Thread: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

http://www.alipac.us/f9/bundy-ranch-...rnment-301167/

Video at link below:

Feds accused of leaving trail of wreckage after Nevada ranch standoff

By William La Jeunesse

Published April 16, 2014FoxNews.com


Facebook380 Twitter210 Gplus7
The federal agency that backed down over the weekend in a tense standoff with a Nevada rancher is being accused of leaving a trail of wreckage behind.
Fox News toured the damage -- allegedly caused by the Bureau of Land Management -- which included holes in water tanks and destroyed water lines and fences. According to family friends, the bureau's hired "cowboys" also killed two prize bulls.

"They had total control of this land for one week, and look at the destruction they did in one week," said Corey Houston, friend of rancher Cliven Bundy and his family. "So why would you trust somebody like that? And how does that show that they're a better steward?"
The BLM and other law enforcement officials backed down on Saturday in their effort to seize Bundy's cattle, after hundreds of protesters, some armed, arrived to show support for the Bundy family. In the end, BLM officials left the scene amid concerns about safety, and no shots were fired.
The dispute between the feds and the Bundy family has been going on for years; they say he owes more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees -- and long ago revoked his grazing rights over concern for a federally protected tortoise. They sent officials to round up his livestock following a pair of federal court orders last year giving the U.S. government the authority to impound the cattle.
The feds, though, are being accused of taking the court orders way too far.
On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.
However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.
"Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle," Houston said.
Bundy's friends say the BLM wranglers told them the bulls were shot because they were dangerous and could gore their horses. One bull was shot five times.
But Houston said the pen holding the bull wasn't even bent. "It's not like the bull was smashing this pen and trying tackle people or anything," he said. "The pen is sitting here. It hasn't moved. No damage whatsoever. Where was the danger with that bull?"
Plus he said BLM vehicles appear to have crushed a tortoise burrow near the damaged water tank. "How's that conservation?" he asked.
The BLM has not yet responded to a request for comment on these allegations.
Bundy has refused to pay the grazing fees or remove his cattle, and doesn't even acknowledge the federal government's authority to assess or collect damages.
The bureau has said if Bundy wasn't willing to pay, then they would sell his cattle.
However, there was a problem with that plan -- few in Nevada would touch Bundy's cattle for fear of being blacklisted.
"The sale yards are very nervous about taking what in the past has been basically stolen cattle from the federal government," Nevada Agriculture Commissioner Ramona Morrison said.
Documents show the BLM paid a Utah cattle wrangler $966,000 to collect Bundy's cattle and a Utah auctioneer to sell them. However, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines, saying in a letter: "As Governor of Utah, I urgently request that a herd of cattle seized by the Bureau of Land Management from Mr. Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada, not be sent to Utah. There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being, if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah."
That letter was sent three days before the BLM round-up, which is why the cattle were still being held Saturday in temporary pens just a few miles from Bundy's ranch. Morrison says BLM was sitting on cattle because it had no way to get rid of them -- setting up a potential tragedy as orphaned calves were not getting any milk and feed costs were about to skyrocket.
The showdown is far from over. The BLM says it will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially," though Bundy still doesn't recognize federal authority over the federal lands that he continues to use in violation of a court order. The federal judge who issued that decision says Bundy's claims "are without merit."
That order from October 2013 says Bundy owes $200 per day per head for every day he fails to move his cattle. That amounts to roughly $640 million in damages owed to the federal government for illegally grazing his cattle.
William La Jeunesse joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in March 1998 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based correspondent.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...anch-standoff/

Fox News toured the damage -- allegedly caused by the Bureau of Land Management -- which included holes in water tanks and destroyed water lines and fences. According to family friends, the bureau's hired "cowboys" also killed two prize bulls.

LOL only accused I guess they don't have proof of that occurring!!!!

Judge Napolitano: Bundy Ranch Standoff is “Becoming the Last Straw” With This Admin & Big Government

Posted on April 15, 2014 by BMartin1776



Published on Apr 15, 2014
Reid & The Ranch - Judge Andrew Napolitano Weighs In - Hannity
==============================*=========**=*==
==============================*=========**=*==




“…this is becoming the last straw not only with this administration in particular but with big government in general. It’s an in-your-face, overly aggressive, overly harsh unnecessary enforcement of a federal court order using militaristic tactics that are not necessary in modern society in order to enforce. And because of people like you and other colleagues of ours here at Fox and even elsewhere the American public is rallying against federal government.”

The Judge weighed in to double down on his previous statement that the people have drawn a line in the sand against the bullying of the federal govt. He reiterates regardless of who is right or wrong in this case that the use of heavily armed men and militaristic tactics are not necessary when all the feds had to do was put a lien on Cliven Bundy’s property for the unpaid taxes. Instead we witness the heavy-handed thuggery of the obama federal govt.

I don’t think it has settled in folks heads yet of how out of control this govt has become. They surrounded a US citizen with a small army, set up sniper positions all over cattle grazing on public land in which taxes haven’t been paid!!

As for the rumors of a raid what would be the grounds? Unpaid taxes? Bundy hasn’t done anything illegal, he is not running arms, drugs, contraband etc to justify a raid. I highly doubt he has $1 million in cash lying around for the obama stormtroopers to seize. They already tried seizing his cattle and that backfired with a show of strength by the people. People who are still in place and ready to go! If regime stormtroopers did attempt a raid it would end badly for both sides, that said it would be foolish for the feds to go in.

http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/20...g-government/#


If they wanted to get his grazing fee's so bad why did they wait so long he stopped paying his grazing fee's in 1993. Why did they lie and say it had to do with the tortoises? All of a sudden they want to enforce this now???? All of a sudden, is any one out there at least partially awake??? Could it have anything to with a land confiscation deal for nefarious purpose's? Ding Ding!!!! Does it ring a bell that the Rancher did not want to sell his land, as did other Ranchers before him??? Even though he was approached many times and still refused??? Why isn't there an investigation into the 50 other Ranch families they drove out????? Does Senator Reid and his Sons being involved in the deal ring a bell????? Does Solar in this man desert ring a bell?? Why wasn't it taken by emminent domain??? Had to be a very good reason or it would have been don't ya think???? Does crap and traitor and the whole green energy thing ring a bell? Should you follow the money yet?????? Does China ring a bell???? And BTW isn't selling America's land to a foreign entity a traitorous thing to do, or illegal, or morally wrong, or something???? It is also very interesting to me that the media is right behind this in not mentioning that it is a land deal with China, put together by Senator Reid's Family?????? Or is it?? Can we for once say corruption, land crabs, etc etc etc. Because that is what it really is!!! America needs to wake up, it is almost too late. They are selling America right out from under us and no one is doing anything about it. Is there any one out there awake???

It’s Always Been About Land: And The Feds Own WAY Too Much Of It

By Audrey Russo / 16 April 2014









Land has always been a precious commodity. The new settlers to America could NEVER have owned property in Europe due to their paucity. Our Founders knew that, and took the powers of the Magna Carta (the foundation of British liberties) all the way to the liberties we now enjoy.
But there have been, and always will be, those who seek to take those liberties away…
The Bundy Ranch incident brought attention to a critical issue: How much land does the Federal government own?
The answer: WAY too much!
According to the U.S. General Services Administration, the Federal government has direct ownership of almost 30% of all US land. More precisely, 650 million acres of land. It’s managed by varied agencies, such as: the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The majority of Federal land is in the Midwest/West, and the States where 40% and above are now federally owned, are:
Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%
Granted, there are legitimate Federal Lands, such as Military bases…but, one must ask Americans of those States (listed): Did they know that the Feds owned so much land? When and how did they acquire it? Were the citizens, of those States, asked to vote on a referendum to give those lands to the Feds? And if not, WHY not?
We have seen, in recent years, an aggressive abuse of Eminent Domain, which departed from the Fifth Amendment (taking of property must be for public use and just compensation must be paid)…of which the common understanding was that private land would be taken for the use of public utilities, highways, schools and railroads. With more and more progressives (on both sides of the aisle) moving back to the days of fiefdoms and Feudalism…and thanks to an out-of-control Supreme Court, expanding the definition of Eminent Domain BACK to that tyrannical time: ‘”We the people” need to wake up before we are trampled by those not merely wearing Red Coats…but by those who are RED to the core!
We need to ask ourselves: Does the property, we have arduously labored to own and pass on to our posterity, matter to us? Should we have a say in what happens to the land in our State? If you can answer YES…then it’s time to get answers from your representatives, locally and nationally. (Remember: They work for YOU.)
From its inception, our great nation has stood for liberty for “we the people”. And from its inception, our enemies…within and without…have desired to take that liberty away.
I want to keep mine…how about you?
Image: Courtesy of: http://viewpointsofasagittarian.com/...es-operations/


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/always...glWgUsPXcjr.99

Judge Nap: ‘I Was Shocked To See That The BLM Has Armed Troops’

April 16, 2014

http://libertycrier.com/judge-nap-sh...2488-284711521

Judge Andrew Napolitano reacted to the latest developments in the Nevada ranch standoff, telling Elisabeth Hasselbeck that the federal government has acted inappropriately and is trying to scare the Bundy family.
Fox and Friends played an audio clip of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) special agent, who maintained that federal agents respect the Constitution and “understand free speech.” He argued that the BLM was trying to avoid conflict, noting that some of the protesters were “holding rocks above their heads to throw at police officers.”
Napolitano recalled that he was shocked to see that BLM agents were armed.
Judge Nap: ‘I Was Shocked To See That The BLM Has Armed Troops’ [continued]


Read more at http://libertycrier.com/judge-nap-shocked-see-blm-armed-troops/#XH1JJ09sUf1LFLe1.99



Can we say land confiscation, for nefarious purposes ?????

http://americanthinker.com/cartoons/...m_medium=email

Published on Apr 16, 2014
The worldview in Washington can be disturbing, especially when it comes to the rules we're all expected to follow.

By now, many Americans have heard that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid weighed in on the tensions in his home state of Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.

Regarding Bundy, Sen. Reid was quoted as saying: "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over."

Mr. Bundy made headlines after the BLM confiscated his cattle on federal land, alleging that he was behind on paying his grazing fees.

The situation intensified when hundreds of protesters showed up to support Bundy. Some of them were armed and faced off against the BLM. The BLM backed down—at least for now.

And while the BLM reportedly returned Bundy's cattle to him, the situation could change quickly—and perhaps drastically.
Reid's view of the law presupposes that the rules Mr. Bundy is expected to follow are fair and constitutional.

Like many of Washington's politicians, Reid often speaks of "the rule of law." But the Washington establishment usually sees the "rule of law" as unquestioning obedience to rules and regulations—no matter how heavy-handed or unfair those rules may be.

The rule of law, which actually means that no one is above the law, also means that all people and all institutions are held to the same standard—regardless of their stature.

The concept also assumes that laws are written in a just and fair manner for the common good—and not as a tool that the powerful can use to feather their own nest, hurt rivals or subdue citizens.

On this basis, it's all-the-more disturbing that Reid has repeatedly gotten his hands dirty. For example:

· In January, Reid became the target of an ethics and conflict-of-interest complaint after helping a politically-connected casino in Nevada get visas for foreign investors. The Washington-based group Cause of Action accused Reid of violating the Senate's code of conduct.

· Moreover, Cliven Bundy may have been targeted because a Chinese energy giant, the ENN Energy Group, wants to use federal land in its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in southern Nevada.

· And Sen. Harry Reid's son, Rory, is representing ENN in its efforts to locate in Nevada. The targeted area reportedly includes the federal land in Clark County which Bundy uses.

Meanwhile, the BLM may have its own conflict.
NaturalNews.com reports: "The [BLM] says its 200-man armed siege of the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada is all about protecting an endangered tortoise. But a Natural News investigation has found that BLM is actually in the business of raking in millions of dollars by leasing Nevada lands to energy companies that engage in fracking operations."

Cliven Bundy's son, Aman, remarked that if Reid "lacks the moral fiber" to see that the Bundy family properly stood up for their rights, then Reid should be "kicked out of office."

Beyond that, April 19th is just around the corner—representing the 21st anniversary of the federal government's deadly seige near Waco, Texas. It'd be wise to keep a close eye on the BLM, despite claims that it has backed down.

If the "rule of law" means anything, it means that the Bundy family's rights should be respected —even while the federal players involved are in no position to lecture the nation on the rule of law.

Download your free Next News "Heroes & Villains" Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h...

Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3


About:
Next News Network's WHDT World News program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://NNN.is/on-WHDT

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT

#DC

• Category
  
  News & Politics
  
  
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License
  
  

Why does federal government own 84% of Nevada and what can Reid do to give it back?

April 16, 2014 by Jonathon Moseley 117 Comments

Many say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could easily arrange for his home state to get back most of the 84 percent of Nevada territory owned and controlled by the federal government. So does the Democrat represent the interests of Nevada, or does he put the interests of the U.S. government and the Democratic Party over his own state’s needs?
Nevada would get what it deserves if Reid drafted a measure to treat Nevada the same way as other states. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives would eagerly vote to treat Nevada like a grown-up. Instead, Reid runs the U.S. Senate with an iron fist, to the detriment of his own voters.
Renegade rancher Cliven Bundy raised a question during the hair-raising show-down between the Bureau of Land Management and the militia supporting the cattle rancher. Bundy says he was paying grazing fees to Clark County, but that the county stopped accepting his payments. Bundy insists that Nevada, not the U.S. government, owns the land where his cattle graze.
According to the ranchers’ argument, the federal government “owned” or controlled every territory before it became a state, but once statehood was reached, the land became the property of the new state.
So how is it that the U.S. government owns 84 percent of Nevada? It certainly looks like Nevada citizens are being treated unfairly. It is almost as if Washington, D.C., is treating Nevada like a child that can’t manage itself.
Photo: WND Facebook

Many Western states were treated unequally when they joined the Union. Unlike Eastern states, Congress reserved vast amounts of federally-owned land in the “Enabling Acts” for statehood in the West. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires an act of Congress to create a state. Keeping the majority of land in federal control seems in conflict with the very concept of statehood. The second paragraph of Section 4 appears to authorize this bizarre practice. But on closer inspection, that is far from clear.
The Nevada Constitution includes an “Ordinance” section that adopts the requirements of the congressional Enabling Act. A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own “unappropriated land” within the state, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”
Las Vegas Review Journal reported in December:

Some Nevadans, particularly from the rural areas of the state, have been pushing the idea of a state takeover of federal lands for years.
Supporters were successful in the 2013 session of the Nevada Legislature in getting a measure passed to allow for a study of the concept.
The group created by Assembly Bill 227, the Nevada Land Management Task Force, has been charged with evaluating whether the state should consider taking over control of some of the public lands now managed by federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, which controls 76 percent of the land in the state.
The task force will submit its findings to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands by Sept. 1.

All these years later, Congress could easily right this discriminatory wrong. As the leader of the U.S. Senate, Reid could propose a change reverting the property to Nevada’s control, and Republicans in the House would enthusiastically agree.
Nevada voters should tell the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to end the discrimination against Nevada and release the “unappropriated territory” to the management and ownership of their own state government.

About Jonathon Moseley

Jonathon Moseley is a Board member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party, and Executive Director of American Border Control. He served as Executive Director of the Legal Affairs Council.
The opinions expressed by our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of BizPac Review.

Bundy Ranch: The Land and its Masters Revealed (sync fixed)



Bundy Ranch: The Land and its Masters Revealed


NextNewsNetwork·2,574 videos


Published on Apr 16, 2014
Since the Bundy Ranch story broke last week and culminated in a tense standoff with Federal agents on Saturday resulting in the release of the Bundy Ranch cattle we have been following the money. On the 10th we reported the Militia arrived in the area and cited a former BLM volunteer and Nevada Land Broker who revealed to us the true value of the land and the parties interested in it. In our on-going investigation into the money behind the Bundy Ranch Land Grab we present former BLM Volunteer Rusty Hill's Records Research detailing his first hand experience in the Bunkerville area, its value to the Military Industrial complex - and most notably the corporations that bear Harry Reid's own name in Bunkerville,- bordering USA lands and the Bundy Ranch.

So why do they want this land? Water, access to land, privacy and mineral rights - notably Magnesium Dolomite with one of its military applications as solid rocket fuel found in Tomahawk cruise missiles - friends it is much more than Chinese solar power.

In this investigation we provide the historical context to the lands around the Bundy Ranch, the mineral value of the land and it's application in weapons manufacturing.

But here is where it get's interesting. Using the public records from Clark County we disclose irregularities and anomalies in the public record of the sale prices of land surrounding the Bundy Ranch owned by the BLM, Cedar Development Corp, Zion Bank Corp, Bunkerville Compound LLC, AND Reid Bunkerville LLC who you will discover "paid nothing for the land"

This research reveals the highly suspicious activity surrounding the Bureau of land management, Cedar Development Corp, Zion Bank Corp and Reid Bunkerville LLC.

Due to the use of government force to remove Bundy "trespass cattle" and the lands that Reid Bunkerville LLC received at ZERO cost we can draw a line to their desire to run him off his land for their own gain - an American whose family settled that land over 100 years ago.

It's time for a congressional investigation.

Gary Franchi reporting for the Next News Network.

Download your free Next News "Heroes & Villains" Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h...

Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

Military Footage Courtesy:
MiitaryNotes YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Military...
Video by Spc. Neil Stanfield. 03.27.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmhuQ...

Research mapping footage courtesy Google Earth
Records Courtesy: Clark County Records
Research by Russell Hill
Studio Camera: Devin Hansen
Producer Reporting: Gary Franchi

• Category
  
  News & Politics
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License

---

This has more information on why they want the Bundy land..Gary Franchi claims it is for the water, and it is very interesting on who owns the surrounding land and more interesting is the fact the some one never paid for that land!!!!

AN INCONVENIENT RANCHER: BLM Docs Show Feds’ Solar Plan Targets Bundy for Elimination

By Donald Joy / 17 April 2014 / 53 Comments

Once upon a time there were more than fifty cattle ranches operating in the area of Southern Nevada where Cliven Bundy, with the help of numerous armed patriots from all over, is making his stand against the abusive, bankrupting tactics of the bullying federal government.
Now, there is only one rancher and his family left.
After several generations of his ancestors’ having use of the land in question, Bundy is literally the “last man standing” in what is, evidently, a long-range vendetta against ranchers by land-grabbing federal bureaucrats who, also literally, have gone power mad–that is, mad for solar power scams (among other things) and all the big-dollar green graft that comes with it.
By now we all know that the official claim, that the confrontation has to do with protecting desert tortoises, is mostly just steaming bull patties.
ClashDaily.com has obtained evidence which indicates that the desert showdown at the Bundy ranch is actually the result of an expansive and ruthless federal strategy, aimed at bankrupting and driving away every last cattle rancher through increasingly exorbitant fees and endless rules, conditions, and red-tape. This is in order to clear the way for more politically-correct and politically connected (Sen. Harry Reid, his son, and a Chinese energy conglomerate) agendas such as solar energy boondoggles as far as the eye can see.
In a 77-page Federal Bureau of Land Management document titled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,”key aspects of the government’s overall plan for facilitating massive solar energy projects in the region are discussed, specifically including the land where Bundy’s ranch is located. The report is linked here:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...dat/TN_444.pdf
Interesting note: In the process of writing this article, the link to the above document suddenly went “dead,” with only the following message showing–
“The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website (www.blm.gov) and all associated websites/pages are currently unavailable due to planned maintenance on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 starting at 8:00 PM Mountain Time until approximately Midnight Mountain Time. The total outage time should be no more than 4 hours.”
Hmmmm. This comes on the heels of numerous reports from around the web that other key documents have been deleted from the BLM website in recent days, while the Bundy ranch situation has unfolded. (real transparent, Harry & Barry!)
Fortunately, ClashDaily.com‘s Doug Giles had the presence of mind to download/save the above document, which you can read here: Click Here to See the PDF
One of the other key documents is titled “Cattle Trespass Impacts & History of Cattle Trespass,” and it specifically discusses problems associated with Cliven Bundy’s livestock (yes, Bundy is mentioned by name multiple times) getting in the way of/interfering with contingencies to mitigate environmental impacts of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands.” Presuming BLM restores their website by the time you read this, it is linked here:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...%20Oct2012.pdf
In case the BLM website continues to deprive you of access to that crucial report at the link, here are screenshots of key portions of it:


Suppose that Cliven Bundy had caved in and paid the disputed federal grazing fees all along. Do you suppose he’d have been able to stay in business, where others went bust? If so, would it even make any difference as to what the “authorities” have planned for the site? Seems they’d want him gone regardless, and would use any tactic, reasonable or not, to try get rid of him.
Cliven Bundy’s ranch and cattle exist directly in the path of very powerful interests’ conflicting intentions for the land. The deals Harry Reid and his son are involved in with a Chinese government-owned energy firm are well-documented by authoritative sources such as Reuters, and by now everyone knows that Reid’s former top advisor now runs the BLM.
If not for Bundy’s principled stubbornness in resisting heeding the escalating fees and conditions demanded from him over the years by the feds, combined with our U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and social media, we’d probably never have heard of the Bundy family. The government would have just bankrupted him and pushed him off the land as they did to all the other inconvenient ranchers over the years.
The feds have a court order they say they are trying to enforce. Since when does this corrupt administration act with anything remotely resembling good faith to our nation’s passed laws, to its own proper role and authority, or even to court rulings? Please.
In this real-life, modern Western saga of “cowboys and communists,” the dust has only been kicked up a little, and so far the cowboys and their patriot allies have held firm the line and won the day. If push comes to shove, what kind of people do you trust to carry this nation forward? Heroes who stand up to the organized federal shakedown racket, like Clive Bundy and company, or Harry Reid and his agents of a corrupt regime?


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/inconv...jsbwbaFBQou.99

• Share
  
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  
  

Actual 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”