Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 96
Like Tree49Likes

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

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

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

    Posted on April 15, 2014 by BMartin1776




    http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/20...g-government/#
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Oath Keepers Site Taken Offline after New Call to Stand at Bundy Ranch

    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    We are back online after server issues

    Yesterday morning our server along with thousands went down. The data center team worked on fixing the issue and we are now back up and running. The problem was packet loss and latency issues. This basically means the information was not being sent back to the visitor requesting the website.
    We are back up and during [...]

    [Continue ...]

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

  6. #6
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    A Lawyer Discusses the Constitutionality of the Cliven Bundy Ranch Saga

    April 17, 2014
    by Anita Gunn

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, by now you’re familiar with the standoff between the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. Why did this happen?

    We’ve heard stories from the Bundy’s not paying the feds their grazing fees, to protecting desert tortoises, to Harry Reid’s efforts to build massive solar facilities. But what I wanted was to get down to basics. Was this land grab even constitutional? I decided to find out.

    The following are excerpts from my interview with Guy Maisnik, a 30 year real estate lawyer and Constitutional law real property expert, regarding the Bundy’s case against the United States concerning Bundy’s rights to use real property adjacent to his ranch to graze his cattle over the objection of the United States.

    AG: We just witnessed the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bundy supporters with the BLM retreating. Regardless of what we all witnessed, do you believe Bundy has an uphill legal battle against the United States Government?

    Guy Maisnik: Unfortunately I do, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. This case will need to get to the Supreme Court for Cliven Bundy to achieve judicial relief, and it will be a challenge getting there. However, I would encourage those who care about freedom to understand the critical importance of Mr. Bundy’s plight and how it impacts every American and America’s future. Because this case is complex and does not have the emotional appeal of a civil liberties case or a criminal case, it may not get long-term attention. But it’s one of the single most important cases impacting Americans today. This case hits America’s heart and the basic underpinnings of a free society.

    AG: You’ve heard Bundy and his supporters repeatedly claim that the federal government had no right to remove his cattle or impose fees and that the federal government has no right to that land. Is there any validity to this claim?

    GM:
    The United States District Court of Nevada disagreed with Bundy, and so will the 9th Circuit. The linchpin of the U.S. Government’s case is United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997), where the federal government prevailed on facts similar to Bundy’s. In Gardner, the US Forest Service issued a ten-year permit allowing the Gardners to graze their cattle in the Humboldt National Forest. Because of a fire that burned over 2000 acres of land, the Forest Service and Nevada Department of Wildlife closed off the land to grazing for two years. Nevertheless, after a short period of time, the Gardners ignored the closure and resumed grazing. The Forest Service revoked the Gardner’s permit. The Gardners argued that the federal government was not the land owner, and that the land belonged to the state of Nevada. The federal district court disagreed, and the 9th Circuit court affirmed the district court’s holding.

    AG:
    What were the key arguments made by Bundy and the Gardners?


    GM:
    Bundy’s and Gardners’ arguments were similar, and they both lost. The courts ruled: 1) that the federal government was authorized to retain public lands for its own purposes, and was not required to hold land for the establishment of future states; 2) that the Equal Footing Doctrine did not operate to give the state title to the public lands within its boundaries; and 3) that federal ownership of public lands did not encroach upon the core powers reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. There were other arguments and discussions, but these were central.

    AG:
    Can you explain the basis of the courts’ ruling?


    GM:
    The Gardners argued that the United States obtained the land from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but that it had a duty to hold that land in trust for the creation of future states; that the federal government had no authority to retain the land once the state was created; and that when Nevada became a state, all lands within its boundaries became Nevada property. The Gardners argument was based on an 1845 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Pollard. Pollard addressed the issue of land that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Georgia to discharge debts each incurred during the Revolutionary War. Eventually, the federal government created the new state of Alabama out of a portion of the state of Georgia, and the issue was whether certain shoreline property in question belonged to the federal government or Alabama. The court’s verdict: Alabama. The Pollard court concluded that the federal government had no rights to the property in question.

    AG:
    Do you agree with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gardner regarding federal land ownership and its impact on the Bundy case?


    GM:
    I do not. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the Pollard case because Virginia and Georgia were part of the original thirteen colonies which had independent claims to sovereignty before their statehood, and that Nevada never had pre-statehood sovereignty. This is a twisted and absurd result. The fact that the federal government was the initial owner of the land that later became Nevada is irrelevant. The Ninth Circuit created an unsupportable distinction essentially out of thin air (very thin, one might add) by reasoning that Pollard did not apply to Gardner. And once the Ninth Circuit decided that the property in question never belonged to Nevada, it was easy for the Court to invoke the Property Clause of the Constitution that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States and all the broad powers associated.” In other words, the federal government can do whatever it wants with its own property.

    AG:
    Tell us how the Ninth Circuit applied the Equal Footing Doctrine?


    GM:
    You mean how the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine? The Equal Footing Doctrine requires that upon admission to the Union, a new state possesses the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states. The Gardners argued to be on equal footing, Nevada had to have title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine. A reasonable conclusion. However, the Gardner court didn’t think so, and imprudently and improperly held that the Equal Footing Doctrine only applies to the “shores of and land beneath navigable waters” because the particular dispute in the Pollard case was only over shore land. The Ninth Circuit concluded that because the Supreme Court has not extended the Equal Footing Doctrine to “fast dry land,” the federal lands in question were not reserved for the state of Nevada. That is a misapplication of the Equal Footing Doctrine and a complete misreading of Pollard. Here is what the Pollard Court said about federal land: “When Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain… the United States ha[s] no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere…..”

    The Ninth Circuit misconstrued Pollard, misapplied the Equal Footing Doctrine and along the way stepped on virtually every western state’s rights and freedoms of persons within those states.

    AG:
    Is it your review that the 10th Amendment also applies to the Bundy’s claims?


    GM:
    If the District court had gotten the Pollard case right, there would be no reason even to address the 10th Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit seems to believe that the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply to real property rights, concluding a state may exercise jurisdiction over federal lands within its state so long as its exercise of power does not conflict with federal law. Really? The 10th Amendment provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Looks like the court got turned around on that one in Gardner and Bundy. Oh well, maybe next time…

    AG:
    Maybe this will serve as a wakeup call for all Americans, because your little piece of the American dream could very well be the next land-grab on the Fed’s radar.


    http://politichicks.tv/column/lawyer-discusses-constitutionality-cliven-bundy-ranch-saga/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    Published on Apr 17, 2014
    Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in reponse to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.
    Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
    Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

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

    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    Cliven Bundy reminds us to keep putting cameras on law enforcement

    Lucy Steigerwald,
    Rare Contributor
    April 16, 2014

    Half the folks predicting that Bundy Ranch would become a new locational shorthand for federal and fringe standoffs and bloodshed were waiting for their worst fears about the government to come true.

    The other half were waiting for Maddow and her ilk to be able to crow, I told you so! Look at these violent, gun-toting kooks!
    Cliven Bundy reminds us to keep putting cameras on law enforcement

    On April 12, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy won the battle, if not the war, to keep his cattle and keep them illegally grazing on federal land. In the face of angry militia members and Tea Partiers, the armed Bureau of Land Management agents stood down, and even returned the cattle they had begun to collect from Bundy, who denies the legitimacy of federal authority.

    Bundy’s family tasted victory. But as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose district is Nevada, put it “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

    All through the week, as the standoff became national news, the media wrung its hands over whether the temperamental Bundy and the frustrated feds might clash and turn into another Waco. April 19 will be 21 years since the fire that ended the standoff between followers of the sect leader David Koresh and federal authorities who had spent the entire day pumping CS gas into the the Branch Davidians’ home. That, plus the previous year’s disaster at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, became the two signs of the “90s right-wingers” fears come true.

    When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building two years later, he didn’t just kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, he also overshadowed the tragedies he had foolishly hoped to avenge. Now mainstream leftists like Rachel Maddow or the makers of CNN’s shockingly one-sided documentary on Waco from 2013 need only mention the latter or Ruby Ridge to imply some kind of menacing militia ties among folks still angry about the events.

    Half the folks predicting that Bundy Ranch would become a new locational shorthand for federal and fringe standoffs and bloodshed were waiting for their worst fears about the government to come true. The other half were waiting for Maddow and her ilk to be able to crow, I told you so! Look at these violent, gun-toting kooks!

    Bundy, in short, is playing a dangerous game that he may win if only because too many cameras can now be turned onto the BLM agents and other folks. By contrast, in Waco the press was kept more than a mile away from the action.

    Bundy might be wrong about federalism. But in a country where nearly half the West is owned by the feds, and 87 percent of Nevada is as well, it seems like he might have a good policy point at the end of the day — and damn the endangered tortoises.

    In terms of cable news drama, though, there is another reason to cautiously support him. Bundy’s family is testing the restraint of a government that badly needs reminding that it is works for us, not the other way around.

    Slate’s Jamelle Bouie recently raised the reasonable point that some supporters of Bundy may not be as keen on him if he were a radical, gun-toting minority, or, say, a member of the black radical leftist group MOVE, But the question must be asked, even if he were, would Bouie not assume the feds or police were in the right?

    Liberals who broadly brush over Waco anger as the same thing as McVeigh sympathies, or right wingers who use it as a battle cry but have never heard of MOVE are not an excuse for either incident. Bouie might be right about some hypocrisy among Bundy supporters, but that is all the more reason to keep consistent principle.

    Does Bouie know — as many lefties don’t seem to, since it’s now a right winger’s cause — that the Branch Davidians were not “white separatists” and in fact nearly half of them were black? Does he rally around the Black Panthers and their gun-toting protests of the ‘60s, or is that too hardcore?

    And that’s the point about Bundy — which is the same point about David Koresh’s crew, Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge, and MOVE — the fringe is fringey for a reason, and not always a good one, even for supporters of small or no government. Still, one needn’t support the cultism and child molestation-tolerance of the Davidians, the apocalyptic racism of the Weavers’ Christian Identity religion, or the left and loud radicalism of MOVE to support, well, not law enforcement.

    Footage from last week of Bundy’s supporters screaming at and antagonizing BLM agents is strongly reminiscent of Occupy Wall Street or other leftist protests you could mention. Depending on the cause, and depending on whether the protesters are armed, the right and the left do not look so different once they start pushing back against authorities.

    Reasonable people do not protest with guns. Reasonable people always disperse or put their hands up when law enforcement demands it. To be reasonable. Bundy should have paid his grazing fees twenty year ago and been done with it. He certainly shouldn’t have declared the beginnings of a “range war.”

    And if Randy Weaver had been a sensible man, he would have gone to court on his firearm charges and not lost his wife and son to an FBI sniper and a U.S. Marshal respectively. Certainly, David Koresh could have saved his followers by going outside Mt. Carmel and turning himself in to the ATF or FBI.

    That knowledge doesn’t diminish the fact that the federal authorities in those cases at best completely and utterly fell down on the job they should have — to diffuse violence, and to even risk their own lives to make sure situations stay peaceful. The weird politics and religiosity of the groups does not diminish the tragedy of their deaths, contrary to what the Rachel Maddows of the world imply.
    Whether Bundy is entirely in the right is not the point. The rule of law is very well and good, but it doesn’t end the conversation about environmentalism, land rights or the long arm of the feds.

    All of us should, if not support the Weavers or the Bundys, or the MOVErs and Occupiers, consider what happens to most people who resist law enforcement and consider keeping a closer eye on these folks who task themselves with keeping the rest of us in line.

    - See more at: http://rare.us/story/cliven-bundy-is....BUfgZYGL.dpuf
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #9
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists”

    “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism”

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    April 17, 2014

    Senator Harry Reid has escalated the war of words over the Cliven Bundy dispute, sensationally labeling the Nevada cattle rancher’s supporters “domestic terrorists” during an event in Las Vegas today.

    Image: Harry Reid (YouTube).

    During a ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Reid referred to Bundy supporters as “Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”
    Reid was referring to the stand off on Saturday in Bunkerville where Bundy supporters, some of whom were armed, forced Bureau of Land Management agents to back down and release around 380 head of cattle belonging to Bundy that had been seized over the course of the previous week.
    Reid claimed that Bundy viewed the United States as a “foreign government,” while accusing his supporters of goading violence.
    “There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”
    Despite Reid’s characterization of Bundy supporters as “domestic terrorists,” the only violence metered out during the dispute was when BLM agents tasered and assaulted Bundy supporters during an incident on April 9.
    No matter where you stand on the Bundy issue, Reid’s characterization of American protesters as “domestic terrorists” is chilling and a massive backlash is almost certain to follow.
    It also fits the narrative that the federal government has been pushing for years through literature such as the MIAC report, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists. In 2012, a Homeland Security study was leaked which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
    Reid attracted controversy earlier this week when he promised that the BLM’s fight with Bundy was “not over”. The Nevada Senator was hit with accusations of cronyism after his former staffer Neil Kornze was confirmed as the new BLM director earlier this month.
    Reid is obviously angry after his complicity in the siege against the Bundy family was exposed and became a viral story. Although many news outlets claimed this issue was “debunked,” Reid’s involvement in a solar farm just 35 miles from Bundy’s ranch is documented. Archived files from the BLM’s own website confirm that confiscating Bundy’s cattle was necessary in order to clear the way for lucrative solar deals with transnational corporations.
    Meanwhile, the BLM has admitted slaughtering two prize bulls belonging to Cliven Bundy during their round up of his cattle. The BLM claims the bulls “posed a safety hazard” but refused to elaborate. Bundy supporters have pointed to photographs which appear to show one of the bulls having suffered a gunshot wound.
    Watch the historic stand off between Bundy supporters and BLM feds below.

    *********************
    Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
    This article was posted: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    Tags: government corruption


    http://www.infowars.com/harry-reid-c...ic-terrorists/

    thats funny; I see it as a Government ran Racketeering Operation
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #10
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    After Harry Reid’s Threats Bundy Ranch Now Surrounded by Heavily Armed Guards as Talk of Federal Raid Picks Up

    Posted on Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 4:52 pm.
    by: Benjamin Franklin

    Earlier we published news about a Sheriff claiming a massive federal raid on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada is imminent. The Sheriff even says the raid could possibly include violence as the fed was not likely to initiate a scenario it is not prepared to win. Especially not after the humiliating defeat suffered by the BLM as it was forced to retreat last Saturday.

    The Bundy Ranch will not be caught off guard, though, as news reports make it clear the property is now prepared with heavily armed security.
    Local rancher Cliven Bundy may have his cattle back, but his supporters say they are still preparing for an imminent threat.
    Militia groups from all over the country say they are flocking to the Bundy ranch to protect the family from a feared federal government raid.
    The Bureau of Land Management allowed Bundy to release his cattle Saturday, after they felt threatened.
    Bundy now has a whole contingent of armed guards surrounding him 24 hours a day.
    “They’re just there, trying to make sure something crazy doesn’t happen to him,” Bundy’s son Ammon Bundy said.
    His security detail and family feel he is someone to be protected because of what the federal government could do.
    “There were snipers on the hills and armed guards and you know, military forces with cameras all over.” Ammon Bundy said.
    Cliven Bundy fears that the government could gather up again because they never reached a formal deal.
    He is also trying to determine whether federal agents damaged any of his cattle before they released them.
    The BLM only allowed the family to open up the gate of the pen where the animals were being held because officers were afraid of violence. As of now, no one has cleared him to take back his cattle for good.
    Taking the stage to address supporters Monday, Bundy was quickly obscured behind his guards. The detail told 8 News NOW they are now patrolling the area 24 hours a day looking for federal snipers.
    “You never know, you never know,” Ammon Bundy said.
    Meanwhile, we’re seeing reports the BLM has NOT returned all of Bundy’s cattle, even though they said this would happen. Bundy is still missing roughly 100 of his cattle and the BLM has yet to explain where the cattle are.

    Senator Harry Reid, who has major interests in nearby land as he negotiates with the Chinese to develop green energy on Nevada soil, has created even more tension by publicly declaring the feds will be back. The fed is indeed looking more and more likely to return, but the Bundy Ranch is more and more likely to be much better prepared.
    At this point an armed fed initiated raid could prove incredibly dangerous and would put numerous American lives at risk. Time will tell if the government is willing to provoke the situation into one of possible violence and unnecessary lethal action.

    http://www.libertynews.com/2014/04/b...raid-picks-up/


    http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/c...al-raid-picks/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •