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: Bundy family unearths BLM mass cattle grave

page: 12
94
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
This is why Bundy supporters are now the biggest joke in media today. Watch the below, everything in that video is true of Bundy and his supporters... and guess what - it's a joke.



Would you really support these people, after doing your own research and watching video's of things they have said - Some of which is truly sickening?


Haha... Your source of real news and "research" is the Daily Show???? Thanks for the laughs.


Fyi, Jon Steward will make fun of anything....it doesn't mean he does his research. You can even tell how he cut off Bundy's sentence just for the fun of it. Please try look elsewhere beyond the Daily Show for your so-called "research", buddy. Lol. Stop clowning around.

PS...Err...Sometimes it's difficult to tell if someone is joking on ATS.


edit on 23-4-2014 by Kurius because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Short of forensic veterinary report you are asking an un-provable question because it relies on opposing parties word.

The cattle were in the care of the BLM after seizure and they are the responsible party having to answer just how the cattle deaths occurred.

I'd like for that answer to come forth under oath rather than unsupported commentary from the BLM that serves their vested interest.

From the Bundy Ranch FB page, they claim ALL dead cattle were shot. If that's the case and they were downers as you implied then I guess they were making double sure those cattle were really dead.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I do know about the contractors. yes.... As I understand it, many were local. That must be an interesting dynamic when people run into each other at the grocery store these days.

I have no idea how much they paid the contractors to do the work. Is that relevant?

Well, he stopped paying the grazing fees in the 90's. A court in 2013 levied an additional $200 per head, per day of violation. That is another source of hard dollar figures. You may know better than I what the end resulting dollar amount is though. I honestly haven't tried to see how much beyond the fact it's a sizable amount with a couple decades of history on it.

At this point, it comes down to another principle though. Fairness. Is it fair he have 900 cattle essentially overhead cost free for the grazing costs and feed cost...when ranchers all over the West DO pay those costs and fees and have to absorb that overhead into their operation's Profit/Loss ratio? Bundy is free of such concerns if he can get those cattle off the public land and to market before the BLM comes back on the court order in a new way.

That profit motive..and it's a BIG profit here...is what I really have some of the biggest issues with for a clear conscience in supporting the underlying issues ...which I do take sides against the feds on. State vs. Federal right to land.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurius

Yeah...Lol, when things start looking bad for the king its usual practice to entertain the subjects using a court jester to keep there minds occupied and away from the real problem.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The feds paid someone $966,000 to round up the cows.
To cover the purported $1.1 million that they say Bundy owes them.

And Bundy still has all but 6 of his cattle.

Wow, that is some cost effective management right there.


It’s unclear how much the failed roundup will cost taxpayers. Government contract records show the BLM inked a $966,000 contract in February for the roundup with Shayne Sampson of Sampson Livestock, based in Meadow, Utah.

Las Vegas Review-Journal
edit on bu302014-04-23T10:52:45-05:0010America/ChicagoWed, 23 Apr 2014 10:52:45 -050010u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Fair enough, and I admit on the last page to being corrected on this. It's appreciated, as none of us can maintain a 24hr watch standard for news. Especially with a dozen or more major stories running at once, and all with their own levels oc complexities to track for intelligent discussion. That is ATS's greatest strength, IMO. Group focus for group thinking.



* That dead cattle issue does need to be run down and someone answer for it....but the conduct during the operation doesn't change the valid court orders which supported and demanded it be done ...and still DO demand it, for that matter. For another 11 months, to be exact. We only saw the opening move in this one, so even more important to nail down who killed the animals and why it was needed ...before the next rounds of enforcing the court order begin.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Kurius

Yeah...Lol, when things start looking bad for the king its usual practice to entertain the subjects using a court jester to keep there minds occupied and away from the real problem.



Odd, the daily show, although more entertainment than news, is typically one of the 'good guys' on ATS.

I guess when it doesn't parrot ones beliefs, it becomes a joke.




...that is until it parrots ones beliefs at another time, then it's back in favour.




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This seems to be the most active of the Bundy threads, so I'll plop it here.
(if this has already been discussed, my apologies. I did look quickly through the past day of Bundy-related posts and didn't see it mentioned.)

The militia still camped out at Mr. Bundy's seem to be getting a bit paranoid.
www.8newsnow.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Uh-oh possible undercover infiltrators?

What happens when the militia attempts to detain or interrogate them?

Or are they just being paranoid?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: butcherguy

At this point, it comes down to another principle though. Fairness. Is it fair he have 900 cattle essentially overhead cost free for the grazing costs and feed cost...when ranchers all over the West DO pay those costs and fees and have to absorb that overhead into their operation's Profit/Loss ratio? Bundy is free of such concerns if he can get those cattle off the public land and to market before the BLM comes back on the court order in a new way.

That profit motive..and it's a BIG profit here...is what I really have some of the biggest issues with for a clear conscience in supporting the underlying issues ...which I do take sides against the feds on. State vs. Federal right to land.


I do appreciate your diligence and efforts to seek out the meat of the grazing matter,

On fairness,

Was the Federal court populated by a jury of Bundy's peers? or was this a federal panel ruling in favor of a federal agency? I in principal agree with the Bundy's pre-emptive claims going back to the 1870's. Even though it can be said these are federal lands it doe's not negate the families long standing use of grazing nor water rights dating from a time well before the federal government even had capability to manage any of those lands. Bundy has a valid point that BLM arbitrarily lowered the head allowance to a level that in effect would close down his operation much like what was done to his neighboring ranchers. A strong case can be made that BLM had an unofficial policy of driving ranchers out of business and off the range using falsely claimed ESA issues.

A strong case can be made that crony capitalists working hand in hand with politicians and environmental groups as stooges were angling for ending grazing rights leading to loss of water allotments for financial use and gain.

It keeps getting swept under the rug that Bundy will/would pay grazing fees, just not to the Feds whom they believe have usurped State and County authority. Personally I agree with that also as he at least has direct representation to the taxing or fee collecting authority.


Bundy Ranch FB


Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.



So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.


Right, wrong or otherwise no federal judge is going to voluntarily rule against the federal government just for the fact of losing the complete control they now enjoy over millions of acres of land.

I'm leaning heavily towards believing this matter is more fairly dealt with in the congress not the court room.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I never watch buffoons in action, I'm more of a documentary kind of person so one never could call me a supporter of shows like the daily show.

No picking and choosing here!



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

It is amazing how easy it is to think for yourself when you dont watch tv talking heads.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Went to the 8News link, wow that reporter writing the story pretty much biased in the wording used.

And not a word about the dead cattle!

Hopefully the continued presence of the Oathkeepers and Bundy supporters will prevent more looming cattle deaths if BLM decides to move in again.

The infiltration of groups by federal agents is a long running thing in this country, at their best they provoke unwary people into doing something illegal and swoop in later with a raid or they use a provoked illegality to recruit group members as informants.

At their worst they'll make the first shot in an actual confrontation as an agent provocateur giving federal forces the excuse they need to violently put down opposition.

Its not paranoia when history proves true so many times.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
If they were downer cattle it still wasn't for the BLM to decide what to do with them. They were private property.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

I had a feeling it was just a matter of time.

There were already rumors that a couple of guys were stupid enough to approach them, ask to join and then asked if they wanted to buy explosives at a hotel room nearby. The protesters were smart enough to tell them to kiss off, especially with an approach like that. I can't back that up, but one of the lamestream stations said it, and that it was "unsubstantiated."



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Mr. Bundy states that he has a copy of an invoice for the hired hands of the feds and it is in excess of 900,000$ and 300,000 to an auction house. He stated on news that the figure did not include the 200+ armed men/mercs. Some researchers have totaled excess of 7 million in the last 20yrs on just the bundys case. Also stated that no bills for grazing fees have ever been presented to him at anytime only contracts to sign.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

I think most of what we disagree on is perceptions and interpretations. I don't recognize any 19th century claim to land because one private citizen says so. I'd say he could litigate it, but he already has. Starting in the 90's to present, it hasn't been one court but multiple cases ruled on. He's lost them all.

He can pay the state if the state agrees with his position of land rights, federal control (or lack of it) and who can or should properly collect the fees. Unfortuantely the state does not agree, which i have seen, as they have turned down his money while cooperating with court orders and the law and is sits now to be enforced.

If we don't like the law, I am all for changing it. The law of land defaulting to the feds in different terms flat out stinks. However, the feds are taking what the states allow by giving it. The states are where this fight has to be, or nothing will really change.

Even if Bundy won this with brand new evidence that hadn't already been ruled on, what would be won? Would it change any precedent for federal control of lands? Would it alter the rights or status of state vs. federal distribution of open range land? Well, no, not that I can see because those aren't at stake here. It's not what the courts will consider. They've ruled on the federal right issue, and again, he lost.

When folks lose in court, lose in law and continue to pursue the course of action anyway, insisting they've become their own law in lieu of what they agree to observe in their own view of things? We call them criminals, as they have, in literal terms, broken multiple laws. He conitnues to, as the order still stands as a valid one. For some reason, people have chosen to take this case...and this very specific one...to make a mountain of and form the fight over. To each their own and I hope no one gets hurt when the feds eventually come back.

As I see it though, Bundy is a citizen of the State of Nevada and the United States. He can do one of 3 things when law isn't to his liking. He can fight it (see above...done it and lost). He can change it (That's the one thing he hasn't tried, which I've seen..I could be wrong) or he can break them. He chose the 3rd, and in my opinion, chose poorly. Opinions vary.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

Serious question... Where are you seeing evidence that the cattle were healthy and killed vs. downer cattle (sick animals every herd has a % of, especially in open range)?


Wrabbit2000... This is the very reason that you should never take someone else's properties, especially livestock. If you do, you'd better ensure that in case you have to return them, they should be in the condition in which you have taken them. It becomes extremely messy.



If they did kill perfectly healthy and viable animals, I want answers as much as anyone. We should demand them on that, especially since it hasn't been admitted to while being a perfectly legal thing the BLM DOES do elsewhere as routine business.

This is exactly what we are trying to highlight to you.....some of us observe you are too fixated by details that you tend lose sight of the bigger picture as many who tend to side with BsLM do. Just because the BsLM/government can type the law and hit Ctrl-P, it doesn't mean they have the right to steal (essentially that's what it is if done by ordinary folks)... And that is the real serious question you need to be asking.
Gosh, if a husband and his wife get into a fight and one takes their kid away, that's already called kidnapping.

A couple more serious questions:
Who is a particular set of law written for? Is it truly for the people or just "masked" to be so? How much will it cost to implement them? Usually if the costs outweigh the benefits that the people get in return, it should raise a red flag.

Since you are good at research, please help find out: how much BsLM spent getting thugs to the Bundy's property, intimidating the family and stealing their cattle. Some say $3million, but BsLM has declined to make this public.


edit on 23-4-2014 by Kurius because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurius

If you leave your diamond ring in a park, and someone finds that ring and says hey, come pick it up... and you refuse to pick it up... so they call you again and say hey! come pick up your ring, its yours we don't want it... and you again refuse to go and get it...

so they put a notice up telling the world and you one more time to pick up your diamond ring, and again you refuse...

then you don't have much to say if your ring suffers damage after you refused to pick it up now can you...

He had the power to alleviate the issue, and was told to alleviate it. It is his own damn fault in the end...I would have cared a hell of a lot more for my property if I had been him.
edit on 23-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

I think most of what we disagree on is perceptions and interpretations. I don't recognize any 19th century claim to land because one private citizen says so.

But you recognize "21st century" land grabbing by the authority instead? If you let that happen to any private citizen who has been lawfully owning his property [since 19th century] but has the carpet pulled right under his feet by a stroke of the pen, then you've better be prepared to have it done to you too one day.



If we don't like the law, I am all for changing it. The law of land defaulting to the feds in different terms flat out stinks. However, the feds are taking what the states allow by giving it. Thle states are where this fight has to be, or nothing will really change.

It seems the law has been hijacked by special interest groups. Private citizens do not have the means nor the time to fight them all the time. The only recourse many see is civil disobedience. Let them spend the time and money lobbying lawmakers. We ain't playing the game. Let them spend money and time too to skew the entire situation in the favor. Ignore them. Let them sponsor The Daily Show to sway public perception. Don't fall for it.



When folks lose in court, lose in law and continue to pursue the course of action anyway,

It is what those in power want ....most folks can't afford lengthy court cases. This is their way of oppressing individuals until they give up.



As I see it though, Bundy is a citizen of the State of Nevada and the United States. He can do one of 3 things when law isn't to his liking. He can fight it (see above...done it and lost). He can change it (That's the one thing he hasn't tried, which I've seen..I could be wrong) or he can break them. He chose the 3rd, and in my opinion, chose poorly. Opinions vary.

Yes I agree...no 3 is the poor's choice....especially when you don't have the time nor money to pursue (1) & (2); you are fighting a corrupt government after all.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join