Opposing worldviews: Bundy supporters 'patriots' – or 'terrorists'?

**HAPPY2BME** · 04-23-2014, 03:28 PM

How would you describe those who teamed up with Nevada rancher Clive Bundy in his standoff with federal authorities?

Patriots
Domestic terrorists
Somewhere in between those two

Patriots 87.5% (686 votes)

Domestic terrorists 2.68% (21 votes)

Somewhere in between those two 9.82% (77 votes)

Total Votes: 784

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com) Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Opposing worldviews: Bundy supporters 'patriots' – or 'terrorists'?

"President Obama refused to call the killer at Fort Hood a domestic terrorist. [In fact,] the administration called it 'workplace violence,'" he notes. "I don't believe Harry Reid ever had any problem with that term – and yet he calls these American citizens who gather in support of their neighbor 'domestic terrorists.'"

A conservative activist and political pundit is calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task for referring to citizens camping out in the Nevada desert as "domestic terrorists."
How would you describe those who teamed up with Nevada rancher Clive Bundy in his standoff with federal authorities?

During a recent debate on Nevada radio station KSNV, the political divide between Nevada's two U.S. senators became clear. Republican Dean Heller called the militia groups camped out at Clive Bundy's ranch "patriots," while Democrat Harry Reid labeled them "domestic terrorists." The standoff in Nevada continues as the federal government wants to prevent Bundy's cattle from grazing on public land in order to protect a desert tortoise. The government also argues the rancher owes grazing fees.

Robert Knight is a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for OneNewsNow and The Washington Times.

"You see a great divide here with Senator Heller ... defending the response of the citizens as 'patriotic' and Senator Reid coming down on them as 'terrorists.' They say this nation is divided in terms of worldview; I think it's on display right there," states the columnist.

While Reid is steadfastly defending his "domestic terrorist" comments, Knight wonders where the Democratic senator was when convicted mass murderer Nidal Hasan gunned down 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.

Knight, Robert (ACRU)

"President Obama refused to call the killer at Fort Hood a domestic terrorist. [In fact,] the administration called it 'workplace violence,'" he notes. "I don't believe Harry Reid ever had any problem with that term – and yet he calls these American citizens who gather in support of their neighbor 'domestic terrorists.'"

Knight believes Reid is angry that Bundy and his supporters are bucking the authority of the federal government, which Reid believes owns everything and to which citizens should be grateful for whatever it allows them to keep.

**HAPPY2BME** · 04-23-2014, 03:41 PM

Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame

And don’t think that if you just stay quiet that you won’t get labeled as a “terrorist”. In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist. Just check out the list below. It comes from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…

Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land? After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states.

Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more? Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy.

Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”. In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border…

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this. In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is saying…

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Does the federal government actually need more land?

As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states…

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent

The federal government does not need more land. But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.

The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like. If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green…

It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.

In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.

This was not what our founders intended.

Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans don’t even seem to care.

In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/ag...Y3YDMgii8oJ.99

**HAPPY2BME** · 04-23-2014, 04:30 PM

America's newest hero: Meet the real Cliven Bundy

Calling Reid a 'warmonger,' Nevada rancher reveals why he's unafraid of feds

“The thing about what Harry Reid’s saying,” the rancher told radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show, is that “he seems to be a warmonger, saying let’s have civil war!”

Cliven Bundy

By Sarah Kupelian

Cliven Bundy doesn’t normally do interviews on Sundays. But this Easter Sunday, the 67-year-old Nevada cattle rancher stepped out of his church, leaned up against the side wall and talked to America about what really matters to him deep down, revealing a side to him not normally seen in media interviews.

The first order of business, of course, was the Nevada standoff that has mesmerized the nation, and his response to Sen. Harry Reid’s incendiary accusation that the Bundy side are a bunch of “domestic terrorists.”

“The thing about what Harry Reid’s saying,” the rancher told radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show, is that “he seems to be a warmonger, saying let’s have civil war!”

In fact, Bundy said, “We people are not gonna put up with that no more. We’re not gonna have them guns pointin’ at us anymore. Not when we’re talking about an army of ‘We the People’ against ‘We the People.’ We can’t allow that to happen in America. That’s civil war!”

Bundy confirmed that he and the ranchers and others standing with him, tired of being abused by a government with unlimited power, are ultimately willing to die for their stance. But, he added, “I do respect the United States government. I pledge allegiance to that flag and honor it very much. But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that.”

Then, maybe because it was Easter Sunday, the interview went in a very different direction.

Asked by Linderman what makes him so unafraid in his current situation, Bundy replied:

“I don’t stand alone. I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”

Toward the end of the interview, Linderman asked, “One more question: Is there anything you’d like to say to the American people? Because I truly believe you’re a patriot.”

TRN host Dianne Linderman

“You know,” replied Bundy, “I woke up, I got out of my house, went down to my trail and watched the sun come up over the hills and the mountains here. And, of course, I thought of Jesus. And then the thought that I thought was that we the people of America, not only of America but of the whole world, what Jesus would want us to do, was forgive. Forgive our enemies, and He’ll take care of all the rest.

So my message to the world today is: Forgive your neighbors, forgive your wives, forgive your husbands and children, and feel the love of Jesus. That’s what He suffered for.

“I thank the people for their prayers and, again, I put my faith in my heavenly father and … we’re OK.”

Bundy’s wife, Carol, expressed the same faith to this writer when booking the radio interview: “This is the Lord’s battle,” she said. “He is calling the shots, and we are just standing here.”

Listen to Dianne Linderman’s entire 18-minute Easter interview with Cliven Bundy:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/americas-...AxbVwagYgX8.99

**JohnDoe2** · 04-23-2014, 05:04 PM

RELATED
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-30-days-anar/

**AirborneSapper7** · 04-23-2014, 05:04 PM

The Real Reason Americans are Enraged over the Cliven Bundy Situation

William Lafferty 8 hours ago
8 Comments

Americans from across the country travelled to Bunkerville, NV to show support for Cliven Bundy's struggle against the United States government. They did not come because they thought Bundy has a good case. In fact, they came in spite of the fact that he probably has a bad case: he has lost twice in federal court and on appeal. It wasn't the justice of Bundy's cause; it was the injustice of the government's treatment of him that fueled national indignation.
Americans have been increasingly subjected to unwarranted, unexplained, unacceptable and violent intrusions by federal, state, and local police agencies. These police intrusions are carried out by gangs of police dressed up in battle gear, pretending they are performing heroic acts on battlefields, and smashing front doors in the late hours of the night. They yank their victims out of bed, hold them at gunpoint, humiliate and embarrass whoever they can, and kill the family dog. When an intrepid homeowner manages to kill one of the intruders before he is overrun, thinking criminals have invaded his home, he is prosecuted for murder.

These raids have no place in a constitutional republic, and they are often carried out to arrest a single person or to seize small quantities of drugs. And that's when they've got the right house.
This kind of police attack happens 40,000 times a year.
The debacles at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX come to mind. In the case of Ruby Ridge, federal agents had lured Randy Weaver into a technical gun violation because he refused to be an informant for them. When he failed to appear in court, more than 700 federal agents, national guardsmen, state and local law enforcement officers laid siege to Weaver's plywood shack in the woods, where he lived with his wife and children. Before it was over, his wife was killed by a sniper at 200 meters while holding an infant, and his son was killed by MP5 fire from a "reconnaissance" police agent. Luckily, to protect its agents, the FBI had arranged for the presence of armored personnel carriers. [See Footnote 1]
In the case of Waco, an ATF swat team attempted to break into the religious compound of David Koresh and his followers. With typical ATF incompetence, they dressed themselves in full battle gear and were literally shot off the roof where they had attempted to force entry. After the ATF returned home for re-training, the FBI took over and laid siege. Janet Reno, the Attorney General at the time, expressed concern about the children within the compound. After the FBI set fire to the compound ... are you ready for this... with a tank, they managed to kill more than a dozen of the children they were concerned about along with sixty or seventy adults.
In the Ruby Ridge and Waco cases, one has to ask, Why didn't you just knock on the door?" Were you afraid? Aren't you always boasting about putting your lives "on the line"? If you couldn't knock on the door, why not wait for the person of interest to show up in town and arrest him there? [See Footnote 2]
In spite of similarities in all of the police malfeasance cases, there is, however, a significant difference between the Bundy case, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and most of the other 40,000 police invasion cases that occur every year: a court had determined that Bundy was a wrongdoer, enjoined him from going on the federal land, and authorized the BLM to seize Bundy's cattle to satisfy the debt. [Footnote 3] Not only that, but the Bundy dispute with the BLM had been going on for years. The first lawsuit was filed by BLM in 1998. A second was filed in 2013 because Bundy's cattle were grazing on more federal land than had been covered in the 1998 suit. It can hardly be claimed that the government rushed into confrontation.
So why, then, the public outrage? Most police abuse cases are carried out in the dead of night in secret. By the time news cameras get there, the bodies have already been carried away and the terrorized victims are gone. All that remains is the shell of what used to be a nice house. But in this case, BLM was unfortunate enough to appear suited up for an imaginary war in daylight, ready to fire on unarmed citizens for no apparent reason, tazing them and putting dogs on them. This was seen by millions of viewers on national television, and the emotional resentment that had been building for years against a government police state and its arrogance boiled over. It should have boiled over. It was time for it to boil over. And when it boiled over, many of those watching wanted to join the protesters and say to the police, "Go ahead and shoot us. See what happens then."
What is at issue here is the arrogance of power. Never mind that BLM may have ended up in a confrontation with Bundy no matter what they did. They were suited up on national television in broad daylight with their guns, helmets and ballistic shields, and they looked like all the other thugs that have done this in other parts of the country for years. They looked like police thugs, they quacked like police thugs, and so in the minds of most people, they were police thugs.
The 40,000 annual police invasion outrages that preceded Bundy are indicative of the failure of government officials to understand their responsibilities and the nature of a constitutional republic. Obama doesn't get it; Harry Reid doesn't get it; the BLM doesn't get it; the FBI doesn't get it; Homeland Security doesn't get it, and we need not even mention the ATF. The degree of police ignorance is well-illustrated in the Bundy case by BLM's creating a small area fenced in with orange plastic and labeled "FIRST AMENDMENT AREA." That is emblematic of the police idea of citizens' rights.
The problem is that, in a constitutional republic, citizens are to be treated with respect and with restraint of government power. They are to be given every opportunity to cooperate. This opportunity will often be abused, but that is the price of living in a democracy. And the police are paid to withstand this affront.
Although the management of police activity is routinely turned over to the police itself, they are the least competent to manage this task. As a class, police have no understanding of constitutional rights and no interest in understanding. They did not sign on to be restrained; they signed on to impose their will and demand a subservience they could not as individuals otherwise command. If you want to enrage a population, turn over management of constitutional rights to the police.
Add to this that other government actions are some version of police malfeasance: the collapse of health care with the emergence of death panels, the engagement of the federal government in one scandal after another; government intrusion in private communications; government use of the IRS to punish political opponents, the Congressional Contempt of the U.S. Attorney General, and government advocacy of a "politically correct" environment in which certain words unacceptable to the government may not be said. Yeah, I'd say people were ready to respond to the next high profile event.
It was wise of the government to back off. It is likely that the men and women who were ready to die would have died had there been an armed conflict. BLM was flirting with the modern equivalent of Lexington and Concord.
Harry Reid, the shrunken little man he is, can appear on television and call the Bundy supporters "domestic terrorists," but the reality is that Harry Reid and the police-state government he represents brought the country to the brink of civil war.
The idea of government restraint is hardly new. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had this to say in 1954:
Probably the most important function of government is the exercise of the police power for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety and morals, and it is true that, to accomplish that purpose, the legislature may limit the enjoyment of personal liberty and property.. . . But, . . . the power is not unrestricted; its exercise, like that of all other governmental powers, is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. By a host of authorities, Federal and State alike,[1] it has been held that a law which purports to be an exercise of the police power must not be unreasonable, unduly oppressive or patently beyond the necessities of the case, and the means which it employs must have a real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained. Under the guise of protecting the public interests, the legislature may not arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.

Gambone v. Commonwealth, 375 Pa. 547 (1954).

Although this statement of the law technically applies only to Pennsylvania, the ideas involved apply to every state. The police power of government, and by implication of police agencies, "is not unrestricted. . . . [Its exercise] must not be unreasonable, unduly oppressive or patently beyond the necessities of the case.. .."
Oppressive conduct patently beyond the necessities of the case is exactly what is involved in modern police para-military activity, and what explains the outpouring of support for the Bundys.

Footnote 1

The FBI requested that Weaver be an undercover informant against the Aryan Nations white supremacist group. He refused. In retaliation, the FBI then set him up by having agents pose as persons who wanted to buy a gun from Weaver. At the insistence of undercover agents who were buying a shotgun, Weaver cut off the barrel of the shotgun less than an inch shorter than allowed by "law" in order to consummate the sale. This is what justified an assault with more than 700 FBI agents and the deployment of armored vehicles.

Footnote 2

Time magazine in its interview with a former BLM director Patrick Shea re-enforces the idea of lesser intrusive approaches:
There are plenty of ways for the government to recoup the money Bundy owes, Shea says, from placing liens on his property to collecting proceeds when the cattle go to slaughter. When you have been waiting a generation to resolve a dispute, what's another few weeks?

Footnote 3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cliven Bundy's Motion to Dismiss (#28) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior. U.S. v. Bundy

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/real-reason-americans-enraged-cliven-bundy-situation/

Thread: Opposing worldviews: Bundy supporters 'patriots' – or 'terrorists'?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Opposing worldviews: Bundy supporters 'patriots' – or 'terrorists'?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

We must push through early Thurs at this critical moment

Joe Biden’s Latest Billions for Ukraine Could Build Entire U.S....

Victor Reacts: They Aren’t Hiding it Anymore, Biden Wants Mass...

Virginia County Repeatedly Released Illegal Alien Charged with...

Big Apple Brawl: Weapon-Wielding Migrants Beat the Tar Out of...

Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Rense Apr 23, 2024 talking...

Ukraine-Israel Bill Secretly Funds Biden's invasion!

Congressman Eli Crane says Biden administration is stonewalling...

Giant Laken Riley Billboard Truck Circles Biden’s Speaking Venue...

Washington Post Editors: Rebuild Middle America with Mass...