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.

 

Mel Bundy Beaten, Starved, Tortured while being Unlawfully Imprisoned

page: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I haven't seen any court filings, and was unable to find any myself (using court record searches) alleging said abuse.

I believe the BLM was well within their right given that they are in charge of managing the land trust. The Bundy's clearly and defiantly broke the law. In a civil society, one should make their case in front of the courts, not an armed revolt.

It's not debatable, under Nevada law, the state must sale public lands for the School Trust. Which would both benefit Bundy's and Reid's. It's cheaper to buy land and graze it at fire-sale prices than to continually pay grazing fees to manage the land indefinitely.

The people also have no need for that land to homestead or otherwise. There is plenty of unincorporated land in county limits that's undeveloped (which would also contribute to urban sprawl and emissions) not to mention the current legal atmosphere makes it difficult as you need running water and electricity otherwise premises are condemned as uninhabitable and infrastructure must be ran to any given homesteading property or the law must be changed to allow for disconnected off-grid power and communications, which doesn't settle the road issues. It's a very complex topic but not one I necessarily disagree with. It's simply that it's impossible to do homesteading the 1800's way in modern society, BLM or not.

I don't judge them for being redneck cowboys. My family came to Arizona from Oklahoma (native-American ancestry) following the dust bowl, these individuals are not "good 'ol boys". Bundy just wants to graze for free and is inciting domestic-terrorists to armed revolt under erroneous beliefs to secure that.

I don't necessarily disagree with the ideals of those supporting these fools. I disagree with supporting these fools and the methods that are being employed.




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DrThodt

Oh so you knew about the Reids claim on the land....well gee I thought you just didn't know about it. Why suddenly you are the broker between the Reids and the Bundys....lol
Oh suddenly you are against urban sprawl...well don't that just beat all.....

edit on 16-4-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
[Quote]originally posted by: Boadicea
[Quote]originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Boadicea

Conveniently, it is Progressives and Occupy demanding the right to direct and participatory democracy are the first to decry the Bundy Patriots and their supporters their right to redress even under our Constitution....figure that

It's really sad how uninformed and misinformed so many people are about the basic principles we all need to rally around, that apply equally to all of the ways government abuses their power to pretty much everyone.

It's part of our challenge to set the ship right again.

I think the other side would be saying the same thing . I'd say both sides are wrong myself when bands lied its not about patriotism just convenient to use truth is ranchers are of course out to make money. They do this by keeping costs low per head. Had a lot of dealings with ranchers in Arizona my uncle owns 1900 acres. Me and my cousin both worked as rangers as well. Now ranchers used to be able to graze federal lands for free this changed as BLM expanded entering more and more areas. Even though they were in charge of the land all ready, but they just were not around they have a very small budget. Most of it used to be used to repair damage done by saying cattle grazing. BLM for smart they decided to start charging for grazing not sure what the current rate is but it used to be 1.25 per head. This gave them the money to repair grazing lands and even start managing them. Freeing up their budget to hire people locally.

Well of course in the case of my uncle they have been there multiple generations and up to now was allowed to use pi loc lands or abuse them. He's done things like driving his cattle to neighboring ranches to graze on public lands near them, etc. Has used his property to bully other ranchers out of business so he could buy the property for my cousin for example. He now owns about 900 if I remember correctly. What we are seeing around the bandeau is a modern day range war with government lands involved in the mix nothing more.

Now the problems with the government that have hired people for BLM who know nothing about managing the land and often make dangerous decisions. They might decide to do a burn, for example not because it's needed at the time, but because it's in the budget. And it could be the worst time and make it uncontrollable. The other problem is grazing rights are rarely planned well mean KKK ng they may have assigned to many ranchers to graze the same piece of property. Meaning you drive your cattle there and your neighbor all ready picked it clean. Or worse they just took their cattle there without buying grazing rights meaning you paid for nothing. This can only be solved by enforcement and the only ones usually close are rangers. So we would get called out to the middle of no where just to see if someone was illegally using the land. Truth be told the ranchers knew when we were there so we rarely caught them.we just were uauaally stuck documenting evidence such as cut fences and of course tracks. So if this land is to be properly managed need more people on the ground and that way people in Washington and BLM wouldn't be so clueless we can manage national parks its time we look at other property the same.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No one is saying you can't eat beef. They're saying you're going to pay the actual cost rather than using public money to subsidize commercial use of public lands.

btw, I eat organic, grass-fed, hormone-free beef from ranchers who pay grazing fees. It isn't priced beyond the means of ordinary Americans even with all the associated conversationalist costs. There's nothing unreasonable about any of it. I can afford to eat beef and keep America's lands preserved.

I'm glad you find my comments to be "New York snobbish" considering I'm a conservative who was born and raised in Arizona with family history in farming all the way back to Oklahoma and the dust bowl. I guess it means my well-rounded education is working.
edit on 16-4-2016 by DrThodt because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You are entitled to your opinion, as are the rest of us. Could you please clean up your formatting of responses?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I've been against urban sprawl ever since my Environmental Biology, Climatology and Sustainable Cities courses where I bothered to learn about scientifically measuring climatological impacts of human behavior and the inefficient methods we employ in every industry to save a buck now while ruining the future.
edit on 16-4-2016 by DrThodt because: autocorrect



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: Boadicea

I will let your words stand on their own merit.

I will only say that government entities do not have rights... People have rights; they have only those powers granted to them. We the people grant them, and we the people can take them away.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DrThodt




No one is saying you can't eat beef. They're saying you're going to pay the actual cost rather than using public money to subsidize commercial use of public lands.


Well its not like guns and butter isn't already in operation now is it..... you know don't you that agriculture is already hugely subsidized by a willing government entity... why suddenly you find the Bundys out of the norm?
Do you work for the Reids or something?
The beef eating thing is in Agenda 21 documents. Please stop playing cat and mouse. You sound like you do know and agree with Agenda 21 and using standard but bullsnip arguments

oh and then there's conservation subsidies in which the gov pays farmers not to produce.... agenda 21 written all over it. .

Conservation Subsidies. USDA conservation programs dispense about $3 billion annually to the nation’s farmers. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid not to grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies.10
www.downsizinggovernment.org...

Please don't insult with all this bs about how the Bundys are some anomaly and the BLM is just trying to stop the Bundys from being socialists
edit on 16-4-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you for all this background info -- much appreciated!

In reading various angles and perspectives, I've noticed that pretty much no one is happy with how the feds are managing the lands -- not the ranchers/farmers, not the environmentalists, not the locals, not anyone...



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

It's not as simple as you may think it is. That's the whole point of our republic. To revoke an enumerated power requires a constitutional amendment which requires a majority to proceed, respective to either federal or state and that requires a super majority to pass.

To put it simply, everyone is too busy insisting they're right to hold a qualitative conversation and come to agreeable terms to actually accomplish anything of that magnitude. Anyone insisting on using force to resist will be met with greater force that accomplishes nothing.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I've been against urban sprawl ever since my Environmental Biology, Climatology and Sustainable Cities courses where I bothered to learn about scientifically measuring climatological impacts of human behavior and the inefficient methods we employ in every industry to save a buck now while ruining the future.


Sounds like a lot of wasted money.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I find the Bundy's out of the norm because they insist on illegally grazing with unlawful force.

Is it supposed to be an insult that I agree with conservation and reducing emissions? Just because I share an ideal with someone doesn't mean I share their methods of action.

The fact I'm willing to engage in conversation rather than using baseless insults and non sequitur arguments should be evidence enough that I'm a free-thinking rational individual who has no allegiance other than to my nation and its people.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Sure, if you think an educated citizenry is a waste, which you might.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: Boadicea

It's not as simple as you may think it is. That's the whole point of our republic. To revoke an enumerated power requires a constitutional amendment which requires a majority to proceed, respective to either federal or state and that requires a super majority to pass.


I understand the amendment process... but not the reference. The government already has the constitutional power to dispose of those lands. The government already has the constitutional power to retain some land for specific enumerated purposes. They do not have constitutional power to retain and manage the vast majority of those lands for those purposes. If anything, a constitutional amendment should be required in order for them to do so.


To put it simply, everyone is too busy insisting they're right to hold a qualitative conversation and come to agreeable terms to actually accomplish anything of that magnitude. Anyone insisting on using force to resist will be met with greater force that accomplishes nothing.


No, not everyone; but you did describe the current attitude and mentality of the government very well.

Hence the problems.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DrThodt

I got your MO now... no reason to bother further with discussion. I know what side you are on.
There's an art to drawing people out and I believe I/we have just accomplished that. Thank you so very much....

oh and please let me know when you plan to lobby for cutting government subsidies to "sustainable" farmers for organic produce...lolololol
methinks you talk with serpent tongue.... you rascal you

sustainableagriculture.net...


edit on 16-4-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The basis falls under the general welfare clause. The feds didn't simply seize land from the states. They don't even own the land, it's held in trust at the behest of the states.

The feds do have the enumerated power to act as trustee when granted the authority by the states, and at any time the states can revoke the trust. But then the land is their problem, a problem they lack adequate funding to manage.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: DrThodt

I know what side you are on.


I'm on my side.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrThodt
a reply to: Boadicea

The basis falls under the general welfare clause.


No. You can believe that, but there is absolutely nothing to support that -- especially from the original founders' intents and perspectives.


The feds didn't simply seize land from the states.


The states never had "ownership" of the land for the feds to seize it -- the feds never turned it over to the states!


They don't even own the land...


They claim they do and have refused to turn it over to the states.


...it's held in trust at the behest of the states.


Maybe some... but not all.


The feds do have the enumerated power to act as trustee when granted the authority by the states, and at any time the states can revoke the trust.


So you say, but based on what I know, that's not the case.


But then the land is their problem, a problem they lack adequate funding to manage.


All the more reason to give it to the people who can develop the land and resources and create new streams of revenue and serve the needs of the people.
edit on 16-4-2016 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrThodt

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: DrThodt

I know what side you are on.


I'm on my side.


No need to elaborate.... lol



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Boadicea

All the more reason to give it to the people who can develop the land and resources and create new streams of revenue and serve the needs of the people.


At what cost? Clearly unchecked industrial development is not only harmful to local ecosystems, but to human population. Mercury, lead , arsenic and radiological contamination, GHG emissions aside.

Re-legalizing hemp production would do far more to serve those needs than simply fire-selling trust lands.
edit on 16-4-2016 by DrThodt because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join