By now more on the Bundy Ranch BLM raid and occupation story risks beating the dead cattle killed by the government goons, but almost everything else has come from a party to the dispute or some distant reporter with third hand information. Assemblywoman Fiore's report is different and important. She was both there and has the experience of working directly on this and similar land use conflicts throughout Nevada.
Quote
I had the privilege and opportunity to learn to make a calf suck a bottle to save her life. It�s going to take a lot to revive the calves that were nearly dead when they were returned to the Bundy Ranch because they had been separated from their mothers during the roundup, and a few most likely won�t make it.
This isn�t my normal, nice, politically correct email, so hang on to your seats. I can tell you that after everything I�ve seen, this roundup was not about grazing fees.
First and foremost, like all Nevadans, I love my country and support my government. I proudly support Nevada being home to military installations needed to defend our nation, the federal government test site to develop the equipment necessary for that defense, and any of the other federal lands and facilities needed to conduct the true business of our federal government. That said, I struggle to see the compelling federal issue of where cows eat.
I spent a majority of my time in Bunkerville over the last week with the Bundy family and their supporters. During my time in Bunkerville, I couldn�t help but think about Nevada�s upcoming 150th birthday and that the federal government continues to patronize our state by trying to overstep and police our Nevada citizens. I wonder when the federal government will think Nevada is mature enough to set our own grazing rules or enforce our own laws.
I didn�t meet one Nevadan supporting the BLM or their removal of the cows. If Nevadans don�t care about which land is used for grazing, why should a bureaucrat who works for the federal government get to trump that?
I had the opportunity to meet the American-minded Bundy supporters from all over our country. They were peacefully protesting the BLM�s actions, and I�m excited to report the Bundy family was successful in keeping the peace until the BLM stopped their roundup and returned the Bundy�s cattle.
I�ll also report the actions of some spineless, poor-excuses of BLM staffers. An armed BLM officer picked up Mr. Bundy�s elderly sister from behind, a total sneak attack, and body slammed her to the ground; there is video footage. This woman is the mother of 11 and just survived cancer. Following that brutal incident, another BLM officer ordered his dog to attack Mr. Bundy�s son, Ammon, and as Ammon Bundy was trying to get the dog off his leg, the Nazi-minded bully tazed him twice, once in the neck and the second one right above the heart. As if that wasn�t enough, the brutal BLM thugs beat up Dave Bundy, a pilot out of Las Vegas, detained him, stole his iPad because it contained the brutal footage, confiscated many other items out of his car, transported him to Henderson where he was further detained, then released him in the middle of street. They didn�t stop there. No, they detained two more young guys while they were herding some more cattle in Overton.
These men and woman are Americans attacking Americans. I�m speechless. If you saw the number of police agencies united, I�d hope you�d be curious. We are talking about dozens of our finest SWAT members from Metro, Metro black & white cars, EMT, fire rescue trucks, detention buses (a.k.a. Paddy wagons), over 50 Ranger and BLM vehicles, numerous highway patrol vehicles, and a Black Hawk Helicopter on the Moapa airfield, just to name a few. We watched the Waco Massacre and Ruby Ridge; was the BLM preparing for a �Bunkerville Slaughter�? I believe in my heart because of these last two disasters, Americans from all over our country traveled from afar to stand with the Bundys and let our government know enough is enough. I�m proud to stand with my fellow Americans.
The numbers do not calculate. The federal government had the authority and an open checkbook to spend 10 million dollars or more for a maximum return of $200,000. Here�s how I calculate that number: the BLM might collect maybe 400 heads of cattle, taking into account the number of cattle they would kill while rounding them up. From the round up, the cattle would go to auction. How much do you think you�ll pay for a half-dead, beat up cow? Let�s say they were able to successful auction off 400 cows for $500.00 each (I�m being very very generous). The brainiac head of BLM authorized 10 million dollars or more to maybe recoup $200,000. Really? As a CEO I�d fire that decision-maker immediately. In their minds, maybe it�s worth getting rid of the cows, or just killing them, so the cows won�t destroy equipment for a project they might want to implement.
The BLM tried to paint their actions as enforcing the law; however, there are several other reasons why the BLM chose to pick this fight. It cannot be a coincidence that the place where the Bundy�s have grazed their cattle for hundreds of years would suddenly become an animal refuge for desert tortoises; is it really desert tortoises? If so, why would the BLM be euthanizing them? That�s right, BLM has EUTHANIZED 700-800 desert tortoises. Trust but verify. Click here to read one of many stories about it.
We�re also seeing reports that the BLM land in Gold Butte is very desirable for energy projects, which may have prompted this sudden strong-arm tactic. Don�t trust me, verify it. Click here to read the BLM�s own report on the project.
A major concern in all of this was how the BLM treated the cattle. It is completely irresponsible that after years of conversations, the Feds would begin their roundup during the season when calves are being born. In this mess, newborn calves were separated from their mothers; some were trampled in their holding pens and left for dead. A helicopter acted as a cowboy to herd the cows, causing a few to have heart attacks and die. The conditions of the holding pens where they kept the cows for days were heartless and cruel. Where was PETA?
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully. There were many groups of freedom fighters who traveled from all over our country to stand together. I have a very serious request to all agency officers and that request is, �not to obey your superiors when given a direct order to attack your fellow Americans fighting for the freedoms granted to us by our Constitution�. Take a sick day or a vacation.
I didn�t become an elected official to join an elite club; I ran for office to protect the people and be a true voice for the people. I take my oath seriously. It�s time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada. BLM has shown their true colors and agenda. As elected officials in Nevada, it is our responsibility to be leaders on this issue and work together, Republicans and Democrats, to make sure this doesn�t happen ever again. Together we need to write legislation to protect our state�s rights from the Feds.
Never forget, �This land is your land, this land is my land��
Hell yeah. Where is Bob and company? This is boots on the ground, an elected government official from the state in question. There is no need for any more questioning really. Here it [bleep] is.
Looks like few care for eye-witness accounts from credible sources. I made a post right on a thread that Isaac was posting on, giving him the link directly. Case-in-point.
This will give the story legs. As for where's peta, peta is a politically motivated group that could give a schit less about the animals if it doesn't fit in with their agenda.
I'm thinkin' sooner or later, with one excuse or another, the gov't is going to put most of us in a real bad situation. Many, probably most, will cower like beaten dogs and allow themselves to be pushed and herded into virtual, boot licking slavery. Some will choose to bite. Those will be the only two choices.
I'm thinkin' sooner or later, with one excuse or another, the gov't is going to put most of us in a real bad situation. Many, probably most, will cower like beaten dogs and allow themselves to be pushed and herded into virtual, boot licking slavery. Some will choose to bite. Those will be the only two choices.
Maybe so, but being stupid is never the best choice.
No one here is advocating stupidity, and I did not make that post haphazardly. Sometimes we are forced into situations over which we have zero control. Maybe you can control every situation 100 percent of the time. Unfortunately I have been blindsided before and know what it is like to have to react without notice. YMMV.
Counselor I never said Bundy was right. I think he was a fool in the way he handled this entire travesty. He has no legal leg to stand on. Do not put words in my mouth.
But if you or any other jackass think that I would stand idly by and watch my saint of a mom being blindsided and body slammed then you are a straight up damn fool. Don't give a damn if it is over a turtle, some damn cows, or my soul.
She's looking for votes, not surprising it's an election year.
The Washington Post has been following this for over 20 years. Here's a non bias report on the subject for a news agency that's kept up to date through the whole thing.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.
Isn't it interesting that the BLM backed down when it became common knowledge that armed civilians were showing up.
That is because rightousness is more powerfull than evil. That is why George Washington was under gunned, under manned, under supplied and still won. The rightous looked into the eye of the evil and evil backed down. Evil is a coward like the BLM. We just need to stare them in the eye and stand up to them. This is why the only person they physically touched was a frail woman, noone else. They needed tazers on men like cowards. If we stand up, they will back down. Many here will say government employees will shoot us or round us up cause they don' want to loose their jobs and retirement plans. I say bull. Even satan said " a man will give up everything he has to save his life when talking to God about Job. These "men " are not going to risk their lives for a few dam cows and turtles. The BLM thugs knew full well they could easily have been all killed and there would be little defense on their part.
I'm thinkin' sooner or later, with one excuse or another, the gov't is going to put most of us in a real bad situation. Many, probably most, will cower like beaten dogs and allow themselves to be pushed and herded into virtual, boot licking slavery. Some will choose to bite. Those will be the only two choices.
Maybe so, but being stupid is never the best choice.
Counselor I never said Bundy was right. I think he was a fool in the way he handled this entire travesty. He has no legal leg to stand on. Do not put words in my mouth.
But if you or any other jackass think that I would stand idly by and watch my saint of a mom being blindsided and body slammed then you are a straight up damn fool. Don't give a damn if it is over a turtle, some damn cows, or my soul.
ICYMI: CrowRifle you are arguing this with an officer that may well body slam your mom some day and his attorney that would ensure he that got a paid vacation and a bonus for so doing.
Isn't it interesting that the BLM backed down when it became common knowledge that armed civilians were showing up.
That is because rightousness is more powerfull than evil. That is why George Washington was under gunned, under manned, under supplied and still won. The rightous looked into the eye of the evil and evil backed down. Evil is a coward like the BLM. We just need to stare them in the eye and stand up to them. This is why the only person they physically touched was a frail woman, noone else. They needed tazers on men like cowards. If we stand up, they will back down. Many here will say government employees will shoot us or round us up cause they don' want to loose their jobs and retirement plans. I say bull. Even satan said " a man will give up everything he has to save his life when talking to God about Job. These "men " are not going to risk their lives for a few dam cows and turtles. The BLM thugs knew full well they could easily have been all killed and there would be little defense on their part.
and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.
Translation:
"Your ass is owned."
=========
He knew it going in, though. Every lessee does.
He signed up and says, whoa, I don't like it anymore.
After 2 federal court orders against him and a appellate affirmation, you really have nothing left but to appeal to the emotions of dumb [bleep] who think cows and moms are being hazed because of government frat boys. I can assure you the BLM guys were scared schitless. Dumb folks with guns,on either side, will instill that fear in anyone.
I'm going with the well settled law and against Bundy appealing to dumb asses. Allegiance to the law is kind of constitutional as well, ya' know.
How Bundy could be the hill for anyone is rather scary. I had always thought stupidity could clearly kill a schitload of our population but I never knew it would begin with our militia side of malcontents.
As I've suggested before, get Bundy a lawyer so he can salvage this quagmire he's in.
Otherwise, Bundy is screwed and there will be a lot less dumb [bleep] in this country.
ICYMI: CrowRifle you are arguing this with an officer that may well body slam your mom some day and his attorney that would ensure he that got a paid vacation and a bonus for so doing.
That�s right, BLM has EUTHANIZED 700-800 desert tortoises. Trust but verify. Click here to read one of many stories about it.
<*SIGH!*> There they go again....
Plainly this lady ain't had Ecology 101 either.
It ain't so much the individual tortoises ya gotta worry about, it the HABITAT. Preserve the habitat and you preserve the species. Without the habitat, all you'll ever have is a captive population.
A for the habitat angle re: the tortoise vs. grazing, browsing around I found only inconclusive studies on the impact of grazing on tortoises.
The problem seems to be there's so many OTHER factors that hammer tortoises its hard to isolate the effect of grazing.
One problem with grazing seems to be cattle stepping on and collapsing burrows, why that hould be lethal to an adept burrower like the tortoise I dunno. Another problem seems to be range degradation and introduced weed plants associated with overgrazing.
But again, unless I missed 'em, I didn't find any quantified studies.
Two things stand out in that video. A bunch of clowns that have never followed any rules and another bunch that has never enforced any.
First - your utter contempt for the American citizens that pay you and whom you have been sworn to protect and serve is showing.
Second - the it was only one bad cop or incompetent cop argument wears very thin with such frequent repetition and, especially, in this case where it requires that you claim it for each of the 200 agents and officers there from the twenty-some agencies and departments reputed to have been on sight. The problem is inherent in both the current system of and the personalities of those drawn to law enforcement.
Two things stand out in that video. A bunch of clowns that have never followed any rules and another bunch that has never enforced any.
First - your utter contempt for the American citizens that pay you and whom you have been sworn to protect and serve is showing.
Second - the it was only one bad cop or incompetent cop argument wears very thin with such frequent repetition and, especially, in this case where it requires that you claim it for each of the 200 agents and officers there from the twenty-some agencies and departments reputed to have been on sight. The problem is inherent in both the current system of and the personalities of those drawn to law enforcement.
You make no sense at all. You need to go to yoga or something.
Bundy hadn't paid for his grazing on public land in 21 years. For that reason he should not have his beasts on public land.
Indeed, but look at the other thread on how this should have been handled. The BLM ostensibly had other, less confrontational and ultimately far less expensive ways of handling this involving judgements and liens.
Bundy and his legal transgressions are a known quantity. What I would like to see someone pursue now is the decision-making process within the BLM that led to this debacle.
Maybe it did come from Harry Ried hisself I dunno. However it happened it sure seems unprecedented coming from the BLM.
If a BLM agent had picked my mom up and body slammed her to the ground, he would be dead.
Wouldn't really care what else happens after that.
I reckon that would fall into the idiot category.
Lt, you are exactly right about that, it is best to wait until it is quiet, dark, and nobody is looking...then smack a hatchet across the back of the offenders neck.
Bundy hadn't paid for his grazing on public land in 21 years. For that reason he should not have his beasts on public land.
Indeed, but look at the other thread on how this should have been handled. The BLM ostenibly had other, less confrontational and ultimately far less expensive ways of handling this involving judgements and leins.
Bundy and his legal transgressions are a known quantity. What I would like to see someone pursue now is the decision-making process within the BLM that led to this debacle.
Maybe it did come from Harry Ried hisself I dunno. However it happened it sure seems unprecedented coming from the BLM.
Birdwatcher
Mike, it appears to me that this was the first time the BLM actually got to put on their cop outfits, crate the dogs and interact with their flavor of "bad guys". There are lots of other Federal agencies that have police forces that are on deck.
I could be a city boy and have a couple hundred acres on the river south of here but,being there or not being there doesn't change the title to my land or the invented entitlements of others.
Well it proves one thing for sure the federal law enforcement will most definitely fire on civilians if given the order from the Fuehrer regardless who the Fuehrer is. And I would imagine most local law enforcement from city to state will do the same thing.
That�s right, BLM has EUTHANIZED 700-800 desert tortoises. Trust but verify. Click here to read one of many stories about it.
<*SIGH!*> There they go again....
Plainly this lady ain't had Ecology 101 either.
It ain't so much the individual tortoises ya gotta worry about, it the HABITAT. Preserve the habitat and you preserve the species. Without the habitat, all you'll ever have is a captive population.
A for the habitat angle re: the tortoise vs. grazing, browsing around I found only inconclusive studies on the impact of grazing on tortoises.
The problem seems to be there's so many OTHER factors that hammer tortoises its hard to isolate the effect of grazing.
One problem with grazing seems to be cattle stepping on and collapsing burrows, why that hould be lethal to an adept burrower like the tortoise I dunno. Another problem seems to be range degradation and introduced weed plants associated with overgrazing.
But again, unless I missed 'em, I didn't find any quantified studies.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
WOW!!!!!! I didn't know Nevadans were slaves and serfs of the United States. Glad I don't live there I'm not slave or serf of any state national or otherwise. I'm a free man and intend on staying that way.
"...will most definitely fire on civilians if given the order.." And fire hoses and dogs years ago. Dogs and other stuff now. A successful civil disobedience action requires a hyperbolic response and the BLM obliged.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
WOW!!!!!! I didn't know Nevadans were slaves and serfs of the United States. Glad I don't live there I'm not slave or serf of any state national or otherwise. I'm a free man and intend on staying that way.
The bottom line is the federal government has wasted and squandered it's credibility by kowtowing to the loud and profane special interest groups of the liberal left. They have wasted all of their good will and no one believes them about anything or any issue, anymore.
The sad part is they are not done yet being stupid. We should guard ourselves that we do not fall into the same trap. kwg
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
WOW!!!!!! I didn't know Nevadans were slaves and serfs of the United States. Glad I don't live there I'm not slave or serf of any state national or otherwise. I'm a free man and intend on staying that way.
Good luck with that.
Well I'm old and my life is almost over so being dead and free is better than being alive and a slave. Being part Indian, what I think you would call aborigine, I always figure today is a good day to die.
There's a lot of stupid going on, but not from the side your thinking. With the rest of your post my response is..... HUH? Thanks I lost 10 IQ points reading your post.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
It does seem that Nevada is not a sovereign state which probably explains why prostitution is still legal in Nevada that is the only state where it is.
Isn't it interesting that the BLM backed down when it became common knowledge that armed civilians were showing up.
That is because rightousness is more powerfull than evil. That is why George Washington was under gunned, under manned, under supplied and still won. The rightous looked into the eye of the evil and evil backed down. Evil is a coward like the BLM. We just need to stare them in the eye and stand up to them. This is why the only person they physically touched was a frail woman, noone else. They needed tazers on men like cowards. If we stand up, they will back down. Many here will say government employees will shoot us or round us up cause they don' want to loose their jobs and retirement plans. I say bull. Even satan said " a man will give up everything he has to save his life when talking to God about Job. These "men " are not going to risk their lives for a few dam cows and turtles. The BLM thugs knew full well they could easily have been all killed and there would be little defense on their part.
it helps when cameras are rolling and there is a national movement in sympathy of the rancher...
Had the BLM gone forward it would have been ugly and the federal government would have had a nightmare PR situation on their hands during a time when congressional approval ratings are at an all time low.
simply put - they didn't want or need martyrs that day.
One more thing is certain there are a certain percent of the Fire that prefer slavery to freedom and will lick the black boots of the Gestapo and SS of the federal government.
There's no doubt the State is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and one does have to walk gingerly to avoid angering him but there comes a time when the gorilla has to be put down for his own good.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
Apparantly you don't even read much, like the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution.
Try Article I section 8 in the US Constitution and the 10th ammend. of the Bill of Rights, you know, the one about states rights.
Just because the feds have gotten away with supposed "authority" over the states doesn't mean they have constitutional authority to do so. The whole point of the development of the fed gubbermint by the founders was to protect the rights of the individuals of the country as a whole, and to make sure the states did so as well. The states were never to be subservient to the feds, quite the contrary, but unfortunately this fact eludes many here.
There's a lot of stupid going on, but not from the side your thinking. With the rest of your post my response is..... HUH? Thanks I lost 10 IQ points reading your post.
The fault is yours, if you had taken the time to drop another twenty IQ points you would have been able to successfully converse.
Well it proves one thing for sure the federal law enforcement will most definitely fire on civilians if given the order from the Fuehrer regardless who the Fuehrer is. And I would imagine most local law enforcement from city to state will do the same thing.
You needn't imagine.
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
Well it proves one thing for sure the federal law enforcement will most definitely fire on civilians if given the order from the Fuehrer regardless who the Fuehrer is. And I would imagine most local law enforcement from city to state will do the same thing.
You needn't imagine.
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
You are right I guess I needn't imagine. The only thing missing was the Nevada National Guard and maybe they were there too.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
It does seem that Nevada is not a sovereign state which probably explains why prostitution is still legal in Nevada that is the only state where it is.
Actually, legal prostitution law points to the fact that Nevada has control of many things, or Sovereignty. We are all a part of the United states, and the US constitution apply s and trumps state law. Only Indian reservations are mostly sovereign.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
Apparantly you don't even read much, like the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution.
Try Article I section 8 in the US Constitution and the 10th ammend. of the Bill of Rights, you know, the one about states rights.
Just because the feds have gotten away with supposed "authority" over the states doesn't mean they have constitutional authority to do so. The whole point of the development of the fed gubbermint by the founders was to protect the rights of the individuals of the country as a whole, and to make sure the states did so as well. The states were never to be subservient to the feds, quite the contrary, but unfortunately this fact eludes many here.
I read plenty, you shouldn't have just jumped in before reading more of this thread.
Quote
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
Now I don't want to move to fast and lose you, but go to the 10th Amendment, and then understand what was written, approved, and signed by the state of Nevada above. They are still sovereign, and can modify the law I posted, but haven't. It's their own law, not the "FEDS".
Under Article 1 Section 8 do you mean to read:
Quote
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Sounds about right.
Or maybe this part: You know the "Elastic Clause"
Quote
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
Oh, I dunno...
SOME people can read, and even have a fairly decent comprehension of what they read.
Now as far as what you posted below, the government required certain wording be added or amended into constitutions of territories that were seeking statehood. Most of the western states have that wording, or something similar.
Originally Posted by 4100fps
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
Now, the armed force is another matter altogether.
Let's see if your reading skills are as good as you want others to be.
Quote
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, still in effect, was passed to prevent U.S. military personnel from acting as law enforcement agents on U.S. soil.
While the Act is seen as an essential element of the American civil liberties framework, it originally represented a profound betrayal of African-American Southerners by the federal government. In the Reconstruction years following the American Civil War, U.S. troops were stationed in the South to protect recently-freed black slaves, allowing them to vote and function as free people. But when Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction in exchange for electoral votes during the controversial 1876 presidential election, they sold out black Southerners, who were condemned to a near-century of Jim Crow laws with almost no federal protection. The Posse Comitatus Act, which withdrew U.S. troops from Southern soil, was a central part of this betrayal.
The text of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is still in effect (as 18 U.S.C. Section 1385), reads: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Today, the Posse Comitatus Act has taken on a very different meaning from the one that it had in 1878. No longer associated with Reconstruction, it is a useful way to prevent the U.S. armed forces from directing their efforts against U.S. dissident groups. Public sentiment in favor of the Posse Comitatus Act is so strong that a 2006 law permitting an exception to the Act in cases of public disasters (in response to Hurricane Katrina) was repealed a year later.
That also leads us to the constitutional powers of the office of the sheriff, in whose hands the responsibility of all people within his county boundaries rests. A constitutional sheriff knows that he is the head law enforcement officer in the county, and other officers within the county are under his direct orders in his fulfilment of those duties.
In other words, if the sheriff feels that the safety of people in his county is at risk, he can tell them ALL to go pound sand. And they have to comply.
Unfortunately, although he grandstanded just fine at the Bundy press conference, Sheriff Gillespie is nothing more than another shill for the BLM that let the situation get out of hand by their tactics, and he CERTAINLY answers to Harry Reid. He was just following orders like the rest of them the day they stood down.
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
It is astounding to read folks comparing mistakes by a single rancher, to the debacle we just witnessed by agencies of the United States Government, and/or any Nevada state or local law enforcement.
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
I could go on but thats a whole other topic.
The tribes, for any practical discussion are completely beholden to the fed. They are only "sovereign" to the point the feds let them be, until they decide they're not.
As to the constitution, you need to read a little further down in Article I section 8, the part requiring purchase of any land and only when agreed upon by said state legislature, and only for very specific purposes.
It is astounding to read folks comparing mistakes by a single rancher, to the debacle we just witnessed by agencies of the United States Government, and/or any Nevada state or local law enforcement.
Yes, Bundy's original grazing fee issue is very nearly insignificant at this point and of infinitesimally small import compared to this government's corruption and oppression.
Lets look at what Bundy should have done. Immaterial now but lets have a looky.
He owns nothing now, but did have around 160 odd acres, and he held the allotment grazing rights for 150 head of cattle before he quit paying the grazing fee.
Anyway, he should of and could have sold that for over $350,000, (going rate) and I bet his 160 acres for close to the same. So Bundy could have headed to far better grazing lands up north, or invested it and retired.
If it takes 1000 acres for 1 cow your not in great cattle country. Seems to me, brains were never a virtue in the Bundy family.
He has been working up to this moment for a long time and certainly knew his neighbors were going to come to his rescue.
Now, the armed force is another matter altogether.
Let's see if your reading skills are as good as you want others to be.
It doesn't stop Federal lawmen from acting. How does that make Bundy right?
When did they send in the army? I must of missed that too.
I guess the sheriff can though.
And no, it doesn't make Bundy right, but it sure don't make the milartistic tactics of the government right either.
The heavy handed tactics, assault on civilians that were filmed, and the officers filmed and recorded pointing rifles at a peaceful crowd of Americans and instructing them they would shoot, coupled with running cattle to death, shooting bulls, bulldozing water structures tat Bundy had water rights on, and leaving calves dying in the desert, not to mention the publicized 1st Amendment Zones, was what turned lots of public opinion against the government.
Had they handled it differently than deploying a full military assault, with blatant disregard to private property, the Constitution, and due process after a civil judgment was rendered, nobody would have even known it happened. It wouldn't have even made the local news.
Regardless of how wrong Bundy was, it was the BLM that turned it into a clusterphuck.
FWIW, the Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the military from offering equipment, training, or advice for law enforcement purposes. It also doesn't apply to State Guard Units.
That means that they can give LEO's a tank, train them to operate it, and advise them as they operate it. Like what happened in Waco, TX with the Texas National Guard and the FBI.
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
I could go on but thats a whole other topic.
The tribes, for any practical discussion are completely beholden to the fed. They are only "sovereign" to the point the feds let them be, until they decide they're not.
As to the constitution, you need to read a little further down in Article I section 8, the part requiring purchase of any land and only when agreed upon by said state legislature, and only for very specific purposes.
When did the federal Government purchase lands in Nevada without the state legislatures approval? This is the first time I heard of such blasphemy.
So do you mean: Article IV Section 3? Because there's nothing in Article I Section 8 stating what you claim.
Quote
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
That means: Congress has charge of the public lands within the states, which in the West constitutes an enormous amount of land. Congress also governs acquired territories, which today include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
My wife and son got into an argument this evening. Both were wrong in their actions, but the debate quickly became a question of who was more wrong. Nothing could be resolved until both parties acknowledged that they each owned their own behavior and disrespected each other.
As soon as disrespect was put forth, all listening ended and the hostilities began.
Some think that's the crux of the issue. I don't. When it comes to Americans pointing guns at Americans I think the question of who is most wrong is not important.
Progress will only be had when both parties acknowledge their roles in bringing things to such a confrontation and right the wrongs.
As Conservatives we always preach about personal responsibility and accountability. It would be nice to see it exercised in this case.
It is astounding to read folks comparing mistakes by a single rancher, to the debacle we just witnessed by agencies of the United States Government, and/or any Nevada state or local law enforcement.
You're in denial. Bundy brought some of this on to himself over 20 years. The Feds should have acted sooner and a bit more incrementally to avoid the debacle.
I have no use for the Feds and BLM the way they have evolved, but I live here and encountered "Bundys" all my life. They think they have their own little fiefdoms and deserve to rule public lands.
There are plenty of good honest hard working ranchers who work within the system, such as it is. I don't envy them at all, but they don't get their tit in the wringer like Bundy did.
The BLM, and worst...the Forest Service look at these lands as theirs, not ours, just like the Bundy-types do. The comparison is glaring.
I have a serious question concerning the Possee Comitatus Act. How was it in the 1950s when President Eisenhower sent elements of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce what I believe was the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to enforce racial integration? Was this not have been a clear violation of this law? I well recall in the early 1960s living in Alabama, talk of the Kennedy administration threatening to federalize the Alabama and Mississippi National Guard units for the purpose of enforcing federal will upon those states. Also, for the purpose of preventing those state governments from using their guard units for their state law enforcement. The feds never did this, but they did certainly threaten to do so. Sorry for the possible thread hi-jack, but I am really curious about this.
Neither condemning nor condoning Bundy's actions, just comparing what one man has done to that of Gooberment agencies with hundreds if not thousands of supposedly educated trained men.
Wish some real facts would come to light on all this... as to Bundy's claim that him and his relatives have ranched and grazed their cattle on public land in the Bunkerhill area since the late 1880's. Fact or fiction it seems like nobody is really saying. I've read in a couple places that it was only distant Mormon ancestors on his mothers side that were in the Bunkerhill area and located miles from where the ranch is now located, and saying that Cliven Bundy's father and family located to the area in the 1940's from Arizona, and that their original grazing permit was issued in 1954.
Seems like a lot of this could be easily verified one way or the other.
Counselor I never said Bundy was right. I think he was a fool in the way he handled this entire travesty. He has no legal leg to stand on. Do not put words in my mouth.
But if you or any other jackass think that I would stand idly by and watch my saint of a mom being blindsided and body slammed then you are a straight up damn fool. Don't give a damn if it is over a turtle, some damn cows, or my soul.
ICYMI: CrowRifle you are arguing this with an officer that may well body slam your mom some day and his attorney that would ensure he that got a paid vacation and a bonus for so doing.
I was referring to the incident. Nobody but idiots would get in a situation like that.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching. Fight in court with great lawyers and he'd have had to sell out to pay the lawyers. Couldn't keep paying the lease since I'm sure the BLM wouldn't have accepted payments until he reduced his herd - after which he'd have been out of business.
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
Isn't it interesting that the BLM backed down when it became common knowledge that armed civilians were showing up.
That is because rightousness is more powerfull than evil. That is why George Washington was under gunned, under manned, under supplied and still won. The rightous looked into the eye of the evil and evil backed down. Evil is a coward like the BLM. We just need to stare them in the eye and stand up to them. This is why the only person they physically touched was a frail woman, noone else. They needed tazers on men like cowards. If we stand up, they will back down. Many here will say government employees will shoot us or round us up cause they don' want to loose their jobs and retirement plans. I say bull. Even satan said " a man will give up everything he has to save his life when talking to God about Job. These "men " are not going to risk their lives for a few dam cows and turtles. The BLM thugs knew full well they could easily have been all killed and there would be little defense on their part.
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
Geez, Calhoun, I can't believe you said that..
So, lemme get this straight.. Just suppose the EPA comes to YOUR place with some bogus BS and says, "you gotta move and we're takin' over your land/house and (whatever) because of ---- new law, and we're payin' you 5 cents on the dollar - or less if you refuse".
You gonna act like a sheep? Or an idiot? (serious question with no malice intended...)
So if the evil Harry Reid and his evil spawn that want the land to mitigate their solar farm are removed from the equation, what happens?
Could the BLM excuse his fines and re-instate his lease? He then begins paying grazing rights and all goes back to as it was before the turtles were brought into the equation?
Seems to me that the players behind the scenes are driving this one.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
I have a serious question concerning the Possee Comitatus Act. How was it in the 1950s when President Eisenhower sent elements of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce what I believe was the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to enforce racial integration? Was this not have been a clear violation of this law? I well recall in the early 1960s living in Alabama, talk of the Kennedy administration threatening to federalize the Alabama and Mississippi National Guard units for the purpose of enforcing federal will upon those states. Also, for the purpose of preventing those state governments from using their guard units for their state law enforcement. The feds never did this, but they did certainly threaten to do so. Sorry for the possible thread hi-jack, but I am really curious about this.
Because the president can send in troops when there is a danger of violence because of non-compliance with the U.S. Constitution. (Back when it meant something, of course.)
Quote
An exception to Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.
We should send the troops right away to Washington D.C.! All sorts of Constitutional non-compliance going on there daily.
You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
It does seem that Nevada is not a sovereign state which probably explains why prostitution is still legal in Nevada that is the only state where it is.
Actually, legal prostitution law points to the fact that Nevada has control of many things, or Sovereignty. We are all a part of the United states, and the US constitution apply s and trumps state law. Only Indian reservations are mostly sovereign.
Only since the uncivil war and especially the 1920's. It wasn't that way originally nor was it meant to be that way.
I should also have added that since the Feds have shut down legal prostitution in all states except Nevada that Nevada is directly under the thumb of the nation state and that state constitution proves it. WOW I can't believe that article is in your state constitution.
I've recently seen some and tensions were much higher than I had assumed. While I still believe Mr. Bundy doesn't get to decide who owns the land and who he pays for grazing rights, The BLM made a very stupid error in judgement regarding the enforcement of the court order.
From what I've seen, that deal could have easily gotten out of hand.
I've recently seen some and tensions were much higher than I had assumed. While I still believe Mr. Bundy doesn't get to decide who owns the land and who he pays for grazing rights, The BLM made a very stupid error in judgement regarding the enforcement of the court order.
From what I've seen, that deal could have easily gotten out of hand.
No one should die over a grass eating dispute.
I see you don't live West of the Mississippi so there is no way you would understand and quite frankly until I moved West of the Mississippi I didn't either.
Water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights, surface rights, below surface rights, etc. is a foreign concept to people East of the Mississippi. Companies and lawyers make a good living dealing with the law on these rights and there are even special courts set up to deal with water and riparian rights.
They tried storm trooper tactics in the hopes that if they showed up with enough force, it would frighten the natives.
Well we see that didn't work.
I do give them credit for realizing it was a bad situation, that they helped create it and backing off.
That kind of behavior seldom helps your cause.
That is where I am with it.
Same here ^^
It's the storm-trooper mentality that seems to be growing with the Feds over the years that really sticks in my craw.
Watching that wannabe ass hole intentionally putting that f-kin dog on an unarmed citizen had my blood boiling. Wish someone would have turned the table and shot that f-kin cops dog for a change.
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
I could go on but thats a whole other topic.
The tribes, for any practical discussion are completely beholden to the fed. They are only "sovereign" to the point the feds let them be, until they decide they're not.
As to the constitution, you need to read a little further down in Article I section 8, the part requiring purchase of any land and only when agreed upon by said state legislature, and only for very specific purposes.
When did the federal Government purchase lands in Nevada without the state legislatures approval? This is the first time I heard of such blasphemy.
So do you mean: Article IV Section 3? Because there's nothing in Article I Section 8 stating what you claim.
Quote
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
That means: Congress has charge of the public lands within the states, which in the West constitutes an enormous amount of land. Congress also governs acquired territories, which today include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Like I said, you need to look further down:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
The whole point being made here is the need to set up "needful" buildings etc. for the security, protection and trade of/for the individuals of the United States. Not for fed ownership of 80%+ of state lands to lease back to individuals to fill fed coffers.
The other thing that scares the schidt out of government is the attention that the control of government has on states with large percentages of public land.
Because the government has such a strangle hold on western states with government control of public land, they also pretty much control the state itself in the day to day operation and regulation of those lands. This is in direct violation of what constitutes "statehood", and actually creates a much larger, and much more powerful "Central Government" than the "illusion of statehood" that is half of the United States.
If the government OWNS and CONTROLS and REGULATES more land than the rest of the land ownership within that state, is it REALLY a sovereign state?
Are people like Reid actually elected representatives of their state, or are state officials and the state itself only a sockpuppet for men like Reid?
Makes you question things.
As Fox News reported yesterday, the name "Reid" is THE name to know in Nevada. You can get nothing done there otherwise. You can't pay off Harry directly, but you can pay the hell out of his son to make things happen.
And Harry Reid's hand picked boy and ex-staffer is now the head honcho at BLM, which controls 80% of Nevada?
No wonder Harry gets nervous when his name is brought up.
Cattle grazing on public lands in the West has not always been an issue between different segments of society. Until recently, cattle grazing was undisputed, a natural part of the culture of the West. Cowboys, Indians, tumbleweeds and cows were the first thoughts to most people's minds when thinking of the western United States. The picture is no longer so clear. For the last couple of decades, a battle has been raging between cattle ranchers and environmentalists. The battle is characterized by mistrust and misunderstanding by both environmentalists and cattle ranchers. The two views are to a large extent, irreconcilable, but there is room for compromise. The battle between these views has rarely been friendly, and has often been fierce. It is a battle fought in American public range policy.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
Your response is to a copy and past of the actual written law. Sorry you feel dumber! It might be a sign!
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
Geez, Calhoun, I can't believe you said that..
So, lemme get this straight.. Just suppose the EPA comes to YOUR place with some bogus BS and says, "you gotta move and we're takin' over your land/house and (whatever) because of ---- new law, and we're payin' you 5 cents on the dollar - or less if you refuse".
You gonna act like a sheep? Or an idiot? (serious question with no malice intended...)
Truthfully? I'd weigh the situation and make my decision. Would I pit my savings, retirement and house to fight against a land grab by the government? One where even if I ended up winning, there was no guarantee I'd get lawyers fees back?
For a family business going back multiple generations, yeah, there very likely would be that type of engagement on my part. To fight over a $75,000 lot that I just bought? I honestly have to say I'm sure I wouldn't risk everything. I'd stand with the guys who did fight tho, rather than just call them idiots.
The world aint' a fair place, pick the battles that matter.
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
Your original post says this. Which is it?
Originally Posted by Rovering
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching
No one placed any limits on how many animals he could own He just can't graze more than 150 on public land The court order only applied to WHERE his animals were
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
Your original post says this. Which is it?
Originally Posted by Rovering
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
OK, Slowly so even a LEO can understand.
These are my words that I wrote:
Quote
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
These are Assemblywoman Fiore's words that she wrote:
Quote
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
You not only do not understand whom wrote what, but you do not understand that Assemblywoman Fiore was not lauding, the over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies, the Regime's thugs that she was their to help check. She was lauding the private Oath Keepers organization and its members that were also there as private citizens on the Bundy side of the lines as a check against the Regime's thugs. The very existence of the Oath Keepers as a private organization to counter the oppression and transgressions of the government agencies and government professions of some of its members is an extremely telling commentary.
Again so you can be clear its from me:
The over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' that were reputed to be on duty at the Bundy Ranch were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity. Every last damn one of them are the tools of tyrants, petty tyrants in their own right, and glaring indictments of your profession.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching
No one placed any limits on how many animals he could own He just can't graze more than 150 on public land The court order only applied to WHERE his animals were
Well, it is Nevada. He can release 900 on his place and let his neighbors build the fences if they want to keep them out.
Yeah....I understand. I didn't say you said it, I said your post said it. You really should find a different hobby. Internet trolling is obviously not for you.
Written in another thread, but I want it here in my thread as well:
The government class simply believes that it is all theirs. They believe that they own all that you do not, all that you do, all that you make, and indeed you. They believe that the sovereign is absolute and that all is to be distributed, primarily amongst them, by or used by the leave of the sovereign.
Note how they refer to allowing you to keep a bit of your money by deferring a tax increase as an expense to them, and how they claim that taking and spending more is an investment. Any time that the government class' leaders claim that not taxing more is a cost, the are claiming all that you do not own, all that you do 'own', all that you make, and indeed you.
As important as are those words on parchment from 1215 and 1776 they can do nothing alone. We must perpetually and vigilantly enforce them and the laws that flow from them upon the government class or they will assuredly enforce their own laws upon us taking all that we do not own, all that we do 'own', all that we make, and indeed us.
Since January 20, 2009 only twice has the government class' taking been slowed. When we led by the NRA defeated Obama's gun control legislation, and then when Bundy and his supporters humiliated and forced those government class LEO thugs to retreat.
How would you have handled the orders to set up 1st Amendment areas and deploy your force of men based on a civil court order that came across your desk? This based on you being the head BLM Law Enforcement Ranger of the district in question?
Neither condemning nor condoning Bundy's actions, just comparing what one man has done to that of Gooberment agencies with hundreds if not thousands of supposedly educated trained men.
Amazing how some people get so worked up by saying Bundy is getting a free ride by grazing cattle on public land.
But then look the other way as 12-20 million illegals cross into this country and take money and resources from this country.
Then think it's okay for the gobbermint to bailout Unions in Detroit with tax payers money.
Clearly, the problem with America is ...cows.
Yes, cows and turtles are at most either side's excuses to continue a very old fight about the balance of power between the sovereign and the individual or the people as a group of individuals.
This excerpted from JPFO:
Quote
Bundy Ranch Showdown Proves Militias Can Stop Government Excesses
When gun rights advocates explain that the Second Amendment exists to protect the people's last-ditch means of stopping an out-of-control government, a common reply from those who favor oppressive gun laws is that civilians, with our small arms, would have no chance against a military superpower like the U.S. They tell us that with tanks, stealth bombers, supersonic fighter jets, drones, helicopter gunships, etc., the military would crush any resistance by the people. (Oddly, this argument has apparently not yet convinced the Taliban to quit fighting.)
Some go further than that, and point to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, apparently untroubled by the prospect of the government using nukes against American citizens, and willing to stay loyal to a government they believe capable of such monstrous evil.
The Bureau of Land Management's decision, one week ago today, to back away from a fight against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the armed civilians (members of the unorganized militia) and Oath Keepers who stand with him must confound those who believe that military might is everything.
Yet that's exactly what happened. With militia members having filed in by ones and twos, but eventually adding up to a sizable force, the BLM's paramilitary enforcers decided that a dispute about where cattle graze was not worth orphaning their children, ostensibly to protect "endangered" desert tortoises.
In other words, the federal government had marched in there with no intention of leaving without their pound of flesh--and ended up leaving with badly bruised egos.
The issue here is that even if Bundy is wrong, enforcement of grazing fee requirements is not legitimately the work of heavily armed paramilitary forces. And the further issue is that for now, at least, when those paramilitary forces stared through their rifle scopes at armed private citizens staring back at them through their rifle scopes, it was the government's eyes that blinked, with no injuries except to the feds' pride.
Written in another thread, but I want it here in my thread as well:
The government class simply believes that it is all theirs. They believe that they own all that you do not, all that you do, all that you make, and indeed you. They believe that the sovereign is absolute and that all is to be distributed, primarily amongst them, by or used by the leave of the sovereign.
Note how they refer to allowing you to keep a bit of your money by deferring a tax increase as an expense to them, and how they claim that taking and spending more is an investment. Any time that the government class' leaders claim that not taxing more is a cost, the are claiming all that you do not own, all that you do 'own', all that you make, and indeed you.
As important as are those words on parchment from 1215 and 1776 they can do nothing alone. We must perpetually and vigilantly enforce them and the laws that flow from them upon the government class or they will assuredly enforce their own laws upon us taking all that we do not own, all that we do 'own', all that we make, and indeed us.
Since January 20, 2009 only twice has the government class' taking been slowed. When we led by the NRA defeated Obama's gun control legislation, and then when Bundy and his supporters humiliated and forced those government class LEO thugs to retreat.
What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was �indissoluble� unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of �it� rather than �them.�
So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is �unalienable.� And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union�s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.
As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, �We the People� create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.
Written in another thread, but I want it here in my thread as well:
The government class simply believes that it is all theirs. They believe that they own all that you do not, all that you do, all that you make, and indeed you. They believe that the sovereign is absolute and that all is to be distributed, primarily amongst them, by or used by the leave of the sovereign.
Note how they refer to allowing you to keep a bit of your money by deferring a tax increase as an expense to them, and how they claim that taking and spending more is an investment. Any time that the government class' leaders claim that not taxing more is a cost, the are claiming all that you do not own, all that you do 'own', all that you make, and indeed you.
As important as are those words on parchment from 1215 and 1776 they can do nothing alone. We must perpetually and vigilantly enforce them and the laws that flow from them upon the government class or they will assuredly enforce their own laws upon us taking all that we do not own, all that we do 'own', all that we make, and indeed us.
Since January 20, 2009 only twice has the government class' taking been slowed. When we led by the NRA defeated Obama's gun control legislation, and then when Bundy and his supporters humiliated and forced those government class LEO thugs to retreat.
What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was �indissoluble� unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of �it� rather than �them.�
So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is �unalienable.� And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union�s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.
As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, �We the People� create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.
Sobran, though, is not arguing that that is as it should be. He is just arguing that that is the sorry stat in which we post Lincoln and FDR find ourselves.
You jolted me with that out of context. That did not read like Sobran. I had to go read his whole article.
After 2 federal court orders against him and a appellate affirmation, you really have nothing left but to appeal to the emotions of dumb [bleep] who think cows and moms are being hazed because of government frat boys. I can assure you the BLM guys were scared schitless. Dumb folks with guns,on either side, will instill that fear in anyone.
I'm going with the well settled law and against Bundy appealing to dumb asses. Allegiance to the law is kind of constitutional as well, ya' know.
How Bundy could be the hill for anyone is rather scary. I had always thought stupidity could clearly kill a schitload of our population but I never knew it would begin with our militia side of malcontents.
Actually, Isaac, I think Bundy is just throwing back some of the Marxist methods that have been used by .Gov for years. You know, the kind of stuff they do to win the media trial and railroad people. A great example is sending in a bomb squad to "dismantle" a dewat hand grenade with a number attached to the pin and a sign that says "Complaint Dept, take a number".
Seems like simple justice to me that after paying grazing fees for several years (something less than 100), that a family ought to have some right to securing ownership.
You're in denial. Bundy brought some of this on to himself over 20 years. The Feds should have acted sooner and a bit more incrementally to avoid the debacle.
I have no use for the Feds and BLM the way they have evolved, but I live here and encountered "Bundys" all my life. They think they have their own little fiefdoms and deserve to rule public lands.
There are plenty of good honest hard working ranchers who work within the system, such as it is. I don't envy them at all, but they don't get their tit in the wringer like Bundy did.
The BLM, and worst...the Forest Service look at these lands as theirs, not ours, just like the Bundy-types do. The comparison is glaring.
What interest is served by the BLM holding these lands in perpetuity? And don't say "hunters" or any of the free-roaming kind of uses by the public because the BLM could probably get rid of every acre that is grazed and still own >1/3 of Nevada.
What is justice? I don't think it's paying grazing fees for centuries like a serf of 9th century Europe. Hell, the land probably isn't worth the net present value of the fees Bundy owes.
The bottom line of not only this matter of conflict, but many others that not only involve the ranching industry, but logging, mining, recreation and hunting is that the government IS closing public lands to the public.
The focus and the slant now focuses on what the environmentalists want done within a liberal administration that gives not even a second glace at historical usage and management of public lands, but caters to radical environmental groups and enforces their bidding to close the land and enforce those regulatory measures against the public.
Our government should be doing everything within their power to keep public land open so that free Americans can enjoy it as they choose, and industries that have made good use of the lands for more than 100 years can continue to do so.
The bottom line of not only this matter of conflict, but many others that not only involve the ranching industry, but logging, mining, recreation and hunting is that the government IS closing public lands to the public.
The focus and the slant now focuses on what the environmentalists want done within a liberal administration that gives not even a second glace at historical usage and management of public lands, but caters to radical environmental groups and enforces their bidding to close the land and enforce those regulatory measures against the public.
Our government should be doing everything within their power to keep public land open so that free Americans can enjoy it as they choose, and industries that have made good use of the lands for more than 100 years can continue to do so.
i like to say it this way: The king and his nobles do not like the peasant trespassing on the king's forest or shooting his deer.
There are any number of competing interests for Federal Land, miners, ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, hikers etc. There are always going to be winners and losers because not everyone is going to get their way. The BLM is heavily criticized in some circles for allowing too much grazing and development of mineral and energy resources. In others, the BLM is criticized for not allowing enough.
This case happened to go against Bundy. The BLM worked peaceably for 20 years to get him to abide by the law and it didn't work. The BLM was (and is) being sued for not enforcing the Court Orders against Bundy. The Court Orders gave Bundy a chance to follow the law and remove his cattle that were trespassing on public land and he refused.
So then what, more court orders? The BLM decided to do the roundup themselves. Bundy said he "keeps firearms at his ranch" and promised to "do whatever it takes" to stop enforcement of the law. His wife said "I've got a shotgun," she said. "It's loaded and I know how to use it."
A militia member announced We�re going to go in there with force and we�re going to bail these people out
Sounds like threats of deadly force against the Law to me. Now I like guns. I've got lots of them. I just don't threaten to shoot cops.
The BLM has the responsibility to manage the land among competing interests, and law enforcement was tasked with protecting the ordered round-up. If an armed confrontation is promised, does anyone expect law enforcement to show up unarmed? Not in the real world. What made the difference in this case is not BLM enforcement of grazing rules, that happens all the time, it was that people were threatening the lives of people just doing their jobs.
Before threatening insurrection it would at least seem prudent to pick a guy who isn't openly breaking the law and saying foolish and delusional things like "I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."
Insurrection
A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.
Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.
The American public doesn't want anarchy. This isn't over, and it shouldn't be. Violence isn't the solution, nor are threats of violence. To most people this doesn't make the militias look brave patriots, it makes them look like dangerous crackpots.
Written in another thread, but I want it here in my thread as well:
The government class simply believes that it is all theirs. They believe that they own all that you do not, all that you do, all that you make, and indeed you. They believe that the sovereign is absolute and that all is to be distributed, primarily amongst them, by or used by the leave of the sovereign.
Note how they refer to allowing you to keep a bit of your money by deferring a tax increase as an expense to them, and how they claim that taking and spending more is an investment. Any time that the government class' leaders claim that not taxing more is a cost, the are claiming all that you do not own, all that you do 'own', all that you make, and indeed you.
As important as are those words on parchment from 1215 and 1776 they can do nothing alone. We must perpetually and vigilantly enforce them and the laws that flow from them upon the government class or they will assuredly enforce their own laws upon us taking all that we do not own, all that we do 'own', all that we make, and indeed us.
Since January 20, 2009 only twice has the government class' taking been slowed. When we led by the NRA defeated Obama's gun control legislation, and then when Bundy and his supporters humiliated and forced those government class LEO thugs to retreat.
What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was �indissoluble� unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of �it� rather than �them.�
So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is �unalienable.� And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union�s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.
As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, �We the People� create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.
Sobran, though, is not arguing that that is as it should be. He is just arguing that that is the sorry stat in which we post Lincoln and FDR find ourselves.
Well,...he's simply stating that a constitution isn't sufficient to keep the state from assuming power.
Once power is centralized, the state will define *any* constitution in a manner which benefits the state.
,..which is exactly what the U.S. government has done.
Once Lincoln declared that a state which voluntarily joined the union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the union, the constitution was a dead letter.
It ceased to exist in any meaningful way after the Civil War.
To most people this doesn't make the militias look brave patriots, it makes them look like dangerous crackpots.
Perhaps. That is exactly the view Reid and his minions want you to take.
But it makes the BLM thugs that actually used violence look even worse to the people that are informed.
Reid didn't tell me what to believe.
So can you list the fatalities and injuries that resulted from that violence? I would say they used minimal force. They used so little force that they backed way completely. Bundy's son who got tased? He was defying lawful orders and had driven his ATV into a government vehicle.
They allowed at least one "protester" to point a rifle at them without killing him. That seems pretty patient to me.
Just as a reminder, appropriate force is allowed in support of the law, force is not allowed in resisting the law.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
To most people this doesn't make the militias look brave patriots, it makes them look like dangerous crackpots.
Perhaps. That is exactly the view Reid and his minions want you to take.
But it makes the BLM thugs that actually used violence look even worse to the people that are informed.
Reid didn't tell me what to believe.
So can you list the fatalities and injuries that resulted from that violence? I would say they used minimal force. They used so little force that they backed way completely. Bundy's son who got tased? He was defying lawful orders and had driven his ATV into a government vehicle.
They allowed at least one "protester" to point a rifle at them without killing him. That seems pretty patient to me.
Just as a reminder, appropriate force is allowed in support of the law, force is not allowed in resisting the law.
How about the BLM snipers pointing guns at the protesters? So is that ok? I sure hope your attitude is the minority, otherwise we are destined to be ruled by the tyrannical regime of the day.
You are a perfect example of whats causing the encroachment on our liberties. Go ahead and submit yourself to being ruled over, just dont try and take us with you. Useful idiot!!
Just as a reminder, appropriate force is allowed in support of the law, force is not allowed in resisting the law.
Perhaps you could enlighten us to where there is a law that allows ANYONE to use threats of deadly force (pointing guns) while effecting a CIVIL judgment?
Is your ex-wife allowed to pull a gun on you to pay child support? Or create "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles form where anyone can hear you if your opinion differs from hers?
Just as a reminder, "the force necessary to effect an arrest" is allowed in criminal violations and cases.
The only criminal violations anyone saw in those tense days at Gold Butte were those committed by the government.
Bundy's son who got tased? He was defying lawful orders and had driven his ATV into a government vehicle.
Got proof of that?
I saw him tased three times when he never even balled a fist, and his feet were squarely on the ground. (As the agent threw his aunt to the ground, and set the K-9 units on them.)
Just as a reminder, appropriate force is allowed in support of the law, force is not allowed in resisting the law.
Perhaps you could enlighten us to where there is a law that allows ANYONE to use threats of deadly force (pointing guns) while effecting a CIVIL judgment?
Is your ex-wife allowed to pull a gun on you to pay child support? Or create "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles form where anyone can hear you if your opinion differs from hers?
Just as a reminder, "the force necessary to effect an arrest" is allowed in criminal violations and cases.
The only criminal violations anyone saw in those tense days at Gold Butte were those committed by the government.
Apparently somebody said this to me awhile back and I didn't see it. I'd like to point out that I haven't advocated any illegal acts. I'd like to further point out as Rockinbar is saying, illegal acts are not limited to non-government personnel. It has also been pointed out several times that once the Nazi Party came to power, the Nazi's always acted under color of law and the Jews and other "undesirables" were always in violation of the law. As a consequence, the Jewish people were nearly exterminated.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Of course, it's to be expected especially on this Forum.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
It's a conspiracy! Government spies! We infiltrated years ago so we could be in place when the Bundy showdown happened.
Is that more likely than that we are fellow hunters and gun owners who disagree with some of you? Or is it not allowed to dissent with the dissenters?
I'm not pro Big Government, I'm anti law-by-militia.
There are a number of people on the Fire and they shall remain nameless but we all know who they are, would have made very good Nazis. "I was just following orders."
If the Constitution is going to have any validity as the supreme law of the land than force has to back it up. Hence, the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The present regime of King Barrack I is a lawless regime and the Constitution gives the people the right to use necessary force to enforce the Constitution on the regime if necessary much like the Magna Carta was forced on King John in 1215 by his barons.
We are at a serious crossroads in this country as to what direction we are going to go, is the Constitution going to be the supreme law of the land or merely a historical parchment document.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
It's a conspiracy! Government spies! We infiltrated years ago so we could be in place when the Bundy showdown happened.
Is that more likely than that we are fellow hunters and gun owners who disagree with some of you? Or is not allowed to dissent with the dissenters?
I'm not pro Big Government, I'm anti law-by-militia.
Oh you are a big government liberal alright and a agent provocateur.
To most people this doesn't make the militias look brave patriots, it makes them look like dangerous crackpots.
Perhaps. That is exactly the view Reid and his minions want you to take.
But it makes the BLM thugs that actually used violence look even worse to the people that are informed.
Reid didn't tell me what to believe.
So can you list the fatalities and injuries that resulted from that violence? I would say they used minimal force. They used so little force that they backed way completely. Bundy's son who got tased? He was defying lawful orders and had driven his ATV into a government vehicle.
They allowed at least one "protester" to point a rifle at them without killing him. That seems pretty patient to me.
Just as a reminder, appropriate force is allowed in support of the law, force is not allowed in resisting the law.
It's not the conservatives you have to worry about being violent and using weapons.
The liberals are the ones to fear. Liberals will use guns to take your liberties away.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
It's a conspiracy! Government spies! We infiltrated years ago so we could be in place when the Bundy showdown happened.
Is that more likely than that we are fellow hunters and gun owners who disagree with some of you? Or is not allowed to dissent with the dissenters?
I'm not pro Big Government, I'm anti law-by-militia.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Yes, I've noticed it as well. Very strange.
I have seen talk of things like this, but pretty much dismissed it as just that. Talk.
Until recently. Now I do certainly notice more and more people that joined 2 days ago and now post, but say they have been "lurkers" here for years. I notice people coming out of the woodworks that have had membership for years, but just now post...
Not saying anything is happening now that hasn't always been there, I'm just saying that you'd have to blind to not see it happening now.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Yes, I've noticed it as well. Very strange.
I actually think that in order for Ric to stay in business he has to let government agents on here to spew their government sanctioned propaganda. Their take on the Constitution is so far off "target" it's almost laughable.
BTW: Did you or anybody else on here see that there is a propaganda division hidden at SL32 of the WH that they now want to shed light on and make it a department or at least an agency? The name escapes me at the moment. For years I've been somewhat joking about the covert ministry of propaganda and low and behold it's real. Apparently, this covert division has been around for decades. I wonder how many other covert divisions are lurking out there.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Yes, I've noticed it as well. Very strange.
I actually think that in order for Ric to stay in business he has to let government agents on here to spew their government sanctioned propaganda. Their take on the Constitution is so far off "target" it's almost laughable.
BTW: Did you or anybody else on here see that there is a propaganda division hidden at SL32 of the WH that they now want to shed light on and make it a department or at least an agency? The name escapes me at the moment. For years I've been somewhat joking about the covert ministry of propaganda and low and behold it's real. Apparently, this covert division has been around for decades. I wonder how many other covert divisions are lurking out there.
It's likely been funded with all the money the CIA takes in from heroin, cocaine, and marijuana imports to the US.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Yes, I've noticed it as well. Very strange.
I actually think that in order for Ric to stay in business he has to let government agents on here to spew their government sanctioned propaganda. Their take on the Constitution is so far off "target" it's almost laughable.
BTW: Did you or anybody else on here see that there is a propaganda division hidden at SL32 of the WH that they now want to shed light on and make it a department or at least an agency? The name escapes me at the moment. For years I've been somewhat joking about the covert ministry of propaganda and low and behold it's real. Apparently, this covert division has been around for decades. I wonder how many other covert divisions are lurking out there.
It was a story on the national news on radio the other day. It makes sense that a national government as big as ours that wants to stay in power would have a ministry of propaganda.
It's not the conservatives you have to worry about being violent and using weapons.
The liberals are the ones to fear. Liberals will use guns to take your liberties away.
Extremists of all political stripes are dangerous. You don't hear "Muslim Moderates flew aircraft into the World Trade Center," or "Moderate Conservative blows up Federal Building" or "Moderate Liberals explode bomb at U.S. Capitol." It's extremists of all stripes that are so angry and paranoid and self-righteous that they think they can take the law into their own hands and kill people to further their own political goals.
Like it or not, a shoot-out with law enforcement over Bundy will be a propaganda windfall for those people who really DO want more gun control. We need the political support of moderate, non-gun owners.
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
Yes, I've noticed it as well. Very strange.
I have seen talk of things like this, but pretty much dismissed it as just that. Talk.
Until recently. Now I do certainly notice more and more people that joined 2 days ago and now post, but say they have been "lurkers" here for years. I notice people coming out of the woodworks that have had membership for years, but just now post...
Not saying anything is happening now that hasn't always been there, I'm just saying that you'd have to blind to not see it happening now.
It is most likely that the "hot and long" posts have caught their attention...and what is wrong with a dissenting view, it is how we test our own.
The last I looked these fora are predominately for firearms discussion and ownership and do not preclude those of a different political outlook or predilection. I for one do prefer to see a membership that can hold discourse both adversarial and amiable as it enlivens the topic and makes me think.
The far fringes of left or right are equally dangerous.
It is when the effects of current events offend the common man that action is taken. If a reasonable person sees the effects, then things can happen. Changes can be made.
It was a story on the national news on radio the other day. It makes sense that a national government as big as ours that wants to stay in power would have a ministry of propaganda.
Good God, you just reminded me of that silly "Ministry of dirty tricks" from Monte Python (at least I think it was from Monte Python).
It was a story on the national news on radio the other day. It makes sense that a national government as big as ours that wants to stay in power would have a ministry of propaganda.
Good God, you just reminded me of that silly "Ministry of dirty tricks" from Monte Python (at least I think it was from Monte Python).
We are a world superpower, i.e. empire, that's broke. The only way to stay in power is to use propaganda on the low information voter which is about 98% of the people in this country. This nation has always done well economically as long as it was at war declared or otherwise.
It's not the conservatives you have to worry about being violent and using weapons.
The liberals are the ones to fear. Liberals will use guns to take your liberties away.
Extremists of all political stripes are dangerous. You don't hear "Muslim Moderates flew aircraft into the World Trade Center," or "Moderate Conservative blows up Federal Building" or "Moderate Liberals explode bomb at U.S. Capitol." It's extremists of all stripes that are so angry and paranoid and self-righteous that they think they can take the law into their own hands and kill people to further their own political goals.
Like it or not, a shoot-out with law enforcement over Bundy will be a propaganda windfall for those people who really DO want more gun control. We need the political support of moderate, non-gun owners.
So do you consider Cliven Bundy a dangerous extremist?
I have to ask...why is it that all of a sudden when we've had a few hot and long threads here over the past month or so, that we've got all these "members" showing up with Registration Dates going way back to '03 or '04 or so. They've only got a few hundred posts though, at most, and nobody's ever heard of them? They're also all on the side of big government. Anybody else think that's strange?
I can't say if it's happening here,..but it's a huge initiative.
my gawd. what a bunch of dumbasses feeding off of each other. does any person here not on medication really believe that what we talk about on the campfire matters enough for .gov to send in the moles? jezus...
my gawd. what a bunch of dumbasses feeding off of each other. does any person here not on medication really believe that what we talk about on the campfire matters enough for .gov to send in the moles? jezus...
my gawd. what a bunch of dumbasses feeding off of each other. does any person here not on medication really believe that what we talk about on the campfire matters enough for .gov to send in the moles? jezus...
Have you been asleep these last ten years, Rumpelstiltskin?
yes, retard. click on my username and hit 'view posts'. you will see all of the posts fabricated to reinforce my 'cover'. just because it matters soooo much what people talk about on the 'fire.
just like all of the other moles... god it must be scary in your little world.
but rest assured we can't see your thoughts because of the multiple layers of tinfoil hats.
yes, retard. click on my username and hit 'view posts'. you will see all of the posts fabricated to reinforce my 'cover'. just because it matters soooo much what people talk about on the 'fire.
just like all of the other moles... god it must be scary in your little world.
Montana nearly went for Zero in 2008. Yet another voter shows his true colors. lol
yes, retard. click on my username and hit 'view posts'. you will see all of the posts fabricated to reinforce my 'cover'. just because it matters soooo much what people talk about on the 'fire.
just like all of the other moles... god it must be scary in your little world.
but rest assured we can't see your thoughts because of the multiple layers of tinfoil hats.
go look for the helicopters. that will give you some time...
Ouch! I bet you wish you could go back to elementary school with that level of rank out skill. You'd be untouchable.
The bottom line is that our 1st Amendment rights have been compromised for a long, long time and it has only been recently that there has been much of an awakening to that fact.
The bottom line is that our 1st Amendment rights have been compromised for a long, long time and it has only been recently that there has been much of an awakening to that fact.
add 4th Amendment rights, and I agree with you 100% on this point, and I see this as the biggest threat to the United States as we know it.
my gawd. what a bunch of dumbasses feeding off of each other. does any person here not on medication really believe that what we talk about on the campfire matters enough for .gov to send in the moles? jezus...
Careful They will label you a Troll for telling the truth
my gawd. what a bunch of dumbasses feeding off of each other. does any person here not on medication really believe that what we talk about on the campfire matters enough for .gov to send in the moles? jezus...
Careful They will label you a Troll for telling the truth
![[Linked Image]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlSsr09CAAAAYtK.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlEW16CCAAA-zkp.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.noisyroom.net/blog/fiore1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s2.photobucket.com/user/luv2safari/media/popcorngazelle_zps13571400.gif.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b489/jrobb400/E63EF1DA-D142-445F-BD27-464205126B8E_zpstdsp6h3u.jpg)
don't we wish
![[Linked Image]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhKQkzcCcAAEM8l.png)