

It's not wildly different from the agreements for the areas around Yellowstone NP.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

links234
I'm pretty sure it has to do with Mr. Bundy agreeing to pay to lease the land for his cattle, then never paying. For 20 years.

The federal government (the public) owns the land. Mr. Bundy is just taking advantage of public lands for his personal profit.

It's not wildly different from the agreements for the areas around Yellowstone NP.


Remember what you said when you pay 30$ for a hamburger one day.

Bundy gave up the land to Nevada, but retained grazing rights for his heads of cattle. His family maintains the land and uses it to provide a resource(food) for people to buy. What it all boils down to is this family has had this land for around 140 years, they work their asses off to maintain it and run a business to survive, and now the federal government, backed by Harry Reid are taking land away from not only the Bundy's but also the people.

So they decide to take land and cattle from some "rogue rancher" today, but tomorrow it could be you.
edit on 4/11/2014 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

eXia7
Bundy gave up the land to Nevada, but retained grazing rights for his heads of cattle.


The state of Nevada asked that he limit his grazing to 150 cattle in 1994. They own the land, as you say. He refused. He began increasing the number, anywhere from 500 to 900. The BLM stepped in and asked him to both limit his grazing and staying in the agreed upon area for said grazing.

Not only has Mr. Bundy increased the head of cattle he's also started going into areas that were never agreed upon in the first place. Essentially, Mr. Bundy seems to believe he can take his cattle anywhere he wants. He's not being the steward of federal land that many, many other ranchers are. He's being selfish and obtuse.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Wasn't the project with the Chinese cancelled a year ago?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

links234

eXia7
Bundy gave up the land to Nevada, but retained grazing rights for his heads of cattle.


The state of Nevada asked that he limit his grazing to 150 cattle in 1994. They own the land, as you say. He refused. He began increasing the number, anywhere from 500 to 900. The BLM stepped in and asked him to both limit his grazing and staying in the agreed upon area for said grazing.

Not only has Mr. Bundy increased the head of cattle he's also started going into areas that were never agreed upon in the first place. Essentially, Mr. Bundy seems to believe he can take his cattle anywhere he wants. He's not being the steward of federal land that many, many other ranchers are. He's being selfish and obtuse.


There used to be a total of 53 ranchers in the area, 52 of them are gone, Bundy is the last one. Perhaps if all 52 others were still around, then sure going over 150 might impact the land in a huge way.

He is the last rancher remaining.. it goes beyond just "oh he's gettin' a free ride" bit. Once they get rid of the ranchers, then they will start to make "national recreation areas" which will be small, and have very limited access, people won't have the freedom of going out into the desert to do whatever they want in the "land of the free" The cows aren't destroying the land, and they definitely aren't disturbing the desert tortoise, seems only BLM is doing that.

What do people do when all the ranchers have been put out of business because of federal bureaucracy? Starve? Eat Monsanto's special cocktails? The guy is using land to feed cows scrub weeds to sell for food and try and keep up some form of a cattle herd. I don't know if you read about it, but the US cattle herd is pretty much at a low not seen since the 50's.

This guy has a pretty interesting take on it. Even if you don't agree with infowars, the guy being interviewed is spot on imo


edit on 4/11/2014 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


You've kinda strayed from the point. He made an agreement and now he's not keeping to that agreement.

The government has done everything in its power to have this resolved amicably. Only now, after 20 years, are they actually taking action by removing the cattle. He's throwing a fuss, calling for militia's to come save him, big government overreach.

The government owns the land and asked Mr. Bundy to take care of it with the government's specifications. If I hired a landscaper to mow my lawn and he started cutting down all my trees instead, I'd have him fired.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Hairy Reed, Pelosi and ACORN has all been seened there



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

links234
reply to post by eXia7
 


You've kinda strayed from the point. He made an agreement and now he's not keeping to that agreement.

The government has done everything in its power to have this resolved amicably. Only now, after 20 years, are they actually taking action by removing the cattle. He's throwing a fuss, calling for militia's to come save him, big government overreach.

The government owns the land and asked Mr. Bundy to take care of it with the government's specifications. If I hired a landscaper to mow my lawn and he started cutting down all my trees instead, I'd have him fired.


Maybe you can't see the point that it's not about bundy and a bunch of cows, it's about federal government saying and doing what they want. That family has been raising cattle on it for generations, and now all of a sudden it's a big deal because Harry Reid wants to cash in.

He signed an agreement yes, but then the government altered the agreement to include the desert tortoise.. The turtle is just a load of BS for the government to muscle their way in and take public land so they can tell you and I what to do, and I'm sure it's in the lines of go * yourself.. and I don't like that idea, do you?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


So you're saying that even though the government owns the land, they should let Mr. Bundy's cattle graze there as much or as little as Mr. Bundy wants because 'He's been doing it for a long time.' Is that about it?

It boils down, not to Harry Reid, not to tortoises, but to Mr. Bundy refusing to pay further lease payments in 1994. He's used federal land for the past 20 years without paying for it, he's done the exact opposite of what he was asked to do. He's done the exact opposite of what he agreed to do. Again, only because the government is taking action now against Mr. Bundy is he throwing a fit and calling it government overreach.

Article four section three of the constitution says the government can own land and can maintain that land in any way it wants.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

links234
reply to post by eXia7
 


So you're saying that even though the government owns the land, they should let Mr. Bundy's cattle graze there as much or as little as Mr. Bundy wants because 'He's been doing it for a long time.' Is that about it?

It boils down, not to Harry Reid, not to tortoises, but to Mr. Bundy refusing to pay further lease payments in 1994. He's used federal land for the past 20 years without paying for it, he's done the exact opposite of what he was asked to do. He's done the exact opposite of what he agreed to do. Again, only because the government is taking action now against Mr. Bundy is he throwing a fit and calling it government overreach.

Article four section three of the constitution says the government can own land and can maintain that land in any way it wants.


The government owns roughly 81-84% of the state of Nevada. They are complaining about 600,000 sq acres used for cattle grazing. So you say he has used public land, true.. but who cares honestly? You really think this guy is some fat cat billionaire living off of his 900 cows eating weeds on public land?

Why should he pay the federal government 1 million dollars when he's been maintaining the land? Sounds like government is mad because they can't get their cut on him trying to earn an honest living.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
LINK



BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws


It seems that the fed's are saying to hell with any prior agreements made with the state.

What happened to state rights? I think the fed's are way overstepping their authority. They like to change the rules especially when a Senator is involved.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

eXia7
So you say he has used public land, true.. but who cares honestly?


If I shouldn't care about the government going after this guy then you shouldn't care about the government going after him either.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

links234

eXia7
So you say he has used public land, true.. but who cares honestly?


If I shouldn't care about the government going after this guy then you shouldn't care about the government going after him either.


Your obedience to unjust laws created by shifty politicians and enforced by mickey mouse government organizations disturbs me.

I care about freedom more than I care about some cows eating weeds in the desert. That's why I care about this event. I've stated what I see this as, you seem to be dead set on your beliefs, and that's fine.. just enjoy your 30$ burger is all I'm sayin'



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
If the State of Nevada "owns" the land in question, where's the Federal "authority" at?

It must be a stretch of the turtles.

And if Harry Reid LLC wants the land, watch them relocate the tortoises.


Where Tortoises and Solar Power Don't Mix


Desert Tortoise Translocation/Relocation Plan for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


You keep referring to the 2013 ruling, so here is a little gem from that ruling:



because Bundy's cattle have caused and continue to cause damage to natural and cultural resources and pose a threat to public safety. The United States has also demonstrated that the equities and the public interest strongly favor an injunction. The public interest is best served by having the federal lands managed without the presence of trespassing cattle on lands that are closed to grazing. The public interest is also best served by removal of trespassing cattle that cause harm to natural and cultural resources or pose a threat to the health and safety of members of the public who use the federal lands for recreation


Wow, you know it's rigged when they have to claim public safety and public interest.......from cows! LOL

edit on 4/11/2014 by WhatTheory because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

WhatTheory
reply to post by links234
 



Wow, you know it's rigged when they have to claim public safety and public interest.......from cows! LOL

edit on 4/11/2014 by WhatTheory because: (no reason given)



Yeah, considering there are special cattle blocks built into the road to stop cattle from straying out of the designated area with wire fencing, and numerous signs stating that it's an open range with a picture of a cow.




top topics



 
72
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join