Monday, April 14, 2014
Regarding the rumors swirling about a second attempt on the Bundys.
Just talked with Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers and the western politicians are interposing themselves between any threat and the Bundy's ranch, so if this is not some sort of disinformation deliberately planted to elicit a response, the feds will have to kill patriot leaders if they want the Bundys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I hope you are right, and I really hope sheriff Mack is wrong about a pending raid. Of course, maybe someone in govt against the raid has leaked this to Mack. We can only pray and the people on the ground be prepared.
Well that's good. The oathkeepers will protect them (if there are banker and lawyer oathkeepers, anyway, cause that's where the Fed's will go).
Maybe as the Bundys move into the thousands of acres of Federal land, they will let some of the militia and supporters have little homesteads. Something vaguely feudal about this.
I think that your supporters should choose their battles carefully. The Bundys do not have a claim to this land. Taking it by force isn't very constitutional or law-abiding to me.
This reminds me of that period of time right before the Civil War . Everyone was angry and nobody knew exactly why .
The man in the White House has only the skill and desire to further escalate tensions in this country.
Inciteful video on Harry Reid's corruption with documentation, scrubbed documents, why he wants Bundy ranch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told
Looks Bundy ranch was all of Harry Reid's doing.
Shane
Good to see legislators and OK, sheriffs assoc., etc. stepping up.
Can't let our guard down....but at least there hasn't been anyone killed at this point.
I would think rumors of a second attempt would make the Patriots dig in for the long haul.
Say "hi!"
Rory J Reid Attorney
300 S 4th Street # 1700
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 383-8888
poop
http://benswann.com/exclusive-sources-inside-the-blm-and-las-vegas-metro-say-feds-are-planning-a-raid-on-bundy-home/
It's no doubt helpful that some of those pols are up for reelection in November.
Why should they have any concern about killing patriot leaders? Do you really believe that ABCNNBCBS or their dead-tree fellow travelers will do anything other than spin as they are told? And do you have any doubts the hive dwellers will eat that up? I would merely remind you that there was effectively NO Constitutional difference between the treason espoused by the Democrat candidate in the recent Big Crapple elecion for mayor, and the Republican candidate in that same election. The hives are the core of power for evil in this country, and as such they are all that matters.
Which is why I espouse dealing appropriately with those hives in the upcoming festivities.
Anon at 8:27
The Bundys were there LONG before the BLM and EPA. They BOUGHT the grazing rights, the the Feds (BLM) took over the land and changed the deal.
The Bundys do have preemptive rights, but they've been screwed over by corrupt bureaucrats and judges.
Carl Stevenson, I appreciate the correction. If you are right, then I am wrong, but most info, outside of blogs like this, do not suggest that you are right.
But my point is that this needs to get out and be exposed. There are sympathetic and curious journalists and this needs to get in front of the right courts. For example, see the Wikipedia article on the Bundys. It states and suggests they do not have rights to the land, while stating that others have beat the blm in court.
I think people who rely on Wikipedia and the media for their information are at the very least not getting the truth. I admit it makes it easy to bury your head in the sand. That must be the attraction. It's way easier than having to confront the truth.
Anonymous @
April 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM
"But my point is that this needs to get out and be exposed."
And that is very much the point. You can't get truthful information in front of the American people on a large scale because there are people within government, the media and the parties that don't want them to have it!
This is why there is a lag of several months between what we know about a story and what the general public knows, and even then, the version they will get will be spun so that the reaction is minimized.
That is called "tyranny over the minds of man" as Jefferson aptly put it.
This is a takeover, with a good PR department, who are all serving foreign ideologies and/or themselves.
Think about it. Who wins here? Not the average Joe, he gets cut out and robbed and targeted when he finally starts objecting in any productive way.
Is that representative government? Is that truth justice and the American way?
And what is one to do, just take it?
They've jacked up the radiator cap that is the American flag, and drove a new car underneath it. They then pretend that is all constitutional and ethical, etcetera.
Just imagine how much better things are going to be in ten years or so, for your children and their's, if nothing changes. Nobody in Mordor wants any changes because they've crafted everything to benefit them. Doubt that and I would point out that the richest counties in the country are now found around D.C.
"...the feds will have to kill patriot leaders if they want the Bundys."
You say that like you think they don't want to do that.
I've seen the photo's. We all know they were probably salivating at the chance to kill 1,000 or so patriots. You know they think less of us than a Nazi to a jew. We both know that if the US government had the opportunity to kill all 90 million or so US gun owners they would do it in a heartbeat. Then when other people get upset kill them to. They are faux soviets and the ONLY reason we are not in the cattle cars is because they know the consequences. These people are the same statists that on twitter called for the government to "kill all gun owners" or "kill all NRA members".
Link to Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliven_Bundy
Anyone may edit an article, with or without registering as a user. If you are not a registered editor, your IP address will appear in place of your user name.
It might be helpful to look at the article's talk page, where anyone may discuss their edits, or inaccuracies found in articles or others' edits.
I have written and edited a few articles, but I am not completely familiar with what may or may not be factual in the existing edit of this topic.
Information only thrives when it is accurate. I would encourage anyone with new information to edit and footnote the article, or make your displeasure known on the talk page.
Wikipedia does mark and eventually remove biased articles.
FWIW.
"if there are banker and lawyer oathkeepers..."
um... the founder has a law degree. specializes in constitutional law.
just sayin.
btw - oathkeepers.org was shut down (presumably by the feds) around 2pm today.
All this talk of BLM and federal land is a non sequitur anyhow. Per Section 1, Article 8, Clause 17, the constitution allows the federal government to ONLY own land for the purposes of creating DC and "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings". These pieces of land, according to the same section, can only be up to ten square miles. Reading further to the 10th amendment, any power not granted to the federal government by the constitution is left to the states or the people. Owning tens of millions of wilderness acres is not an enumerated power given to the federal government and should have never taken place in the first place. This is Bundy's original argument, and correcting this abomination will clear everything else up.
Here's the full text of the section:
(The congress shall have the power) "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"
It's black and white, folks. FedGov owning that land is plainly unconstitutional.
Post a Comment