The Young Turks: Bundy Ranch Conspiracy Debunked

Was arguing with someone live at work and was looking for a quick answer with info.

The quick answer should not need any research.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people make the rules..

BLM was never elected.. it was created and imposed. It's rules made up on a whim with NO Representation.

The state of Nevada is not federal property.

Don't argue with the idiots.
 
More garbage on the history of Harry Reid and his son Rory... nice little racket they have going on...

yjb_bor.jpg


Harry Reid pressured DHS on behalf of son's casino project | The Daily Caller
 
No he hasn't,, he says it is Nevada land (Clark county land) and not Federal land.

He claims he has land rights to use that land that date back long before the BLM existed.

He had rights that go back to before Nevada was a state.


Nevada's state constitution dates to 1864
The Bundy ranch started in 1877
 
The Storm Clouds Gathering video has been taken down and will be replaced with a revised one as they believe it contained a serious factual error.

 
The Storm Clouds Gathering video has been taken down and will be replaced with a revised one as they believe it contained a serious factual error.



He's apparently more of a man than Cenk is. Takes guts to admit you are wrong.

Reading about DC vs Heller last night and how that part was left out of Cenk's 2nd Amendment rant is rather annoying.
 
The quick answer should not need any research.

Re-read what I was quoting of you. You said I should "read some" and that "there is information and links and discussion in several threads".

I'm telling you I didn't have time for that at the moment. Was looking upon RPF here for a quick synopsis.

Don't argue with the idiots.

It's no wonder that people think of us as crazy assholes with an attitude like that. Without even knowing my liberal buddy it attempts to shut him out. How do we grow our numbers without being willing to talk to people? He has had his foot in the libertarian door from time to time.

Less ad-hominem reactions based on emotion is something this place could use.
 
Re-read what I was quoting of you. You said I should "read some" and that "there is information and links and discussion in several threads".

I'm telling you I didn't have time for that at the moment. Was looking upon RPF here for a quick synopsis.

It's no wonder that people think of us as crazy assholes with an attitude like that. Without even knowing my liberal buddy it attempts to shut him out. How do we grow our numbers without being willing to talk to people? He has had his foot in the libertarian door from time to time.

Less ad-hominem reactions based on emotion is something this place could use.

Read this:

http://www.dailypaul.com/317008/fel...so-much-about-why-ranchers-support-hero-bundy
"There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. 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. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. 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%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. 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. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.

If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero."

- Kena Lytle Gloeckner
 
As it turns out, Clark County does lease from the DOI at least some of that land in question. Bundy's lease expired some time after 1993 when he stopped paying, then Clark County took the new lease under the condition that it not be used for grazing. This was because their land development near Las Vegas was wrecking turtles, so they filed

this conservation plan, saying they will lease federal land that will not be used for grazing:
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/...us/2971_DesertConservationPlanAugust_1995.pdf


so they could get this permit to wreck turtle habitat when developing on non-federal land:
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/...iding Docs/previous/1995_DCP_Permit801045.pdf
 
Sorry, I do not advocate FOR the Devil.

You have to sometimes get inside his mind so you know how to defeat him. Know thy enemy.

RPF has always been a great source of info. So thanks everyone for the posts. Friend has shut up quickly about the BLM thing.
 

I have also not followed this story that much, but it seems to seem that Snopes' quoting of the Wildlife News article actually shows the connection between these solar projects and Bundy's ranch. Wildlife News and the BLM acknowledge that any solar projects need to be mitigated somewhere else, which would, of course, be somewhere adjacent.

Solar project construction would, for instance, destroy water sources for wildlife to drink. Hence, this prompts Wildlife News to write: "This is called 'secondary mitigation.' Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle."

It seems to me that these solar projects are actually destroying land. They are attempting to offset this destruction by creating these secondary mitigation areas. That means that solar companies have simply used land, destroyed land, and then decree THAT PEOPLE IN ADJACENT (secondary) AREAS ARE NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND THAT THE SOLAR COMPANIES USED FOR THEIR OWN GAIN. INSTEAD OF RANCHERS PROFITING--ANOTHER COMPANY IS NOW PROFITING!

It seems to me that there is no conspiracy here. Solar companies and their minions are just transferring responsibility to people who have nothing do with these projects and people (like Bundy) who are outside the areas of construction.
 
Back
Top