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.

 

A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

page: 9
138
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
How many corporations avoid paying taxes based on the law?

Guess what? they were the ones that wrote those laws so, of course they have the legal right to avoid taxes.

Pretty damn convenient huh?

I have no dog in this fight...I'm just a brainwashed loyal taxpayer.

The fight is fixed though...how fair is that?

No, really....someone PLEASE tell me how this country is fair to all?

Doesn't the constitution of the United States say that we are all created EQUAL.

That premise no longer works my friends.....It just doesn't work.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

i have to laugh a bit, people on ats are thinking and typing faster than i can read...\
here is the next thread down, making may point tho more carefully...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Yet no one can show me anywhere where anyone other than Bundy and anywhere other than some UK tabloid rag magazine said there were the presence of snipers at all

I'm happy to read where anyone besides Bundy says that there were snipers there...legitimate sources from non-biased persons who saw snipers BEFORE the militia showed up...

neighbors... anyone in the area...


Then you have not really looked. You can pics and videos of them online. Armed and at am elevated position looking down upon everyone else. At the moment I am using my mobile and I am at work. If I wasn't I would be happy to link it for you.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

darkstar57
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

i have to laugh a bit, people on ats are thinking and typing faster than i can read...\
here is the next thread down, making may point tho more carefully...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Well pointed out. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


yeah... he paid that is why he lost his permit to graze on that land a whole 5 years prior to everyone in the county loosing their permits...

have fun supporting the illegality of one man... whats good for the goose is in fact good for the gander right?

If the government is wrong... then by god we should be able to be wrong with out fear too...

lets all be wrong... then we can pretend it makes it right...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

edit on 12-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


yeah... he paid that is why he lost his permit to graze on that land a whole 5 years prior to everyone in the county loosing their permits...

have fun supporting the illegality of one man... whats good for the goose is in fact good for the gander right?

If the government is wrong... then by god we should be able to be wrong with out fear too...

lets all be wrong... then we can pretend it makes it right...


Yeah, I guess you didn't comprehend the entirety of the issue presented. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

With all respect (because I value you're contributions) there isn't One truth and because of that, we (each person) has to decide what's right and wrong for themselves and take their stands when their defined lines in the sand have been crossed. Some people took a stand here, others will somewhere else at some other time...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

LadySkadi
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

With all respect (because I value you're contributions) there isn't One truth and because of that, we (each person) has to decide what's right and wrong for themselves and take their stands when their defined lines in the sand have been crossed. Some people took a stand here, others will somewhere else at some other time...


If a person bothers to take 5 minutes out of their busy schedule on a Saturday afternoon, they will have no problem finding out what's right or not with this. The truth isn't subjective to personal opinion. The bottom line is that people are so fed up with all the wrong things the feds do, and rightfully so, they're blinded by the fact that not everything the feds do is wrong. People would much rather jump on the "eat the feds" bandwagon than to make sure that what they're fighting for is actually the right thing to do. It's easier to hate I guess.

The BLM backed down because Bundy paid his fees. What does that tell you?
edit on 12-4-2014 by Taupin Desciple because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


Perhaps you forgot what thread you're on? this thread was not an attempt to defend the unpaid fees or whether Bundy was in the right with his assertions that the state trumps the BLM - this is about the militarized-type response by the Gov. which many believe was out of line. That's what I'm speaking to here and if you bear that in mind, then there is most definately more than one right/wrong going on here.

With that, I'm out too - said my piece on this.
edit on 12-4-2014 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The FORCE is far too large and obscene for a simple arrest. The liberals ALWAYS want action NOW for their tolerant decrees when what they must do is wait and get them later.Reno played that way, as I recall.


But no, they WANT a fight over nothing it's their BEST type of campaign.Say the citizens shot first and there you go.
edit on 12-4-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

darkstar57
reply to post by Kali74
 

as i understand it, the Bundy family was breaking BLM regulations, not laws. and those regs, supposedly saving environment for the desert tortoise, effectively ended his grazing rights...i.e., even though he paid BLM fees, he could not graze. so he quit paying. his beef was that since 1880 or about, his family had been grazing..and keeping the land in such a way as to allow that. go to google earth, locate bundy ranch, and see...it is surrounded by irrigated patches for cow fodder when the federal land is unproductive.
Yes he broke BLM regs, but the rules were created to boot him from his claim on the land.
AND guess what. Harry Reid and family have an investment with the Chinese to use the land on a solar power station. and a top aid to Reid is Head of BLM.
go to the web site of that hated terrible always wrong conspiracy creep Alex Jones, and read the documents posted by Reid and his associates..they mention Cliven Bundy by name as a problem.

so there.



You bring a few good points that have seemingly been glossed over thus far. That's why I quote your entire post. Others have put it even better.

It appears that Bundy is arguing state compliance against the federal. The man is compliant with the state. He is in arrears with the Federal. He apparently contracted with the federal government to pay fees in order for his property to be maintained and improved. He had also contracted with the state and federal government(?) to donate land in exchange for permanent grazing rights. No cash payout.

Now, in contract law, if one side breaches their end, it is not automatic default, but the courts do have to deal with it. Being since the feds moved in, it means that the appeals process must have the right to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. It also means that Bundy, if he's smart, has been keeping these alleged fees safe in an escrow account until he has been defeated or made whole. If he loses to SCOTUS then he's done. All these actions so far only help his case.

The guy is only on the line for $1M. They've spent ten times that so far, at least they'll try to bill him for it. If anything, he should send a bill back and split the difference.

Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind, until you regard other's stakes in Bundy's defiance.


Sorry, guys. Wrong thread, but still I want to leave it in here because it's not too off topic. This is important.

Federal agents, Federal manpower/firepower probably should elicit this type of response from the general public. From what should've been handled by the highest court in the land, this situation devolved into a straight up scare tactic. I'm glad it hasn't gotten ugly.
edit on 12-4-2014 by dfens because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

A plan to counter this threat is:
1. Set-up a unified populace in ever growing numbers so that "critical mass" of overwhelming the threat...including women.
2. Locate command and control of threat.
3. Form militia...equip adequately.
4. Send 40% of militia at night to encircle command and control to tell force "stand down" and end this now.
5. Execute.

Alex Jones and crew really covered yrsterday "ending" so please read Infowars home page to get critical insight and pics no one else has of final standoff under I 15 near Mesquite!!!!
He and Drudge really showed what 30 years experience is all about.

Thank you for this thread!
edit on 12-4-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

February 14, 1986

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) ``Public rangelands'' has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 - 514);

(b) ``Forage Value Index'' means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

(c) ``Beef Cattle Price Index'' means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) ``Prices Paid Index'' means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

February 14, 1986.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., February 18, 1986]


Link



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

They need soldiers to do it. And while I am sure they can get some. They can't get all.

It wouldn't be as black and white as you think it is. Most of us in the military have families and friends we care about. We're not about to run our nation into a free fire zone. Never mind the logistical nightmare of holding the continental United States.
edit on pSat, 12 Apr 2014 06:06:48 -0500201412America/Chicago2014-04-12T06:06:48-05:0030vx4 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Exxxxactly. The military, as well as cops are people at the end of the day. The MSM attempts to de-humanize people by labeling them. The fact of the matter is that Americans are American, whether they're black, white, or purple, whether they're liberal or conservative, whether they're military or civilian. I don't have a single doubt that we'll stand mostly united in circumstances such as this. [Not referring to the panic stricken chaos that would ensue if the power was out nationally for more than a week.]

As for America being hard to hold...yeah. We have a hard time "controlling" an area the size of northern Afghanistan. America is BIG. Texas alone is the size of France.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lovebeck
 


Good question! Their resume' may be Blackwater, (Xe), Wackenhut and other such paid "contractors" dressed in BLM uniforms. Hence, the "1,000 yard stare", while attacking the protestors...I'd like to think that many of our own officials wouldn't be so abusive though many are of the same ilk...but paid mercs...yeah, no souls behind those eyes, no heart, no feelings for their fellow man. There may be exceptions but far to few I think.
edit on 12-4-2014 by shrevegal because: spelling error



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Well said, same with the OP's message.

This is far from over,for Bundy should remain aware and another ranch is acted upon currently as shared in more updated threads.
edit on 12-4-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
The FORCE is far too large and obscene for a simple arrest. The liberals ALWAYS want action NOW for their tolerant decrees when what they must do is wait and get them later.Reno played that way, as I recall.


But no, they WANT a fight over nothing it's their BEST type of campaign.Say the citizens shot first and there you go.
edit on 12-4-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)


You are so right. One thing about the right to bear arms is that it has been ruled that an individual holds that right and not just a 'well-regulated militia'. The only problem is if a provocateur is involved, a firefight can happen, if not to be expected. Rules of engagement should be learned, basically you have to take fire first and let everyone know that safeties must be on until it starts. That way somebody doesn't start a war the dumb way. Hard to hold a siege in a desert.

To break it down to lowest common denominator, a guy is fighting the federal over $1M. Yet, it's more complex. If it's played cool and professional, they can take a Harry Reid to the laundry. This is almost like what a Hollywood would write. Reid just isn't as important.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
From what I have been able to gather:

1870's Bundy's family sets up on the land in question.
1946 BLM is formed
???? Unsure when BLM implemented grazing fees on land Bundy uses
1993 BLM increased grazing fees on the land Bundy leased. Bundy refused to pay.
1998 BLM revoked Bundy's lease. It took five years for the BLM to revoke the lease. Bundy does not remove his cattle. Years of legal filings ensue.
2013 a judge orders the cattle removed. This begins 05 APT 14.
Events are still unfolding

This timeline brings up many tangents. However the OP is about the Federal response to the impounding of the cattle. I just think it needs a little context.

IMHO, the response was totally over blown. Sounds like a lot of Federal LEO players heard "militia" and "range war" and had a wet dream. The inter-agency over-see-ers must have envisioned a great opportunity to demonstrate capability lest others get the idea to test them. Other ranchers see a lease dissolved and get nervous this is a trend the frackers are gaining more influence than them. Rabble Rousers (Bless their hearts) hear "show down" and they have their collective wet dream. The MSM cares nothing for context or facts and gets hot emoting the moronic American public who stills watches them. Anti-2nd Amendment cheerleaders hyperventilate with excitement in hopes Obama can Seal Team 6 those nasty Pro-death and destruction gun lovers. He is so dreamy...

For those who support the Federal response, you will be the first to sling snot the minute anything similar happens to you. No one will care about your explanation of details and context just like you do not care now.

I can feel for the rancher as his family has been there forever. BLM fees, while a late coming interloper, are not that excessive. The Feds went from do-nothing for years to straight OBL strike force mode over night. Over some cattle and some loud mouths. Is there no moderate option here? Just On and Off?

Rambling Rant End



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


@projectvxn... given the family history of land usage for over 5 generations... are you CERTAIN, from a black letter law standpoint that Mr. Bundy is actually breaking the law?

The U.S. has a rich history of making binding legal contracts, and then breaking them because... they carry a bigger stick than the other party to the deal.

Native Americans can speak volumes to this... for a superbly researched yet brief tour of land contract history with the United States, check out "Indian Country" by Peter Matthiessen.

If you are patriotic and love The Rule of Law, it will knock the wind out of you.

The reason I am asking the opening question in this post, is I do NOT know the legal answer. But the 1870's is one helluva long time for a family history of land usage.



new topics

top topics



 
138
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join