Thread: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

Inside Bunkerville: Source Gives Insight on “Government Mole” Thought to be Roaming the Camps

Dean Garrison 29 mins ago

Earlier in the week I published a report about thepotential of one or more feds that may have infiltrated the militia forces in Bunkerville. This article was read by a gentleman who was there and he sent me an email. Because of the nature of the situation, he wants to remain anonymous for now. I will tell you, however, that this source is extremely credible.

Before I go on, let's revisit the video report from earlier in the week:

video at link below

Keep in mind that these reports are opinion. The report from my source is no different. But the difference between these opinions and mine is that they are there and they have seen what is happening.

My source wanted me to get the word out so that I might be able to help. The last thing we need to do is raise the level of paranoia that is already present. So, if there are any others in Bunkerville who might read this I want to tell you that there is someone among you that is concerned. The concern is not over a government mole that may or may not be in your midst. The concern is that this mole has the chance to destroy what is happening in Bunkerville and potentially turn you against each other.

The Idea is that this "Mole" is Trying to Turn the Bunkerville Patriots Against Each Other

When I thought of a fed, or a few feds, who may have infiltrated the operations in Bunkerville, my first presumption was that they may be gathering info and gaining a foothold to make arrests.

Again, we don't even know if the feds are on the inside but there certainly seem to be some people on the scene who believe that.

My source believes that this may be more of a "psyop" than an attempt to overwhelm and overpower:

I just returned home today from Bunkerville. It was a return trip for me as I was also present for the standoff in the riverbed on the 12th and, in fact, stood facing several swat members. Your suggestion that there is a mole in the camps is right on and I think it is one of the personal militia that is protecting the Bundy house. On several occasions while I was there, one of these men would come down and make the rounds at the various camps and sure enough, when they left tempers were flaring. The Arizona militia camp blaming the Oathkeepers camp for doing or saying something and vice versa.

Wouldn't it be convenient if we all just killed each other and saved the feds the trouble? We also had a federal presence in Mesquite, although they did try and lay a little lower than they had when we were there on the previous occasion.

I believe the fed's goal is to turn these groups against each other. With the number of people volunteering, the lack of sleep and hot, dusty conditions tempers are quick. This is a powder keg for someone with the will and knowledge to turn these people against each other.

Just hoping you will continue to focus at least part of your attention on a situation that the feds may succeed in turning into a very ugly battle. Hopefully, if we keep a bit of a spotlight on the people there standing up, let them know we believe in what they're doing, we can keep tempers cool?

I redacted one paragraph from the email because it gave a little bit too much personal info. My source does not want to reveal who he is, yet, because he plans to return to Bunkerville.

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much, but it does make me think of the famous Sun Tzu quote from The Art of War, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Any opinions I would give at this point are from a guy who sits in his easy chair some 1000+ miles from the action. I get some correspondence directly from the front lines but, for the most part, I am just like the rest of you and I read about these things. To my knowledge, The Bundys have not addressed this and it is probably best if they do not until proof is present and they have had a chance to deal with any issues internally.

So today I am hoping that we can just send a message that might make it to one person in Bunkerville. And maybe if it does that person can pass the word on to others in the camps.

We are very proud of you. You are in our thoughts and prayers. I don't know the reality of any infiltrators who may, or may not, be in your midst, but if they are there then they want to see you fall apart. They want to see you divided and frustrated. Nothing would give them greater pleasure than to drive you away and have you not return.

You cannot allow that to happen. This is bigger than Cliven Bundy. The press is trying to destroy his credibility by labeling him a racist. Lawmakers are now doing an 180 to try to "save face," but the Patriots still stand with you because we know the truth about Cliven Bundy, and we realize that this is not about Bundy alone. It is about America.

There comes a time in life when you have to trust people. You must trust in each other and trust in God to find a way to deliver you from the clutches of the enemy. If there are weak links that are working against the team then you can succeed in spite of them. A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted but if you let the unseen enemy live rent free in your head then they have already done what they have set out to do. You are stronger than that. The fact that you are there, while many of us sit and watch gives testament to who you are.

You are more than talk.
You are "love of country."
You are action.
You are sacrifice.
You are the III%.

My heart swells with American Pride and it's hard to hold back the tears when I think of the Bunkerville Patriots. Honestly, I can't hold back the tears right now. All I want to say is that we love you and that we are very proud of you. There are tens of millions of people on your side and we will not forget that you made this stand for us.

Stay strong Patriots.

There is nothing that can tear you apart unless you allow it.

Nothing.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/in...BqchdS8Y3fd.99

Originally Posted by kathyet2

. . . BTW for a seperate point of contention, a few of you here were trying to say to me the solar stuff was bunk...Well for your information, here in Las Vegas, Nevada last night, on a local news station, there was a call out for 400 people that needed to be hired. The company that is hiring is called First Solar, they are some where up in Moapa, Nevada 20 miles or so from the Bundy Ranch cut off!! Ding Ding Ding!!! Don't get me wrong I think the jobs are great but the circumstances surrounding this are slightly suspicious. The name First Solar is also very familiar!!!!

Wake up America the Fall is almost here, it is almost achieved for them, the wolves are at the door!!!!!!! See something say something, I'm just say'in . . .

1. First Solar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Solar‎
   
   Wikipedi
   
   First Solar, Inc. is anAmerican manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic (PV) modules, or solar panels, and a provider of PV power plants and supporting services ...

First Solar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type	Public company (NASDAQ: FSLR) S&P 500 Component
Founded	1999 (as First Solar Holdings, LLC)
Headquarters	Tempe, Arizona, U.S.
Key people	Michael J. Ahearn, Chairman ofSupervisory Board, James Hughes, CEO
Revenue	US$3.37 billion (FY 2012)[1]
Operating income	–US$37.6 million (FY 2012)[1]
Net income	–US$96.3 million (FY 2012)[1]
Total assets	US$6.35 billion (FY 2012)[1]
Total equity	US$3.61 billion (FY 2012)[1]
Employees	5,600 (2012)[1]
Website	www.firstsolar.com

First Solar, Inc. is an American manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic (PV) modules, or solar panels, and a provider of PV power plants and supporting services that include finance, construction, maintenance and end-of-lifepanel recycling. First Solar uses cadmium telluride (CdTe) as a semiconductor to produce panels that are less expensive than those manufactured from crystalline silicon.^[2] In 2009, First Solar became the first solar panel manufacturing company to lower its manufacturing cost to $1 per watt^[3] (since reduced to 68 cents per watt).^[1][4]

The company was founded in 1990 by inventor Harold McMaster as Solar Cells, Inc. In 1999 it was purchased by True North Partners, LLC, who rebranded it as First Solar, Inc. The company went public in 2006, trading on the NASDAQ. Its current chief executive is James Hughes, who succeeded interim CEO Mike Ahearn on May 3, 2012.^[5] First Solar is based in Tempe, Arizona. As of 2010, First Solar was considered the second-largest maker of PV modules worldwide^[6] and ranked sixth in Fast Company’s list of the world's 50 most innovative companies.^[7]

In 2011, it ranked first on Forbes’s list of America’s 25 fastest-growing technology companies.^[8] It is listed on the Photovoltaik Global 30 Indexsince the beginning of this stock index in 2009. The company was also listed as No. 1 in Solar Power World magazine’s 2012 and 2013 rankings of solar contractors.^{[9] . . .}

The MOAPA PROJECT is on Indian land.

September 26, 2013

FIRST SOLAR ACQUIRES 250MW
MOAPA PROJECT IN NEVADA FROM K ROAD POWER

TEMPE, Ariz. & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- First Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: FSLR) and K Road Power Holdings LLC announced today that First Solar has acquired from K Road the 250 megawatt (MW)_AC photovoltaic Moapa Solar Project in Nevada.

The Moapa Solar Project, located on the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada, is the first large-scale solar project approved to be built on tribal land in North America. The project is in an advanced stage of development, and has in place a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).

Construction of the project, situated within a 2,000-acre segment of the Moapa Band of Paiutes tribal land, could start as soon as the fourth quarter of 2013, and be completed by the end of 2015.

The project is expected to create up to 400 jobs during peak of construction, and approximately 10 permanent jobs when the power plant is in operation. First Solar will design and build the project, using its Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) thin film solar modules.

"First Solar is proud to participate in this landmark project on lands where it can benefit the economic development of the Moapa Paiute tribe and serve clean energy to the City of Los Angeles," said Jim Hughes, First Solar's Chief Executive Officer. "We're excited to build on the foundation and hard work of K Road and so many key stakeholders to make this project a reality, establishing a significant source of clean, renewable energy for the region."

"K Road is pleased to announce the launch of this pioneering project, and grateful for the stalwart support of our key partners and stakeholders, the Moapa Tribe, the federal and state agencies, and the IBEW. These folks have played an invaluable role in helping bring this novel project to the eve of construction," said William Kriegel, K Road's Chief Executive Officer. "First Solar's deep experience and proven capabilities will ensure that the project is expeditiously completed to the highest standard, while carefully considering the interests of all stakeholders."
In its first year of operation, the Moapa Solar Project will generate enough clean energy to power approximately 100,000 average homes.

The project will displace more than 178,000 metric tons of CO2, the equivalent of taking more than 34,000 cars off the road, and will displace more than 142,000 metric tons of water consumption annually.

The project will advance tribal economic competitiveness and job creation, serve as an example of tribal energy self-sufficiency and sustainability, and encourage further renewable energy projects on tribal land.

About K Road Power

K Road Power is an independent power developer focused on developing, financing, owning and operating utility-scale solar projects. Founded and led by
William Kriegel, K Road's senior management is made up of long time power sector professionals from Sithe Energies, AES Corporation, Barclays, and Goldman Sachs. Together, K Road principals have a 25-year history of successfully developing and safely operating over 20,000 megawatts of conventional and renewable power assets, consistently creating exceptional value for both shareholders and project stakeholders. K Road promotes sustainable, renewable energy development with a focus on reliability and efficiency in concert with environmental and social responsibility. K Road has offices in New York City andSan Francisco. For more information on K Road Power, go to www.kroadpower.com.

About First Solar
First Solar is a leading global provider of comprehensive photovoltaic (PV) solar systems which use its advanced module and system technology. The company's integrated power plant solutions deliver an economically attractive alternative to fossil-fuel electricity generation today. From raw material sourcing through end-of-life module recycling, First Solar's renewable energy systems protect and enhance the environment. For more information about First Solar, please visit www.firstsolar.com.

For First Solar Investors
This release contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements, among other things, concerning: our business strategy, including anticipated trends and developments in and management plans for our business and the markets in which we operate; future financial results, operating results, revenues, gross margin, operating expenses, products, projected costs, warranties, solar module efficiency and balance of systems ("BoS") cost reduction roadmaps, restructuring, product reliability and capital expenditures; our ability to continue to reduce the cost per watt of our solar modules; our ability to reduce the costs to construct photovoltaic ("PV") solar power systems; research and development programs and our ability to improve the conversion efficiency of our solar modules; sales and marketing initiatives; and competition. These forward-looking statements are often characterized by the use of words such as "estimate," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "plan," "intend," "believe," "forecast," "foresee," "likely," "may," "should," "goal," "target," "might," "will," "could," "predict," "continue" and the negative or plural of these words and other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and our projections about future events. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements for any reason. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the matters discussed in Item 1A: "Risk Factors," of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as updated and supplemented by risk factors included in our Prospectus dated June 12, 2013 filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5) (the "Prospectus"), Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other reports filed with the SEC.



K Road Power

Sean Gallagher
+1 415-799-4095
seang@kroadpower.com
or
First Solar Media

Steve Krum
+1 602-427-3359
steve.krum@firstsolar.com
or
First Solar Investors

David Brady
+1 602-414-9315
dbrady@firstsolar.com
or

Ryan Ferguson
+1 602-414-9315
rferguson@firstsolar.comSource: First Solar, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media

http://investor.firstsolar.com/relea...leaseID=793411

March 21, 2014

MOAPA PAIUTE TRIBE, LADWP AND FIRST SOLAR BREAK GROUND ON 250MW SOLAR PROJECT

Ceremony Kicking Off Landmark Power Plant on Tribal Land

MOAPA, Nev.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today, U.S. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (NV) joined representatives from the Moapa Band of Paiutes, executives from First Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: FSLR) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), as well as other community, government and energy industry leaders to celebrate the start of construction of the 250 Megawatt (MW)_AC Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project. The project is located on the Moapa River Indian Reservation just north of Las Vegas, and has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the LADWP to deliver clean, solar energy for 25 years to the City of Los Angeles.


(From RIGHT to left) US Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid joins Moapa Band of Paiutes Chairwoman Aletha Tom, First Solar CEO
James Hughes, LADWP director of power system planning and development
Randy Howard, and the Moapa Band of Paiutes Tribal Council to break ground on the 250MW Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project. (Photo: Business Wire)


"Today's event marks a very important milestone for Nevada, the Moapa Band of Paiutes, and tribal nations throughout the country," said Reid. "The Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project is the first utility-scale solar project on tribal land and will deliver much needed economic benefits to the Tribe andNevada. It will also create about 400 construction jobs, and replace dirty energy with clean solar power."

The power plant, anticipated to be fully operational by the end of 2015, is expected to generate enough clean solar energy to serve the needs of more than 93,000 homes. This amount of renewable energy will displace approximately 313,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually—the equivalent of taking about 60,000 cars off the road.

The project will play a key role in LADWP's efforts to build a clean energy future by expanding renewable energy to 33 percent of its total power supply and eliminating coal power. Solar energy from the Moapa plant will contribute 2.4 percent toward LADWP's renewable energy portfolio. This transformational goal also includes reducing energy use by at least 10 percent through energy efficiency measures; expanding local solar and other forms of distributed generation; initiating a robust demand-response program; and rebuilding local power plants to better integrate renewable energy and be more flexible to meet peak demand.


"The Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project is a significant step toward the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's effort to achieve a major transformation of the city's power supply—one that has greater reliance on renewable energy resources and zero coal power," said
Marcie L. Edwards, LADWP General Manager.
For the Moapa Band of Paiutes, the utility-scale solar project is an ideal opportunity for the Tribe to create economic opportunities while preserving the land and their cultural heritage. "This is an important step in becoming a leader in Indian Country and will help to create a model for other Tribes to follow," said Aletha Tom, Chairwoman of the Moapa Paiute Tribal Council. "If our small Tribe can accomplish this, then others can also. There are endless opportunities in renewable energy, and Tribes across the nation have the available land on which to build them."

Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC (a subsidiary of First Solar Electric, LLC) is the project owner and will construct the project using First Solar's advanced photovoltaic (PV) thin film solar modules. The project will be built on 2,000 acres of land on the Moapa River Indian Reservation and include an onsite substation and a new 5.5 mile 500 kV transmission line that will connect the project to the existing Crystal Substation, serving energy users in California.


"First Solar is thrilled to celebrate this important milestone with Senator Reid and distinguished guests, and honored to work with the Moapa Band of Paiutes on this landmark project," said
Jim Hughes, CEO of First Solar. "By working together, we will provide jobs and significant economic benefits to the Tribe and Clark County as well as helping LADWP deliver clean, renewable energy to its customers."
Once the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar facility becomes fully operational, LADWP will be able to repurpose existing transmission systems that now bring high-carbon coal power from Navajo Generating Station. The Moapa plant, along with a second utility-scale solar power plant in that region of Nevada, will enable LADWP to stop receiving coal power from the Navajo plant by the end of 2015, four years before it is required by California state law—reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8.4 million metric tons (MMT) between 2014 and 2019 cumulatively. The renewable energy from the two solar power projects in Nevada will contribute over 4 percent to LADWP's goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

About First Solar, Inc.
First Solar is a leading global provider of comprehensive photovoltaic (PV) solar systems which use its advanced module and system technology. The company's integrated power plant solutions deliver an economically attractive alternative to fossil-fuel electricity generation today. From raw material sourcing through end-of-life module recycling, First Solar's renewable energy systems protect and enhance the environment. For more information about First Solar, please visit www.firstsolar.com.

About Moapa Band of Paiutes
The Moapa Band of Paiutes is part of the Southern Paiute Nation with a mission to preserve its homeland, particularly the 72,000 acre Moapa River Indian Reservation, by building an independent and self-governing community and providing opportunities for economic, educational and cultural growth. The Paiutes respect and honor the land and all living things upon it, and the Tribe has the ability to be a front runner in the clean energy field. The Tribe also operates farms, the Moapa Travel Plaza, a sand and gravel operation and has other future plans for expansion at the Valley of Fire area.

About LADWP
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is the nation's largest municipal utility, having provided water and electric service to Los Angeles residents and businesses for over 100 years in an environmentally beneficial manner at competitive rates.

For First Solar Investors
This release contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements, among other things, concerning: our business strategy, including anticipated trends and developments in and management plans for our business and the markets in which we operate; future financial results, operating results, revenues, gross margin, operating expenses, products, projected costs, warranties, solar module efficiency and balance of systems ("BoS") cost reduction roadmaps, restructuring, product reliability and capital expenditures; our ability to continue to reduce the cost per watt of our solar modules; our ability to reduce the costs to construct photovoltaic ("PV") solar power systems; research and development programs and our ability to improve the conversion efficiency of our solar modules; sales and marketing initiatives; and competition. These forward-looking statements are often characterized by the use of words such as "estimate," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "plan," "intend," "believe," "forecast," "foresee," "likely," "may," "should," "goal," "target," "might," "will," "could," "predict," "continue" and the negative or plural of these words and other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and our projections about future events. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements for any reason. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the matters discussed in Item 1A: "Risk Factors," of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as updated and supplemented by risk factors included in our Prospectus dated June 12, 2013 filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5) (the "Prospectus"), Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other reports filed with the SEC.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/multimed...0321005764/en/

First Solar Media

Bill Marion
+1 702-222-2362 or +1 702-283-0813
or
First Solar Investors

David Brady
+1 602-414-9315
dbrady@firstsolar.com
or

Stephen Haymore
+1 602-414-9315
stephen.haymore@firstsolar.comSource: First Solar, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media


http://investor.firstsolar.com/relea...leaseID=834730

[Watch] Judge Jeanine Pirro on Dirty Harry Reid and the BLM Land Grab


Posted on 26 April, 2014 by Rick Wells

Posted on 26 April, 2014 by Rick Wells

Judge Jeanine tells informs Dirty Harry Reid that the name calling goes both ways. His recent attacks on private citizens, labeling them as terrorists, un-American and liars are unjustified and offensive.
She’s changing his name to Dirty Harry, pointing out how Reid’s inexperienced eight year aide is now running the BLM and the family business involves what are at best “suspicious” land deals.
She details how Dirty Harry has turned federal land over to his cronies and business interests in the past and how this time, they had to find a home for the troublesome tortoise. They needed a “mitigation area” to which they could relocate the desert tortoise and it appears that Mr. Bundy had his cows in the way.
Once the cows are gone, Dirty Harry’s land deal in the southern Laughlin area for solar panels with the Chinese gets a big green light.





She explains how that could be the reason the BLM Jackboots showed up at the Bundy Ranch like they were taking an al-Qaeda stronghold.
There’s more and it’s very entertaining, as well as enlightening.
Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.


http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/2...blm-land-grab/

These two article's are from the Tenth Amendment Center


The Bundy Paradigm

Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.

Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown— the government with its arsenal of SWAT teams, firepower and assault vehicles, or Bundy’s militia supporters with their assortment of weapons—because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses.

What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.

As I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there’s a subtext to this incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow. This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.

The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an uprising for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray. Consequently, predicted the report, the “widespread civil violence would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

One year later, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama issued its infamous reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism.” According to these reports, an extremist is defined as anyone who subscribes to a particular political viewpoint. Rightwing extremists, for example, are broadly defined in the report as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

Despite “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” the DHS listed a number of scenarios that could arise as a result of so-called rightwing extremists playing on the public’s fears and discontent over various issues, including the economic downturn, real estate foreclosures and unemployment.

Equally disconcerting, the reports use the words “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be extremist viewpoints is tantamount to being a terrorist. Under such a definition, I could very well be considered a terrorist. So too could John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of these men protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed and would be prime targets under this document.

The document also took pains to describe the political views of those who would qualify as being a rightwing extremist. For example, you are labeled a rightwing extremist if you voice concerns about a myriad of issues including: policy changes under President Obama; the economic downturn and home foreclosures; the loss of U.S. jobs in manufacturing and construction sectors; and social issues such as abortion, interracial crimes and immigration. DHS also issued a red-flag warning against anyone who promotes “conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps.”

Fast forward five years, with all that has transpired, from the Occupy Protests and the targeting of military veterans to domestic surveillance, especially of activist-oriented groups and now, most recently, the Bundy Ranch showdown, and it would seem clear that the government has not veered one iota from its original playbook. Indeed, the government’s full-blown campaign of surveillance of Americans’ internet activity, phone calls, etc., makes complete sense in hindsight.

All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo.

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.

When law enforcement officials—not just the police, but every agent of the government entrusted with enforcing laws, from the president on down—are allowed to discard the law when convenient, and the only ones having to obey the law are the citizenry and not the enforcers, then the law becomes only a tool to punish us, rather than binding and controlling the government, as it was intended.

This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.

That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?
More and more, Americans are tired, frustrated, anxious, and worried about the state of their country. They are afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and they are worried about the economic insecurity which still grips the nation. And they’re growing increasingly sick of being treated like suspects and criminals. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.”

To make matters worse, a recent scientific study by Princeton researchers confirms that the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.” As PolicyMic explains, “An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military… In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.”

So if average Americans, having largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented and their government is one “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” as opposed to being engineered expressly for the benefit of the wealthy elite, then where does that leave them?

To some, the choice is clear. As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014.../#.U10A1sdqPfA


Article 2

Ownership of Federal Land: Answers Suggested by the Bundy Standoff


The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).
In a nutshell, here’s what I found:


(1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.


(2) In fact, both polar positions are false—and very clearly so. This shines through when you study the Constitution’s text, meaning, and background. By “background,” I mean its drafting history, the ratification debates, 18th century law, and so forth. However the constitutional text alone should be sufficient to cast both polar claims into doubt. The text of the Constitution grants the federal government no plenary power to hold land, only to dispose. A general power to hold is just not in there. The second polar position is also contradicted by the text: The equal footing doctrine is not there either. (It was a feature of certain pre-constitutional documents, such as the Northwest Ordinance.)
(3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.


(4) Further, the Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.


(5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.
(6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.


(7) “Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.


( The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) is really more about governmental jurisdiction than ownership. The federal government can have an enclave in which much of the territory is titled to private parties—as is true of Washington, D.C. It’s just that in an enclave, federal rather than statejurisdiction is supreme. Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes (as signaled by the use of the 18th century legal term “needful”). State consent to creation of an enclave is required, and consent can be conditional upon the federal government honoring particular terms.


(9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.


(10) This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, since as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.


(11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.


(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/25/ownership-of-federal-land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/#.U10EUsdqONg

Bundy Ranch: DoD Approved Drone Strike? OathKeepers Evacuating?

Dean Garrison 13 mins ago

Last week, we printed a short article with a report from a concerned Patriot in Bunkerville. The gentleman was concerned that a mole was in their midst and seeking to turn supporters against each other. The latest report I got was that, whether a mole is present or not, paranoia seems to be setting in rapidly. Paul Joseph Watson reported last week that some idiots were taking to twitter to suggest a drone strike on the Bundy Ranch. Who would have thought that we would be seriously talking about that this week?
Again, I am going to keep my source secret until given the green light. The man I have been talking to is somewhat high profile and giving any clue of who he is might cause him problems. Here is the latest email I received:

Things at camp bundy are deteriorating quickly. Bundy has taken charge of things, or his bodyguard Ryan. They are now running oathkeepers out and bringing in militia to train under the "Bundy Flag". Oathkeepers received a call 2 nights ago telling them there was an imminent drone strike and to clear out. Turns out they were bringing militia in as they left. A couple of fist fights actually broke out and weapons were drawn.

1 of 2 things is happening. The spook inside this thing is trying to break apart the biggest most organized "militia" on the scene or Cliven Bundy is trying to form an army for whatever reason.

I don't know, this thing is taking on weirdness that is hard to explain. It has done serious damage to the oathkeepers ranks, some of the best and brightest have already left.

If this is how easy it is to break us up can we ever fight them on any front??

Scary indeed.

Drone strikes? Oath Keepers leaving?
Those are some serious developments. Despite the fact that I have a lot of faith in my source I had to check this out.
I found several sources were reporting that Oath Keepers were, in fact, being warned of a possible drone strike. That does not mean that such strike was actually authorized or even discussed. The Liberty Beacon reports:

Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath-Keepers, responds - They are treating it just like they would a bomb threat in a school, and attempting to confirm and also contact the Governor of Nevada. There is talk of evacuation. Leslie Bishop Paul: "Here is the complete interview with Stewart Rhodes. Yes, our sources …have been told that the DOD has approved a drone strike on the ranch. We do not know if this is to get people worked up enough to clear out, or if they actually intend to proceed. Please listen to the complete interview to understand what was said, how we are approaching this, how it was vetted, etc ~ Leslie, National FB Coordinator for Oath Keepers." MAKE THIS VIRAL !!!

Please watch this video …

TLB: This strike reported to take place in the next 48 hours would be the straw that broke the camel's back to the liberty movement and Many of the American people … Can even our government be that stupid (I would like to believe not), or is this intended to facilitate violence from us to bring about a martial law scenario … We know their motto is "Never let a good crisis go to waste" … So is this disinformation to get the boots on the ground to evacuate the scene so that BLM people can move in Waco style, or is it absolute bull to have us put out false info and destroy our credibility.

First and foremost I have to say that I don't believe that our government is ready to go there. That is my opinion. However, if they were looking to separate the wheat from the chaff, a rumor of a drone strike would be a good way to start. If people are really running at the suggestion of a drone strike then it would appear that they were not ready to die after all. With that said, I don't know how many left and how many are still there.

I am quite honestly stunned at these developments. Anyone who goes to Bunkerville needs to be prepared to expire there. So for small scale panic to set in like this, I am simply baffled. Oath Keepers is a good organization, but if it ends up being a case of them being intimidated with scare tactics, then the organization may suffer a black eye that will be hard to get rid of.
It am not trying to pile on, but just to give you an idea… From the Trenches reported:

Wade called in from Bunkerville and reported that Stewart Rhodes and his Oath Keepers received a tip suggesting an imminent drone strike on the Bundy Ranch. Oath Keepers ran from the scene like frightened children.

The people in Bunkerville need to remain strong. Whether it is Harry Reid's "domestic terrorists" comment or rumors of a drone strike that may or may not be real, the people need to understand that the enemy will get into their heads any way they can.
This is not a game. Though I doubt that drone strikes on American soil are in the near future, the threat of force must be expected. I'm not sure what people are thinking.
Anyone who wants to defend the Bundy Ranch needs to understand that they could die there. Raising panic within the ranks is not helping anyone. If people ran because of this information or misinformation, then they likely don't need to be there.
That's just the opinion of a guy who is sitting in front of a keyboard. So take it for what it's worth. I would like to think I would have stayed in a similar situation, but there is nothing worse than a back seat Patriot.
I do know that this is not the same statement of strength that has been coming from Bunkerville and if more militia and a more concrete chain of command are what it will take to fix it, then that has to be done.
48 hours have passed since this story first surfaced and there has been no drone strike. I won't say there is not one coming, but I know how it looks from here. If I had a drone, and intended to strike, I wouldn't be announcing it.
For all of those who are currently in Nevada or have spent any time there at all… Thank You for standing up for America.
Please pray for the Patriots who are standing for us.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/bu...ca1jy1hf3ME.99

Funny Hats, Harry Reid — And My Broken Scanner

By Steve Bowers / 29 April 2014


Sorry to be late with this cartoon. It’s still timely I think. It’s not like Harry is going to stop with the graft and self-dealing. He still has an eye on the spoils of the RANGE WAR, I’m sure. He said “It ain’t over.” The small blurb at the cartoon’s bottom is is cut off. The cut word is “liberals.” It refers to the bucket of peanuts on the bar top. It’s a crude metaphor for gettin’ on the dole. Once you get a taste for the “dole” you never lose the desire to have others pay your way. But, ultimately, you never get much. Just “peanuts.”

On a side note, the reason the word got cropped is because I had to dust off my old scanner. I had to pull it out of cold storage because my fancy new one (three weeks ) just decided to go on the fritz. My brainy little brother (works for a defense contractor doing who knows what; some aspect of computer wizardry, no doubt) helped me set up the new scanner and has helped me try to get it working properly again. All to no avail. My regular neighborhood computer “fix-it” geek just moved to Colorado. So I’m reduced to reading manuals. It’s horrible. My brother can’t really do much…or that’s what I have assumed because I’m reluctant to press him. If I mess with him too much he might make good on his oft repeated threat to kill me because I’ve learned details about him and his work. I have no reason to believe he’s kidding. When we were kids and I’d ask him to help me fix a flat tire on my bike…he always threatened to kill me. He’s bigger, meaner and more knowledgeable now. The possibility is now more immediate and quite chilling.

I suppose i should look at another hardly noticed issue in the news today. It helps put my computer problems into a bigger perspective. Some branch of government has, apparently, “mis-placed” six billion somolians. No one knows what happened, where the cash went (I’d check Harry’s pockets first, but what do I know?) and, naturally, NO ONE knows who should know anything about this small snafu except that it’s probably attributable to a computer “error” somewhere. I only lost a few days of cartooning, no serious cash. But, I doubt anyone in government thinks a billion bucks is serious cash, either. Therein lieth the rub.

I have another “Harry” cartoon sitting in my old scanner, but it ain’t goin’ anywhere for the moment. As soon as I tried to scan the second Harry cartoon the old scanner jammed trying to print a print command of two months ago, which is no longer needed. The old scanner jamming immediately brought to mind exactly why I had spent a lot of money to replace it…with a nice fancy new one …that worked beautifully for two weeks.

I should probably hire some pimple-faced teenager with a congenital familiarity with these strange techie matters. Or i could just call my little brother and tell him I’ve figured out what he does for a living. The black helicopters would soon appear over the horizon and my earthly troubles would come to a swift and certain end.


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/funny-...c8KQjJmimtg.99

Nevada Standoff a Symptom of Increasing Authoritarianism


by Ron Paul

The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by assessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government’s use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience in support of the family.

The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.

In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.

Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th century, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.

By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.

It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power than in protecting and restoring private property rights.

A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not meet Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk? That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.

History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state — and that of course would be good. This is why it is so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...9#.U2E5msdqP5Y