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.

 

Bundy Ranch Conspiracy Debunked

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Mamatus
Found this from Cenk Uygur (Young Turks) on Live Leak this morning. Maybe I am late posting it. Did a quick search of Bundy Ranch and it did not come up. This was a response to the Storm Clouds Gathering conspiracy video recently posted on YouTube and linked here.

Not sure how to embed Live Leak videos here to I will just drop a link. If someone will tell me how to embed it that would be great.

www.liveleak.com...

Now my take on this:

First, I think Cenk to be a pretty upstanding dude when it comes to investigative reporting. Like any other media outlet it is always good to double check the facts being tosses out. So I did and I could find nothing ambiguous or misleading in his facts.

Second, I have said from the beginning that Bundy had no claim to the land. The entire situation is kind of like having someone let your family live in an extra house they had rent free for 100 years. Then the owner of that house coming back to you and saying that they were happy to loan you the house but times have changed and they would like you to start paying rent to continue to live in that house. Now, instead of gratitude for the last 100 years of rent free living the people that have lived in that house, your entire family and many others, pull out guns and forcibly attempt to steal the house.

IMO Bundy is not a good American, he is a trouble making ingrate. It is sad how many people will blindly follow along with him.

Keep in mind I am no fan of BLM as I got screwed over by them pretty hard myself, to the tune of 80k. I am still trying to recover and had I the extra cash I would have eventually won in Court as a local rancher conspired with BLM to remove my legally (and permitted) business from the area. I unlike Bundy did get screwed over. However, the facts remain the same in this case. Bundy has no rights to that land and never did.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling


it's actually more like:
you built a house on land that was owned by no one.....then some wealthy guy with guns and a small army (State of Nevada) comes and "claims" all the land around you and underneath you but says "hey you were here first so you can stay even though I now own the land under your house that you built."

then some other even richer guy (federal Government) comes in with his huge hired army and takes it without paying for it from the first rich guy and tells you the same thing.....that since you have been there for ever....you can stay.

but both rich guys are in cahoots and want the land for their buddies business (Senator Reid and the Chinese) so they keep trying to buy you out of the area like they did all your other friends (56 other ranchers in the area)....but you refuse....

so then the two rich guys start trying to take you to their other friends (BLM and Courts) for judgement because you won't sell and are in their way.

this doesn't work so the two rich guys (Nevada and Feds) go to their other friends (MSM) and try to make you look like a tax evader etc and try to destroy your character....

then the sheeple start saying things like in this OP




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Quauhtli
 





They don't serve the public, they don't ask the public how it is that they should manage the lands or what is in the best interests of the public that rightfully owns this property.


Great point.

Actually i dont think much more needs to be said.
edit on 4/16/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 




Thank you!

Des



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

deadeyedick
Seems clear to me that this boils down to the question of do you recognize the federal gov or the state gov. The fact is that the majority of gun owning americans will back states over the fed. Bundy is the last in a long line of changes that have come right or wrong by the feds. Those that didn't stand up before will gladly stand behind him now. No court decision will win is this matter regardless of legality. Americans have a bad taste in their mouths from being shat on over and over and in their minds it is simple. Man and cattle on ranch. gov try to remove man and cattle. ok i will gladly die for that. All talking points aside it is that simple to most who have lost their way of life. You can spin it into racism.poverty, sexuality whatever direction you choose but in the simple minds it is us vs them and us is tired of them. us will win or die trying while putting women and children first. We absolutely do not want to see what happens after the first shots are fired.


I have to agree it has come down to the impoverishment of the many for the benefit of the few......
Even university study claims we live in an oligarchy not a democracy....
What are those in power trying to do....if not increase their stranglehold on the lives and minds of the "subjects" while repeating over and over they are a "free" peoples....
Bah!
Cliven Bundy is perhaps just the burning man.....the spark to begin the opposite swing of the social paradigm....
It doesn't matter who or how right or wrong the spark may be.....it will simply be the sum total of all the social oppression that's bled the ordinary people almost to death by now......



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Great citations !!

Now the whole thing goes back to square one.

It's all about the Dry Lake solar project.

More confusion with plenty of residual confusion.

and we still don't know for sure if that Chinese company is or isn't looking at any contract opportunities.

3-dimentional chess.





+4 more 
posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Olivine
reply to post by intrptr
 

He has been to court, at least 3 times. Losing each time. If he really has some legal right to access the land, don't you think there is as at least one lawyer willing to take up his cause, considering all the vocal support he has gotten in the past week?

Bundy wiki

As far as I can tell, this fellow really likes to have his opinion heard about States' sovereignty, and he enjoys free, profitable grazing at the expense of the environment and taxpayers.

For example, a year ago, he testified before the Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, regarding AB227. That bill is to set up a committee to study the nuts & bolts of how & at what cost any federal lands given to the state of Nevada might be administered--a contigency wish list. The committee is to have 17 members, one from each county, since they are familiar with the federal lands and associated needs/wants/issues of the local residents.

Mr. Bundy's testimony, found in the Minutes of that meeting:

Cliven Bundy, Private Citizen, Bunkerville, Nevada:
I would like to give my condolences to Mr. Dahl. I stand here as a rancher
in southern Nevada. I am somewhat well known as the last man standing.
I must say that I am glad to see you people stand for state sovereignty today.
I do not support nor oppose this bill. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 321.596
states, "The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public
land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders."
Let us strengthen that bill and go on and claim this land and our sovereignty.


Why would he not support this bill? Why go to the trouble of testifying if you don't have an opinion on the matter at hand?

My opinion, he likes the sound of his own voice.


you are missing the point...

owning black slaves was legal....was it right?

destroying Jewish businesses and interning them to slave labor was legal....was it right?

rounding up Japanese Americans was legal....was it right?

killing and rounding up American Indians was legal....was it right?

sitting at the front of the bus was NOT legal.....but some little old black lady did it anyway.....was she right?

Bundy is sticking up for what is right......he doesn't care what the Government is saying is legal or not.....this is why he is a hero



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Mamatus
 

Facts:
1. In 1870's, Bundy homestead on open high desert with Virgin river frontage.
2. In 1910, state of Nevada formed...Bundy deed their land to the state in return for services (Sheriff protection from "wild west" types). He pays taxes, grazing fees to Nevada.

Don't be re-writing history...especially American history.


You left out a few facts.
3. In the 1990's Bundy stopped paying grazing fees and lied about how many cows he had on the land so the BLM ordered him off the land.
4. In 2012 Bundy contacted the local Sherriff saying that the BLM was stealing his cattle he was then informed it is Federal land the can do what they want with it.
5. Bundy's arguments has already been rejected by two appeals courts.

If you want to start stating fact don't pick and choose from all facts.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Try watching it again with your points in mind.


I watched it twice, I agree with most of what seeker has to say, is there points of seeker that you feel he is taking out of context? Or is it that you just don't agree with what he said so he must not have taken the right points from the video?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
This issue is just as polarizing as is, Obamas birth certificate or climate change. Sadly, I feel we have come to a point in our Society where even raw proof of argument will be completely ignored by those that believe something else.

Regardless, with as corrupt a Government as I feel we have, it is hard to ignore some simple facts.
Bundy has not ever presented a "deed" or any other proof of owning the land prior to BLM. From a pure logic standpoint I have to assume that he does not have such a document or he would have presented it for the world to see. That he has not ever done so is IMO proof he does not have it. No deed, no case for ownership.

I double dog dare anyone that supports Bundy to find and post such a deed or any proof of ownership prior to BLM. That deed should be available though the publicly available court records of the cases Bundy lost.

Oh and the article online did not use just snopes for a resource. If you actually think Cenk Uygur did please view the video again, in slow motion.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)


This may come as a shock to you but if you keep trespassing on Federal land even after losing in court and you keep trespassing they will eventually do something about it.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)


How many Bundy fans are going to take the time to help out any number of over-reactions by Law Enforcement? Do you see the Oathkeepers running off to fight the Albuquerque PD? Or how about running off to stand up for the citizens rights after the Boston bombing?

Defending the Bundys in this case is fighting the wrong fight.

So when are you going to give your house and land back to the American Indians?
edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: added content.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

buster2010

Granite
reply to post by Mamatus
 

Facts:
1. In 1870's, Bundy homestead on open high desert with Virgin river frontage.
2. In 1910, state of Nevada formed...Bundy deed their land to the state in return for services (Sheriff protection from "wild west" types). He pays taxes, grazing fees to Nevada.

Don't be re-writing history...especially American history.


You left out a few facts.
3. In the 1990's Bundy stopped paying grazing fees and lied about how many cows he had on the land so the BLM ordered him off the land.
4. In 2012 Bundy contacted the local Sherriff saying that the BLM was stealing his cattle he was then informed it is Federal land the can do what they want with it.
5. Bundy's arguments has already been rejected by two appeals courts.

If you want to start stating fact don't pick and choose from all facts.


Seems like 3,4,5 come from the poisonous fruit of 2...
At the end of the day, his family owned the land until it was bought out from under him
So why would he need to pay to graze on his land that was stolen from him?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I agree UxoriousMagnus is correct.

We are way past this being about a lowly law being broke.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Mamatus

ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)


How many Bundy fans are going to take the time to help out any number of over-reactions by Law Enforcement? Do you see the Oathkeepers running off to fight the Albuquerque PD? Or how about running off to stand up for the citizens rights after the Boston bombing?

Defending the Bundys in this case is fighting the wrong fight.

So when are you going to give your house and land back to the American Indians?
edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: added content.


Why don't you contact them yourself and ask them for help with what you think is important. That's what Bundy did.

Des



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Mamatus

ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.

By the way, CU debunked nothing.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)


So when are you going to give your house and land back to the American Indians?



Oh wow nice one
If you are going to use that point then you are calling for the entire USA to be turned back over to the American Indians then. And technically they should have it given back to them, but don't be defending the BLM then, since they are just as much in the wrong as every other american citizen living today.
Well not me, I got my cert of Indian blood about a month ago, I just want my land back now!!!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Well, we can't all be Obama cheerleaders. Sometimes you just have to follow whats right, in principal.



Its like their revolution fantasy come to life, sadly, if a shot was fire at the agents, all of them would be dead. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Think of more of a change. I think you're familiar with that?

Besides that, no one shot at the agents. They weren't stupid enough to give the Feds or BLM a reason to shoot them. But it wasn't a bad idea to be armed, you know how things like those sometimes go when it involves Feds (See Waco, Ruby Ridge).



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
You know, I don't think that Bundy has a legal leg to stand on either. The moral issue may be something else again and I haven't made up my mind about the whole mess one way or another to be honest. But this...

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Mamatus
 


(like every other rancher does).


Is biased, all-inclusive horse sh++. I suppose you meant that to be provocative and you win, that poked me pretty good. Don't paint everyone in a demographic with a black brush because you have a thought agenda. Stick to what you know in your argument and don't speak about that (ranchers and ranching) which you clearly know nothing about.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Mamatus
 


I looked into this situation the first day it came up and came to the same conclusions you did.
I just didn't see the point of posting here when the vast majority of people have their minds made up that Bundy is some kind of hero. He's sucking off the federal teat and not paying for it (like every other rancher does). Hmmm... I thought most of his supporters would be upset about that, but they seem to support him 100%.



I support him, but only because it seems the feds are very exclusive about the laws they enforce.

Illegal immigrant? Come on in! We'll set you up with welfare, healthcare, and maybe even a job!
IRS-Gate? Who? What? WHere? We know nuthink!
Benghazi Gate? They blamed it on a you-tube video.
Gunning running to Mexico to then try to blame American Arms dealers? We know nuthink!
And so, so much more law breaking by our government, especially this entire Obama admin.

I refuse to hold guys like Bundy accountable for not paying "grazing fees" to our Federal government when most of our Federal government is filled with oathbreaking lawbreakers. Let them follow the laws they pass, which believe it or not, also apply to them, even more than they do to us since they take an oath and swear to uphold and enforce the laws and the constitution. Once the Fedgov starts doing what it's supposed to do, which is basically STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES, then maybe I'll start worrying about guys like Bundy, if he's even in the wrong in the first place.

You're worried about a million in unpaid grazing fees? What about the Billions that go into supporting the lives of illegal immigrants?

Not trying to pick on illegal immigrants, but the example is oh so clear of the federal government's selective enforcement of the law, from one case to the next. Border enforcement is a national security issue that BOTH parties wash their hands of and close their eyes to, and PANDER to voters for. Bundy? Hardly worth a note on the back page of the newspaper, when it comes to a "lawbreaker." And last I checked, Bundy IS a citizen of the US. Illegals, uhm, aren't, when they commit their crime of illegal entry into a foreign, sovereign nation.

One of the oaths these people take is to preserve the security of the United States. Why are they wasting resources going after Bundy when they could be enforcing BORDER LAWS which IS a NS issue? Bundy's cows do not pose a threat to national security.

You want me to hold Bundy accountable for his crime, when the government itself commits a crime by not having an active, enforced border? Screw that. When the government promises illegal immigrants amnesty? How does that discourage future illegal immigration? How about they declare amnesty for Clive Bundy? Oh, that's right, that scrubland I saw his cows "grazing" on is just so precious and luscious.

It's the Fedgov's responsiblity to secure the border and discourage illegal immigration, not encourage lawbreaking by illegal immigrants. Bundy is a rancher. He owes me nothing. The politicians who waste 4 trillion a year now? They're the criminals we need to start focusing on, who owe US. Once we can get a lasso on them, maybe we can start nitpicking "lawbreakers" like Bundy, and I won't necessarily be "against" him, but I won't be for him as much, as I am now, either.

And I want to be clear, I'm not for him because I think he's innocent or guilty. I'm for him because he told the criminal federal government to shove it, and many more feel the same way, such as those who joined him in telling the Feds to shove it. My hope for the future is, in any situation like this, the people rise up against their self righteous Federal government, and also tell them to shove it. It has been shown now that if enough respond, they will back down, rethink, and re group, which is a monumental leap over their previous "shoot-n-burn em out, and show the rest we don't take no crap from no citizens..." mentality.

It has nothing to do with his guilt, and everything to do with the hypocrisy of seeing an armed wing of the criminal Federal government crying about a "criminal" not paying his grazing fees, when they themselves are largely criminals.

I'm FOR anyone who stands up to this criminal government when there is any legal hair to be split, until they deserve to be trusted. Right now, they don't deserve any trust, and haven't for about 30 years.

I'm sorry Mamatus got screwed over by them. It wouldn't have mattered if he was right or wrong either. If he had told them to shove it and got them to back down in any way, he'd get props from me, regardless of who was in the "right."



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Here's a similar case that actually gives "rights" to cattle.

(case final May 2013)




U.S. v. Hage

The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.[18] The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling,

the judge said, "government officials ... entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order."



Bundy standoff


U.S. v. Hage




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join