Bundy Ranch Conspiracy Debunked

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

The Chinese deal is still being pushed by the left because they know the deal is dead. Haven't heard them mention anything about any further plans for using the same location for solar development by another company. Guess that doesn't fit the narrative and it's better to claim Bundy is a deadbeat instead of going after the billions in Medicaid and welfare fraud.

This article has some interesting info with further link to be investigated.

Link

reply to post by Sremmos80

My point was pure logic, no emotions. Bundy claimed ownership of lands that were wrongfully stolen from the American Indians.
Now he wants to claim that his stolen land has been, stolen.

What comes around goes around. That was my point.

cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Mamatus

 

I was mentioning early that I think this has nothing to do with bundy and more that people are angry and just want a location to meet to vent...

Much truth to this statement.

buster2010

stirling

buster2010

Sremmos80

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?

It wasn't bought out from under him his family gave it away.

Yup they ceded it to the State of Nevada in return for" law and order", the grazing rights and water rights....

And when they handed the land to the Feds that agreement became null and void.

sheesh....Buster......generally I enjoy your comments and your dry wit but.....you are so on the wrong side of this thing....you are smarter than this

Destinyone

buster2010

Skorpy
reply to post by buster2010

 

So a person decides to not pay taxes give the government the right to bum rush you with military tactics, terrorizing you and your family.
Waiving guns around treating american citizens like Jihadist?

Grazing fees are not taxes. All he had to do was let his cattle graze on land that he actually owns then he wouldn't have to pay them. But he expects to graze for free on public land and this won't happen other ranchers have to pay the fees so why should he not have to.

Buster...there are NO other ranchers....they've all strong armed out of business. Bundy was the last man standing.

Des

edit on 16-4-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

Wow he was the last? Somebody should tell that to the other 16,000 public land ranchers in Nevada.

reply to post by xuenchen


not to shabby yourself Xu
the forest service isn't well liked in a few states for their high handedness
bundy wants the feds disarmed and that would be ideal

but the next time it will be a waco, or a ruby ridge, or heaven forbid; an oklahoma, or even worse an american palistien

UxoriousMagnus

buster2010

stirling

buster2010

Sremmos80

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?

It wasn't bought out from under him his family gave it away.

Yup they ceded it to the State of Nevada in return for" law and order", the grazing rights and water rights....

And when they handed the land to the Feds that agreement became null and void.

sheesh....Buster......generally I enjoy your comments and your dry wit but.....you are so on the wrong side of this thing....you are smarter than this

I stand for the law something many people in this thread is clearly against. As I stated in another post 16,000 public land ranchers in Nevada follow these laws and pay their fees so why should Bundy be allowed to thumb his nose at the law. He is clearly in the wrong here. If he was paying his fees and the government did this to him I would be on his side but in no way would I support a person who owes over a million dollars for his use of public land.

reply to post by Danbones

There will not be a next time. If the Feds want Bundy they are gonna go about it quite differently. I still get somewhat upset over the little fact that people came to his "rescue" while so many others have had it so much worse.

Really? of all the reasons or calls to arms, this is the one that people run to? IMO there are a lot of reasons to take up arms in this Country right now. Personally, I am ready to fight for what is left of my Country (not willing to die alone or I would have already) but to defend the like of Bundy? Not a chance.

There is no validity in fighting for the wrong cause.

buster2010

UxoriousMagnus

buster2010

stirling

buster2010

Sremmos80

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?

It wasn't bought out from under him his family gave it away.

Yup they ceded it to the State of Nevada in return for" law and order", the grazing rights and water rights....

And when they handed the land to the Feds that agreement became null and void.

sheesh....Buster......generally I enjoy your comments and your dry wit but.....you are so on the wrong side of this thing....you are smarter than this

I stand for the law something many people in this thread is clearly against. As I stated in another post 16,000 public land ranchers in Nevada follow these laws and pay their fees so why should Bundy be allowed to thumb his nose at the law. He is clearly in the wrong here. If he was paying his fees and the government did this to him I would be on his side but in no way would I support a person who owes over a million dollars for his use of public land.

I am all for law and order too. But only when it applies to everyone equally....especially....our government

Mamatus
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

My point was pure logic, no emotions. Bundy claimed ownership of lands that were wrongfully stolen from the American Indians.
Now he wants to claim that his stolen land has been, stolen.

What comes around goes around. That was my point.

I guess it was logical, but again not really. If you are going to use that logical argument then you would have to say that all of N America needs to be turned over to the american Indians. Is that what you meant by your statement?

reply to post by buster2010


Really, then I suppose you are going to take a stand against the BLM for
going beyond the law as they killed cattle, destroyed protected Desert
Tortoise burrows...destroyed property without a legal ground to stand on?

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.

"Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle," Houston said.

url


www.sfgate.com...

reply to post by burntheships


ah the old "you can have your pound of flesh as we agreed, but no where does it say you get to take any blood" defence
[twelfth Night - William Shakeseare )
cool

reply to post by Danbones


Good one Dan!

Its only wrong for the people to break the law,
Governments can break laws and its considered bureaucracy!

Mamatus
reply to post by Danbones

 

There will not be a next time. If the Feds want Bundy they are gonna go about it quite differently. I still get somewhat upset over the little fact that people came to his "rescue" while so many others have had it so much worse.

Really? of all the reasons or calls to arms, this is the one that people run to? IMO there are a lot of reasons to take up arms in this Country right now. Personally, I am ready to fight for what is left of my Country (not willing to die alone or I would have already) but to defend the like of Bundy? Not a chance.

There is no validity in fighting for the wrong cause.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling

Really. You can't see why people chose Bundy to stand behind?

He represents the American Dream. The Cowboy raising cattle, the old West days of Freedom, long gone. He represents, all rolled into one cause. What the government can do to you if they want what you have. He represents all the frustrations of people who've lived their own trials and tribulations with unfair government practices.

People can relate to him, more than they can relate to a bloated, ever hungry greedy self serving government.

As I said before...they see themselves in him. I see myself in him. He shows a backbone and willingness to say...Enough is enough!

If you haven't ever had the fire of zeal burn in your heart, then you'll never understand what I'm saying to you.

I still think, you have residual hurt and pain deep inside of you, due to your own battle with the BLM. You said if you only had enough money, you could have won in the unjust battle they waged against you. I think if you had won, you'd be singing a different tune in this case.

JMOHO....

Des

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.

3. In 1848 the Treate of Guadalupe_Hidalgo ceded what is now the State of Nevada to the US Government. The US owned the land well before Bundy's family ever got there.

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

reply to post by Olivine

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?

Big Brother never loses. Three times? Time for a different venue than a "court of law". If he's still there then he hasn't "lost", yet.

If the court continues to grant him venue its because someone up there keeps overturning the findings. Were any of those trials by jury of peers? Or just hand me down decisions influenced by the same mucky mucks in power.

Give him a jury trial.

Return his cattle. Let him be…

Case closed. Sounds simple enough.

Whats the big Goddamn deal? I'll tell you. This is an index case the fed uses to justify new policy and eventually more restrictive laws. Happens all the time.

Enjoy your dinotopia, geez.

Most of you are making great points and have made this crazy story even more so.

BUT, for me, I don't agree with the USA tactics however, they are correct in being owed.

Now, how do I come to that conclusion?

If the ranger had one smiggen of ownership rights etc, there would have been an army of attorneys pushing pasted the armed supporters in an attempt to represent him against the USA in court.

Lastly, if they all care so much, chip in and get enough to pay the fees. Take the wind out of the BLM sails, End of Story.

Then you can start screwing the system again and be dead before they come after you again! One on for you Mr Bundy!

"Why doesn't he just pay the fees like all the other ranchers?"

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

...

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

...

Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away.

Why Clive Bundy isn’t WRONG:

Add to this that the BLM stopped performing the services it was being paid for and I completely understand why Mr. Bundy refuses to pay.

Would you expect to pay a company for services NOT rendered if you have the expectation of receiving something of value for your money?

That's what is happening here.

The BLM stopped managing the land and began managing people off of it with the money that was supposed to be used for managing the land.

Sremmos80

Mamatus
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

My point was pure logic, no emotions. Bundy claimed ownership of lands that were wrongfully stolen from the American Indians.
Now he wants to claim that his stolen land has been, stolen.

What comes around goes around. That was my point.

I guess it was logical, but again not really. If you are going to use that logical argument then you would have to say that all of N America needs to be turned over to the american Indians. Is that what you meant by your statement?

I meant nothing other than what I said. I did not make a commentary on all of North America. Just the irony of Bundys stolen land being stolen from the Indians. At no point did any part of my statement pertain to what should be done with all of North America. That sir, was an attempted red herring on your part. You did not deal with the irony of my statement but attempted to derail the validity of my statement by not dealing with the bundy issue and attempting to turn it into an issue that had nothing to do with the Bundy case.

Epic fail.

schuyler

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.

3. In 1848 the Treate of Guadalupe_Hidalgo ceded what is now the State of Nevada to the US Government. The US owned the land well before Bundy's family ever got there.

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

Land that they legally owned after establishing a homestead in 1870 in accordance with federal law. (See homestead acts) Re-writing history indeed.