BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[boedicca]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

 

[007]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

If you showed up in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, NV in the middle of the 1800'S and had the GUTS, the BALLS and the TENACITY to stay there and SURVIVE, LONG BEFORE there were any BORDERS or STATES, I'd say as long as you can do that, HAVE AT IT.

That's what's happening here, moron. It's NOTHING like you're saying.

For Christ sake, GET A FUCKING CLUE before you sound ANY MORE STUPID.

 

[Mustang]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

The Indians had it before anyone. Perhaps we should just give it back to them. Hell, maybe we should give a good chunk of the SW back to Mexico while we're at it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

If you showed up in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, NV in the middle of the 1800'S and had the GUTS, the BALLS and the TENACITY to stay there and SURVIVE, LONG BEFORE there were any BORDERS or STATES, I'd say as long as you can do that, HAVE AT IT.

Cool speech, don't forget to wipe the spittle off your monitor.

Anyways =

That's what's happening here, moron. It's NOTHING like you're saying.

You're clueless, if this guy can prove in court it is his land fine. Until then his opinion (or that of some internet dumbfuck like yourself) isn't relevant.

 

[SteadyMercury]

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

Are you kidding me?

They took him to court twice to get him to pay his fees, and won both times. That is due process. They didn't pull some black ops, they warned him ahead of time they would start seizing cattle because they were over the 150 head limit imposes.

This people some are calling a hero is just a wealthy rancher trying to get richer using the resources that don't belong to him.

 

[007]

If you showed up in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, NV in the middle of the 1800'S and had the GUTS, the BALLS and the TENACITY to stay there and SURVIVE, LONG BEFORE there were any BORDERS or STATES, I'd say as long as you can do that, HAVE AT IT.

Cool speech, don't forget to wipe the spittle off your monitor.

Anyways =

That's what's happening here, moron. It's NOTHING like you're saying.

You're clueless, if this guy can prove in court it is his land fine. Until then his opinion (or that of some internet dumbfuck like yourself) isn't relevant.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

Are you kidding me?

They took him to court twice to get him to pay his fees, and won both times. That is due process. They didn't pull some black ops, they warned him ahead of time they would start seizing cattle because they were over the 150 head limit imposes.

This people some are calling a hero is just a wealthy rancher trying to get richer using the resources that don't belong to him.

Double down on being a big government, bubble headed shill that ignores facts. Doesn't matter to me. Although most here will remember and treat you accordingly... moron.

Now I think I hear your mommy calling. Time for you to clean your corner of the basement, twit.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Double down on being a big government, bubble headed shill that ignores facts. Doesn't matter to me. Although most here will remember and treat you accordingly... moron.

Now I think I hear your mommy calling. Time for you to clean your corner of the basement, twit.

Heh funny when someone has no argument so just jabbers like this.

Please let the forum know when you're ready to back up your position instead of tantrums.

 

[holston]

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

The Indians had it before anyone. Perhaps we should just give it back to them. Hell, maybe we should give a good chunk of the SW back to Mexico while we're at it.

Do you know how many different Indian tribes there were in the US before white men came? A lot!
And they all fought each other over the land here before white men arrived.

American Indian's History: Iroquois and Cherokee Tribes, Distribution, Language

As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southern colonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations, they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to which they had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract in South Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of the Edisto,but about one-half of this tract, forming the present Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree. In 1755 they sold a second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree), but all of this tract east of Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between the Congaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in the upper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawba boundary. In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha,but the Iroquois claimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of the Alleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to the Kentucky River, and two years previously they had made a treaty with Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners of all between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee. The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which the Cherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, the Shawnee, about 1721. The Cherokee had no villages north of the Tennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and at a conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquois the skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as the animal had been killed north of the Tennessee. In 1805, 1806, and 1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in 79middle Tennessee, north of the Tennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, but this territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, and at one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim. The adjacent tract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa, was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to move westward, about 1770.

The argument that the US rightfully "belonged" to the Indians is a spurious one since the boundaries within it were only formed from the amount of territory which each separate tribe was able to conquer and hold for itself.

No doubt the disputes among the various tribes of Indians over property rights bore some resemblance to the disputes which Europeans had been engaged in.

The upshot is that throughout the history of man, men have always FOUGHT for CONQUEST of LAND and other rights.
The warring nature of man has not been limited to white Europeans.

I would bet you that if you looked into the history of any other people's in the world that you would find the same type of behavior.

I would be the last person to say that this form of conduct is "good".

I would be the last person to say that "slaughtering" the Indians was "good" either.

But it should be remembered that not all Indians were as noble or peaceful as the Hollywood Jews have attempted to portray them in their efforts to vilify the Western European Anglo Saxon "Christians".

I'm sure that TRUE history is replete with many instances of numerous atrocities committed not only against white settlers, but against other Indians as well.


Are these kinds of actions any less reprehensible when they are committed by folks of a darker complexion or even those who live below the Rio Grande?

I don't think so. So why the constant smears against "white men" alone?

I suggest that is because only those attacks have been sanctioned by the Kosher press as "politically correct".

People who learn their "history" from TV, movies, and off the backs of cereal boxes may easily get the impression that the only acts of violence in the history of men were committed by white men. This impression is constantly being conveyed by the Zionist propagandists of Hollywood, in universities, in the press, and in literature in general.

I'm certain that this lop sided presentation will be intensified with the adaptation of the "Common Core Curriculum".


None of what I am saying is intended to imply that killing other people or committing acts of genocide, whether it be quickly and openly as someone like Andrew Jackson may have done it, or slowly and furtively as the Israelis are committing it against the Palestinians is a "good thing" , desirable, or even the best means to settle territorial disputes. I'm just trying to accentuate the point that not all people in the world believe in the teachings of Christ when it comes to "trespassing against ones neighbors".

I venture to say that God almighty disapproves when ANY MAN robs or murders another man.

Indeed, the doctrines of Christ prohibit such behavior. The fact that these doctrines have been so pervasive in the US for so long may be the main reason why so many white people are so susceptible to the argument that they are to blame for "massacring" the Indians and that perhaps they owe not only the Indians, but anyone and everyone else in the world whom the Jewish media has declared to be among their victims.

My guess is that as the assault on formal Christianity continues and as more and more people become "secularized " and indoctrinated into the principles of the Secular Humanism, that this foolish willingness to relinquish land as well as their own heritage among white people, will become supplanted by the Machiavellian ethics of the Talmudic Neo-Cons whose war like policies we see being conducted in the mideast presently.

Then the US will become more accustomed to the idea of "to the victor goes the spoils".

As you know, the Neo-Cons are headed up by pragmatic Zionists who understand as Mao did that "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun".

Such was the power that the Neo-Con controlled Bureau of Land Management was threatening to use against the Nevada ranchers, who, had they cow towed down like the obedient subjects of King Obama they were expected to be, would have lost the contest with scarcely a whimper.

Fortunately, the citizen ranchers of Nevada had not forgotten their cowboy heritage and decided that King Yomamma was about to go to far.
And the Neo-Cons watching the situation unfold undoubtedly decided that to gun down so many flag waving "angry white man" at this stage of the game might cause a premature eruption which they were not quite ready to handle.
They intuitively understood that the rest of the nation was watching and might not cotton to seeing so many ordinary people being gunned down in broad daylight by Federalist thugs.

It isn't that the Neo-Cons lack the firepower to put down a national uprising of "angry white men". It's just that, why should they if they can get them to all agree to just surrender whatever they have to the Jews and third world interlopers without any resistance at all?

In essence, all these namby pamby goyim have been so inundated with the "turn the other cheek" doctrine of Christ that they may be talked out of whatever they have.

The Neo-Con hawks and their Talmudic brethren within the US and abroad have no such childish illusions about "Christian" principles when it comes to property rights. They're just happy that the JUDEO xtion ZOGbots do!

 

[OnePercenter]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

Check the Clark County Assessors web site. Bundy placed most of his property in family trusts which is a way of hiding assets which can't be liened unless the person on that trust is named in any legal action. Good planning on his part.

This is nothing more than a rich One Percenter 'getting over' on taxpayers.

 

[Steinlight]

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

Check the Clark County Assessors web site. Bundy placed most of his property in family trusts which is a way of hiding assets which can't be liened unless the person on that trust is named in any legal action. Good planning on his part.

This is nothing more than a rich One Percenter 'getting over' on taxpayers.

The only people he is "getting over" and screwing is ZOG, and we the people support Bundy in his effort.

About time someone stood up to these tyrants and their police state, and their blatant displays of attempted theft and thuggery.

 

[Meister]

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

Check the Clark County Assessors web site. Bundy placed most of his property in family trusts which is a way of hiding assets which can't be liened unless the person on that trust is named in any legal action. Good planning on his part.

This is nothing more than a rich One Percenter 'getting over' on taxpayers.

I guess he broke the law with the trust....right?

 

[Katzndogz]

In order to satisfy a lien on property it must be sold and the lien paid out of escrow. The Bundy land has never been sold. A lien would sit there forever as a cloud on the title. He couldn't get a loan though using the property as collateral.

 

[Katzndogz]

The BLM owns thousands of acres along the southern border. Where are all the lib law and order types who want to stop the trespass of drug cartels and illegal aliens?

 

[Steinlight]

The BLM owns thousands of acres along the southern border. Where are all the lib law and order types who want to stop the trespass of drug cartels and illegal aliens?

because...racism.

 

[Vandalshandle]

In order to satisfy a lien on property it must be sold and the lien paid out of escrow. The Bundy land has never been sold. A lien would sit there forever as a cloud on the title. He couldn't get a loan though using the property as collateral.

....until he dies and leaves the property to his kids, who would not be able to take title until the lien was lifted.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.

But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?

You mean the 2 court cases he lost, and the court order demanding that he remove his cattle 15 fucking years ago?

How is that not "due process"? He had his day it court, and he lost.

Twice.

 

[joejonbob]

I love how people cite how he lost his case in a federal court, with rules consistently changed by a federal agency, upheld by a federal judge, none of whom are elected, and they act like that is it game over.

First it was water rights, then is was about a tortoise, and as time goes by more and more info is coming out about the minerals, and natural gas in the area. Any excuse to kick the guy off the land. Not to mention we have an attorney general, and executive branch that openly admit to selective law enforcement. Why this guy, why now, and why the 200 man army?

I'll tell you what, since Bundy was on "public land" owned by "the people" (right?). I hereby give him my permission to use it for cattle grazing.

If you think the above statement is BS, I may agree, but in my opinion it holds just as much weight as the BLM's "our word is policy" BS. That isn't even bringing up the 1st amendment zones, or the heavily armed thugs that they have access too.

 

[OnePercenter]

'This Land is your land, This land is my land.' What happened to that? What happened to the People who stopped believing in that?

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

If you showed up in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, NV in the middle of the 1800'S and had the GUTS, the BALLS and the TENACITY to stay there and SURVIVE, LONG BEFORE there were any BORDERS or STATES, I'd say as long as you can do that, HAVE AT IT.

That's what's happening here, moron. It's NOTHING like you're saying.

For Christ sake, GET A FUCKING CLUE before you sound ANY MORE STUPID.

My family is traced back to 1629 Bostonia. They owned and ran most of the what today is Boston Harbor. Should I do a Bundy and arrange a band of dumbshit/misfits to take back my property?

 

[Steinlight]

Apparently you have stopped believing that.

It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?

If you showed up in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, NV in the middle of the 1800'S and had the GUTS, the BALLS and the TENACITY to stay there and SURVIVE, LONG BEFORE there were any BORDERS or STATES, I'd say as long as you can do that, HAVE AT IT.

That's what's happening here, moron. It's NOTHING like you're saying.

For Christ sake, GET A FUCKING CLUE before you sound ANY MORE STUPID.

My family is traced back to 1629 Bostonia. They owned and ran most of the what today is Boston Harbor. Should I do a Bundy and arrange a band of dumbshit/misfits to take back my property?

Figures you are descended from puritan assholes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's not your land moron.

Oh...who's is it then?

It's more the rancher's land than yours, ya dufus.

Actually, no its not.

That's the whole point.