Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[edthecynic]

From the article:


So as usual, you focus on one statement made, and dismiss the whole thing as a lie because it suits you politically. Considering the lies you let pass when it politically suits you, the progressive side is the highest order of hypocrites out there.

None of Bundy's "forefathers" were there in 1877. While some relatives were nearby, there were none living in Bunkerville so there are no Bunkerville ancestral water rights. The first Bundy in Bunkerville was in 1916, but not on the present ranch. Bubdy's family didn't buy that ranch until 1948, so the 1877 crap is a lie.

An abbreviated look at rancher Cliven Bundy's family history - 8 News NOW

Although no Bundys lived in Bunkerville in 1930 or 1940, according to Census records for those years, Cliven Bundy’s mother Bodel and her parents, John and Christena Jensen, lived in neighboring Mesquite in the early 20th Century.
Census records from 1930 indicate that John was a Mesquite farmer originally from Utah whose parents were from Denmark. Those records state the farm was near Main Street and a bridge over the Virgin River.
Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

He used the term "up and down the valley" why are you focusing on one town?
Ah yes, because its the only way to make your point.

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody cares about his original claim.

They do care about a show of force by the feds over a property dispute.

 

[Care4all]

No it's not, idiot. Perhaps his grandparents were living there, and that's why his parents moved there. Perhaps his great grandparents did. Maybe they owned land there..

The point is, just because his parents lived outside of Arizona doesn't make the claim bogus.

Morons. You should really look up definitions once in a while. It's like you're proud of being idiots.

When he claimed that his ancestors had been grazing cattle there since the 1870s, and then it turns out his parents bought the ranch he now owns in 1948 and didn't start running cattle until 1954, it makes him a liar. Pure and simple.

Because, of course, your only ancestors are your parents.

Well Marty, how could his ancestors been "grazing cattle from his ranch and the nearby fed land that he has been using, since the 1870's when his parents bought this very land in the 1940's from apparently an unrelated family?

Or are you saying that when he is speaking of his ancestors grazing cattle "there" since the 1870's that his grandparents or great parents owned different property than his parent's ranch location..... that was somewhere nearby, and from this other ranch they brought their cattle to 'the same grazing spot on fed land' as he, Cliven, has been using?

Do you know this for certain? Because that would make a difference in my opinion....

UPDATE....Ahhhh, I should have read farther in to the thread...more info coming out now!

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals will make up any story they want. Anything they think will stick. That's why whatever they say can be dismissed out of hand, without further consideration.

no kidding, it's went on for how many days? they're sick people in my book

 

[koshergrl]

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team."I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Uh oh.

Moron. Again, "forefather" is not synomomous with FATHER.

They aren't the same thing.

"
forefather

You can describe your ancestor who traveled to America on the Mayflower as your forefather.
Use the noun forefather to talk about a relative in the distant past, usually a man who goes back on your family tree several generations. Your great-great-great grandfather is your forefather, for example. You can also describe the founder of a tradition or style as a forefather — some people think of Chuck Berry as the forefather of rock n' roll, for example. "

forefather - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

 

[martybegan]

None of Bundy's "forefathers" were there in 1877. While some relatives were nearby, there were none living in Bunkerville so there are no Bunkerville ancestral water rights. The first Bundy in Bunkerville was in 1916, but not on the present ranch. Bubdy's family didn't buy that ranch until 1948, so the 1877 crap is a lie.

An abbreviated look at rancher Cliven Bundy's family history - 8 News NOW

Although no Bundys lived in Bunkerville in 1930 or 1940, according to Census records for those years, Cliven Bundy’s mother Bodel and her parents, John and Christena Jensen, lived in neighboring Mesquite in the early 20th Century.
Census records from 1930 indicate that John was a Mesquite farmer originally from Utah whose parents were from Denmark. Those records state the farm was near Main Street and a bridge over the Virgin River.
Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

He used the term "up and down the valley" why are you focusing on one town?
Ah yes, because its the only way to make your point.

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

He claims the rights as transferred from the original owner for the property. he claims rights to the public land as his family has resided in the AREA since before 1900. His 1877 claim was a statement made to the media. His other claims are in the court documents.

You are intentionally confusing one for the other to make your point, typical of a progressive. whether it is from malice or stupidity is up for the board to decide.

 

[Dot Com]

kg will tell us what we need to know lol

The guy is a deadbeat & Establ Repubs & even some t-partiers are abandoning ship/keeping their distance from him for good reason

 

[Asclepias]

Nobody cares about his original claim.

They do care about a show of force by the feds over a property dispute.

Thats what happens when criminals bunker in and don't abide by court orders. Why would you support a criminal?

 

[koshergrl]

"
Type of: ancestor, antecedent, ascendant, ascendent, root someone from whom you are descended (but usually more remote than a grandparent)forefather - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Fucking halfwits. Go back to school.

 

[Asclepias]

He used the term "up and down the valley" why are you focusing on one town?
Ah yes, because its the only way to make your point.

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

He claims the rights as transferred from the original owner for the property. he claims rights to the public land as his family has resided in the AREA since before 1900. His 1877 claim was a statement made to the media. His other claims are in the court documents.

You are intentionally confusing one for the other to make your point, typical of a progressive. whether it is from malice or stupidity is up for the board to decide.

You cant claim something unless you have proof to back it up. He doesnt have a claim at all. Its been public land since 1864. If he owned it or had rights where is his documentation?

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody cares about his original claim.

They do care about a show of force by the feds over a property dispute.

Thats what happens when criminals bunker in and don't abide by court orders. Why would you support a criminal?

I support anybody who is threatened by their own government.

Fuck the feds.

 

[Asclepias]

Nobody cares about his original claim.

They do care about a show of force by the feds over a property dispute.

Thats what happens when criminals bunker in and don't abide by court orders. Why would you support a criminal?

I support anybody who is threatened by their own government.

Fuck the feds.

Even wealthy free loading criminals?

 

[martybegan]

When he claimed that his ancestors had been grazing cattle there since the 1870s, and then it turns out his parents bought the ranch he now owns in 1948 and didn't start running cattle until 1954, it makes him a liar. Pure and simple.

Because, of course, your only ancestors are your parents.

Well Marty, how could his ancestors been "grazing cattle from his ranch and the nearby fed land that he has been using, since the 1870's when his parents bought this very land in the 1940's from apparently an unrelated family?

Or are you saying that when he is speaking of his ancestors grazing cattle "there" since the 1870's that his grandparents or great parents owned different property than his parent's ranch location..... that was somewhere nearby, and from this other ranch they brought their cattle to 'the same grazing spot on fed land' as he, Cliven, has been using?

Do you know this for certain? Because that would make a difference in my opinion....

His claim is for rights to graze in the AREA, due to his family being in the AREA for so long. There is also the claim to rights on the PROPERTY he owns, and THAT is from the people his parents bought the land from. The point is we don't know ANYTHING for certain, this is an investigation by one new group, yet the government groupies here have made it seem he lied lied lied and it somehow negates his entire case.

There are claims in courts, and there is the statement he made about is ancestors being around and working in the area. It was a vague statement, yet the progressives here are treating it as an exact statement, then bringing up details to make it look like he made a specific statement and lied about it.

They replace ancestors and imply parents
They ignore he was talking about a general large area, and harp on the town
They imply the land rights which were bought in the 1940's with the BLM rights he is claiming via ancestry.

 

[bodecea]

No it's not, idiot. Perhaps his grandparents were living there, and that's why his parents moved there. Perhaps his great grandparents did. Maybe they owned land there..

The point is, just because his parents lived outside of Arizona doesn't make the claim bogus.

Morons. You should really look up definitions once in a while. It's like you're proud of being idiots.

When he claimed that his ancestors had been grazing cattle there since the 1870s, and then it turns out his parents bought the ranch he now owns in 1948 and didn't start running cattle until 1954, it makes him a liar. Pure and simple.

Is "koshergrl" doubling down on the stupid?

 

[edthecynic]

He used the term "up and down the valley" why are you focusing on one town?
Ah yes, because its the only way to make your point.

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

He claims the rights as transferred from the original owner for the property. he claims rights to the public land as his family has resided in the AREA since before 1900. His 1877 claim was a statement made to the media. His other claims are in the court documents.

You are intentionally confusing one for the other to make your point, typical of a progressive. whether it is from malice or stupidity is up for the board to decide.

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it.

 

[bodecea]

Nobody cares about Bundy. They're just sick of the feds.

It isn't going to stop here.

This sounds a lot like Sharpton's remarks when he found out Tawana Brawley had lied about being kidnapped and raped by policemen.

Sharpton claimed that policemen DID kidnap and rape black women, so the noise he made about the liar's case was justified and should continue.



Yes, the federal gov't is over-stepping its authority. But backing the lying rancher is not a just cause. At least have the decency to admit that.

I don't care that Bundy didn't pay the feds because I think paying the feds for land that they stole from the people is horseshit.

The way they handled it is also horseshit.

It's as good a starting point as any. Don't worry, there will be more over-stepping by the feds, and soon, and it will be egregious enough that Bundy will just be a tiny ripple before the tsunami.

The people they stole it from were the Native Americans and the Mexican government.

 

[Barb]

No it's not, idiot. Perhaps his grandparents were living there, and that's why his parents moved there. Perhaps his great grandparents did. Maybe they owned land there..

The point is, just because his parents lived outside of Arizona doesn't make the claim bogus.

Morons. You should really look up definitions once in a while. It's like you're proud of being idiots.

 

[Asclepias]

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

He claims the rights as transferred from the original owner for the property. he claims rights to the public land as his family has resided in the AREA since before 1900. His 1877 claim was a statement made to the media. His other claims are in the court documents.

You are intentionally confusing one for the other to make your point, typical of a progressive. whether it is from malice or stupidity is up for the board to decide.

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it.

People dont like hearing facts if it makes them wrong. Dont you know that?

 

[martybegan]

Because that is the town he claims ancestral rights from 1877.

He claims the rights as transferred from the original owner for the property. he claims rights to the public land as his family has resided in the AREA since before 1900. His 1877 claim was a statement made to the media. His other claims are in the court documents.

You are intentionally confusing one for the other to make your point, typical of a progressive. whether it is from malice or stupidity is up for the board to decide.

You cant claim something unless you have proof to back it up. He doesnt have a claim at all. Its been public land since 1864. If he owned it or had rights where is his documentation?

He DID have an agreement with the BLM, he grazed on those lands just fine until BLM tried to lower the cattle limits to the point where his herd was un-viable. That he HAD a right to the land isn't in dispute. what is in dispute is how much the BLM can unilaterally change the terms of said agreement.

The BLM recognizes his right to be there, they just modified the # of cattle and the costs. and his point is they cannot do that unilaterally.

 

[koshergrl]

Besides, "forefathers" is not synonomous with "parents".

Since his parents moved to Nevada Arizona in 1948, the claim is bogus.

No, it's not, you idiot.

FOREfather.

Unless you can prove that none of his ancestors lived where he said they did, you're just lying. Or ignorant. Probably both.