Yahoo comments on Bundy Ranch are depressing.

[nobody's_hero]

I guess the issue is more, there are few people that believe outside of here, that it is not Federal land and able to be managed by the BLM.

Bundy could have taken this differently years ago and had a moral high ground, but by stopping the payment of BLM fees he lost it in manys eyes. He already had submitted to their management, until it didn't fit him when they reduced him to a 150 head limit.

At that point if he had kept paying for the amount of head of cattle he had on the land to the BLM, and they either refused the money, or took it, he'd have many more on his side. And he would have a balance due to him and his family with the feds as well, instead of being $300k in the hole in legit grazing fees, and 700ish k in fines. He could have then gone to court to prevent them from putting him out of business with a federal standing to beat their reduction tactics.

I copy-pasted this from my comment in another thread, but I think it's necessary to post in here since we're discussion perception, I think we should present Bundy's side of the 'grazing fee' issue:

According to Bundy—and I'd like confirmation on this claim—only 16%(!) of grazing fees actually go towards conservation of wildlife/land management. If only 16% of your tax money was returned to you in the form of government services, wouldn't you be a bit pissed off too? Bundy is the last rancher in Clark Co., Nevada, claiming that all the others have been discouraged or forced out of business by government regulation. It's not an unheard-of phenomenon. Had Bundy been paying those fees as all the other ranchers in his county, last week wouldn't have been much of a story, because there'd be no 'Bundy Ranch', you see?

This leads me to believe that all the talk about this being about a tortoise is a bunch of garbage. That'd have to be one pretty f*cking awesome tortoise when you need ballistic shields in your agency to do your job of managing wildlife.(Ninja tortoises? lol)

Rather, the grazing fees should be viewed the same way as penalties for not signing up for Obamacare. They're not designed to raise revenue—hell, they can print all the money they want and don't even really need taxes. These fees are designed to mold behavior of people to fit the will of government. The government wants people off that land so they can use it as collateral for all the loans foreigners have been making to D.C. While our money can be printed to the point of worthlessness, land value typically only goes up.

 

[WM_in_MO]

These are going to be the same people in 5 years pleading for us to save them.

No, they will stand against us for getting in the way of their "progress", they will snitch on us for "suspicious activities" that warrant 3am visits by the thought police.

 

[mrsat_98]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

What do you expect Boobus to do, but nod and hollar yahoo.

 

[limequat]

Don't forget that we now have confirmation that the government is paying shills to post crap like this.

 

[thoughtomator]

comments on government media sites like Yahoo are also going to be from the government, and the kinds of people who actually get news from those sites are completely indoctrinated/brainwashed

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Please tell me where you read this. From what I heard him say, he paid the county for years for grazing, then after the federal government took over the land, when he tried to pay the county, they would no longer accept it. Also from what he said, if he had offered the money to the federal government (BLM), then he would have put himself under their purvue just from that act alone.

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.

The following is from (way down) http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/2014/04/11/bundy-ranch-is-real/

Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,”how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

 

[otherone]

Don't forget that we now have confirmation that the government is paying shills to post crap like this.

BUMP

 

[ClydeCoulter]

More information ammo:

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-f...ck-story-on-cliven-bundy-blm-war-2463050.html

A Rancher TELLS ALL:

B Hunt wrote:

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.

PILT = Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Thomas Massie mentioned this in a post on his FB page. It's paid to states, by the federal government, on land in a state that the state cannot collect property tax on because of federal government holding. (maybe someone could word that better)

 

[Madison320]

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

I think this is a big part of the problem. I don't like the idea of having "rights" to public land. It would be much better just to have the land privately owned. Not that I'm saying Bundy is at fault. My guess is that buying the land was never an option. I don't see any reason why the state or feds should own the majority of the land out west. I'd rather see them auction off all that land and pay down the debt.

 

[klamath]

I think a large part of the confusion is that the Bundy's (and others in the know) don't realize that most Americans don't know what they know or understand what they understand. It needs to be laid out in a very simple manner, but without any assumption that the reader (or listener) knows about "common" terms and conditions.

The following is from (way down) http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/2014/04/11/bundy-ranch-is-real/

As I pointed out about miners and loggers it is NOT a attempt at reasonable regulations, as the FEDs sell the urban public, but to drive the people out. It is a policy that has worked very well with the miners and loggers.

 

[klamath]

More information ammo:

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-f...ck-story-on-cliven-bundy-blm-war-2463050.html

A Rancher TELLS ALL:

B Hunt wrote:

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.

PILT = Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Thomas Massie mentioned this in a post on his FB page. It's paid to states, by the federal government, on land in a state that the state cannot collect property tax on because of federal government holding. (maybe someone could word that better)

The bolded is the reason the ranchers will probably lose. They know not who their enemies are and turn against their allies. Logger laughed and ridiculed the miners when the fed came for the miners, when it was the loggers turn there were no miners left to stand with them. Pit the basic industries against each other while the urban environments and statists win. Sorry to see this is still going on.

 

[Snew]

Yahoo comments in general are pretty depressing.

 

[jonhowe]

comments on government media sites like Yahoo are also going to be from the government, and the kinds of people who actually get news from those sites are completely indoctrinated/brainwashed

That's the vast majority of people.

 

[Madison320]

One thing about this that bugs me is the idea that not paying govt taxes is the equivalent of theft. If a mugger asks you for all your money, and you only give him what's in your wallet, not what's in your back pocket, did you steal from the mugger? Are we really that brain dead that we no longer know the difference?

 

[klamath]

One thing about this that bugs me is the idea that not paying govt taxes is the equivalent of theft. If a mugger asks you for all your money, and you only give him what's in your wallet, not what's in your back pocket, did you steal from the mugger? Are we really that brain dead that we no longer know the difference?

The fight against human nature. "if I have to pay, you should have to pay" Never,"let us both fight having to pay."

 

[otherone]

The fight against human nature. "if I have to pay, you should have to pay" Never,"let us both fight having to pay."

even here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?449148-Consideration-of-a-Head-Tax

 

[steph3n]

Please tell me where you read this. From what I heard him say, he paid the county for years for grazing, then after the federal government took over the land, when he tried to pay the county, they would no longer accept it. Also from what he said, if he had offered the money to the federal government (BLM), then he would have put himself under their purvue just from that act alone.

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction.

 

[klamath]

Everything I have found is that he paid the BLM up until 1993 and stopped then when they reduced his allocation to only 150 head of cattle, he then went to the county, then the courts and lost every time.

He himself says it and that's where he loses me, either you don't pay them and fight from the start based on the fact that they are on county land, or you continue to pay them, pay them extra for the added head over the allocation and fight it in the courts.



his daughter and his own words confirm, he was paying the BLM before 1993 until they did the head allocation reduction.

It doesn't matter. If he would have paid, they would have gone after the extra cattle relying more heavily on the damage to the tortoise as the reason. If he would have complied with the cattle reduction he would have gone broke. They want him GONE. They drove the other 98% of the ranchers out. They spent as much rounding up the cattle as he owned. Do you think they care about the money?

 

[steph3n]

It doesn't matter. If he would have paid, they would have gone after the extra cattle relying more heavily on the damage to the tortoise as the reason. If he would have complied with the cattle reduction he would have gone broke. They want him GONE. They drove the other 98% of the ranchers out. They spent as much rounding up the cattle as he owned. Do you think they care about the money?

To the BLM it isn't about the money, to the other people it is about the money.

Trying to convince them that they should support Bundy and not the govt i this case is an exercise in frustration, because he 'owes so much' and has been grazing without paying, and lost in court so many times, etc. They repeatedly make the point that he has not even a moral high ground in the case because of the actions taken, and all the losses in court. I am saying that it would be immensely easier to convince people that the BLM is just trying to kill out ranching if he had continued to pay for all the head grazing, he would then have a moral high ground apparent to all, and have the mass of the country behind him minus some environmental fringe nuts.

 

[libertygrl]

I've got to stop reading the comments on Yahoo and other popular sites. They're running about 95% against Bundy. It's sad.

Please also keep in mind that there are paid internet shills whose job is to prevent something like the Bundy story from ever gaining positive momentum. Can't have that happening here in Amerika.