I read that book too, a good one. However, wrong thread Dogman! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman
Printable View
I read that book too, a good one. However, wrong thread Dogman! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman
opps!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Probably Blackwater (or whatever it is they call themselves now).Quote:
Originally Posted by madfranks
Propaganda or real?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...ndering-n88876
Bundy Explains: Slavery Comment Just 'Wondering'
By Carrie Dann
Rancher Cliven Bundy says he was simply “wondering” about whether black Americans were “happier” under slavery than under dependence to the federal government.
In an interview on The Peter Schiff Show (first flagged by Mediaite), Bundy explained remarks published in the New York Times Thursday and roundly denounced as racist.
“I said ‘I’m wondering if they are better off under a government subsidy - and young women are having abortions and their young men are in jail and their older women and children are sitting out on the screen porch without nothing to do,’” he said. “I’m wondering are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were they were slaves and they were able to have a family structure together and the chickens and a garden and the people have something to do.”
“So, in my mind, I’m wondering are they better off being slaves in that sense or better off being slaves of the United States government in the sense of a subsidy?” he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have slammed Bundy’s remarks as offensive and “disgusting.” The rancher – who led an armed confrontation with federal rangers over a land dispute – was quoted in the New York Times using the phrase “the Negro” and lamenting that black men “never learned how to pick cotton.”
So ... what does our first black president .... [William Jefferson Clinton] ... think of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
I just wonder if Bundy really said this. No videos that I found yet just 'words'.
What he really said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns...layer_embedded
Bundy Responds to Race Storm, As Media Attempt to Divert Away From BLM Crimes
April 24, 2014 By 21wire 6 Comments
SPECIAL REPORT
21st Century Wire
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy took to the podium at this morning’s press conference at the Bundy Ranch expecting a media race storm, and that’s exactly what happened.
For the family patriarch, it was baptism by fire into the unforgiving world of public relations. Press appeared somewhat shocked, as Bundy stood up and took the media punches for 20 minutes, and somehow managed to use the media’s race inquisition as an opportunity to articulate his own emotions, and his personal views on America’s failing socialized state and the need for more freedom and liberty – and not a racist in sight.
It was clear from the onset that many of the press who were present were there looking for controversy not related to the previous weeks armed federal occupation and forced animal slaughter. Instead media were fixated on Bundy’s previously reported racial comments, hoping that Bundy would say something outrageous. Only he didn’t.
A few members of the press could be seen storming out towards the end of the conference (see full video below), almost as if they were cheated by Bundy’s surprisingly insightful and socially relevant remarks.
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-conten...ence-Ranch.jpg
Last weekend, the New York Times had gathered a statement from Cliven Bundy, but intentionally held it back until last night as part of the White House’s plan to submerge today’s scheduled press announcement of legal action against members of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). And it worked. The shrewd PR move gave Washington a brief stay of execution, as the media carry on their feeding frenzy over Bundy’s alleged ‘racist remarks’ and him using the word “negro”.
The story then cascaded across national media, most of whom re-spun the story to claim that Cliven Bundy was somehow ‘advocating slavery’. The controversy sent politicians and other media personalities who had previously supported Bundy – all running for cover.
Race Hoax Exposed
Critics site that the New York Times had in fact taken Bundy’s comments last week out of context and cynically took advantage of his provincial vocabulary, spinning it against him, willfully ignoring the actual meaning of his statement. A pro-federal government media bias combined with a left-wing blood lust to crucify the embattled rancher prompted mainstream media outlets to completely flip the meaning, so as to demonize him in a politically correct court of public opinion.
As it turns out, Bundy’s speech was cleverly rearranged by a left-wing outlet Media Matters, in concert with the New York Times. According to freelance journalist Pat Dollard, “It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse.It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse”.
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-...Ogo2W6GDkUp.99
It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse.
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-...Ogo2W6GDkUp.99
It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse.
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-...Ogo2W6GDkUp.99
Not surprisingly, all of the press and media presently engrossed in the Bundy gang-tackle were no where to be found two weeks ago when 200 armed paramilitary federal agents had their guns, tasers, dogs, and sniper rifles, all trained on the ranch’s unarmed residents – including women.
Unabashed, Bundy used the media opportunity to clarify the statement which was spun by the New York Times. He explained, “I didn’t say they’d be better off as slaves… I didn’t say that, I said I said I was wondering“.
Bundy explained, “I’m a wondering, are (blacks) better off with their young woman aborting their children? Are they better off with their young men in prison? Are they better off on the sidewalk in front of their government issued house?”
Onlookers were not expecting Bundy’s recounting of his experience in Los Angeles during the 1965 Watts Riots, telling the story of how a black residents had escorted him 20 miles to safety in one of the worst hit areas of LA. “It took me 40 years to realize it, but those people were my angels, they protected me”.
“What I’m really excited about is the fact that our Constitution was formed so all of us people could have some liberty and freedom – and be able to exercise our Conscience“.
On the false media charge that Cliven was somehow endorsing slavery, he explained, “I might not have a very big word base or vocabulary, but let me tell you something… I understand what slavery is all about and there is no question in my mind that I don’t know what slavery is about. Slavery is about when you take away choices for people, and when you have forced labor and transfer people and sell them.”
Bundy added, “If you think that’s what I’m all about, then you’re wrong. I don’t believe in any of that.”
“I’m not just talking to you the media here, I’m talking to America, and I’m talking to the world. What I want to see the world have is that individual freedom and liberty to be able to express themselves. That’s what America is all about.”
What wasn’t covered at the conference were some serious legal questions regarding the behavior of the federal government, including:
Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th? Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in violation of his oath of office?
Was the BLM grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the time leading up to, as well as during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th, and did the special agent in charge inform Sheriff Gillespie that the BLM was going to “stand down”?
Did the BLM evade and impede a law enforcement investigation initiated by the local residents of Bunkerville, when they had reason to believe that the BLM was killing cattle and maliciously destroying private property owned by the Bundy Family (two crimes which were later found to have taken place)?
Did any BLM agents personally benefit from issuing no-bid contracts to Utah cattlemen who were hired by the BLM?
Is the BLM a private corporation, or a government agency? If the BLM is a privately held organization, do they have the power of arrest, or the authority to use deadly force against peaceful American citizens?
Should Harry Reid and his son Rory be investigated and tried under the Racketeering Influenced and Corruptions Act (RICO)? Are the threats from Harry Reid and his son related to their possible attempts to profit from removing the Bundys from their land?
Important questions indeed – arguable much more important than the ensuing race-baiting sideshow which has since overtaken to the saga at the Bundy Ranch.
Watch the full press Conference in full, recorded LIVE on the GMN stream:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/2...inal-activity/
Video streaming by Ustream
So Cliven is wondering if blacks are better off not being property of slave owners, who had the right to buy and sell them, rape, beat them?
Hmmm. Dude is a big thinker.
If he happens to mention Jews were running the slave business and owned the majority of the slaves on plantations things will really go to hell for him.
You seem to have a habit of not actually reading the article before posting. I highly recommend going back and reading Cebu's post again. It seems the New York times didn't quote him correctly. He didn't say they were better off as slaves. Even recounts how 20 years ago during the Watts riots he was escorted by a black man out of there and calls him his guardian angel. So doesn't appear he's a racist. It's the media we all know and hate that twisted his words and is trying to paint him as a racist to cover up the crimes of the BLM. We should of all seen that coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Salty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4poA3YcRaY&app=desktop
Bundy communist edited video to make him look like a racist exposed..
Link to video:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D4poA3YcRaY
African-American Bodyguard Would Take Bullet For Clive Bundy
http://youtu.be/vu_YKgGRFZ8
Link to video: http://youtu.be/vu_YKgGRFZ8
Let's not fall for the divide that the media is trying to distract us from the real issue here. They are playing the same tired game of distraction and division. Recognize it for what it is.
Is making quite the stink, looks like a harsh reality address to Obama.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...cause-20140424Quote:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do."And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton.
And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Attacking Bundy Won't Solve Larger Problem of Fedgov Perception
By Staff Report - April 24, 2014 Bundy Standoff Is A Fox News Costume Drama ... One thing about that mangy posse of anti-government crackpots camped out at Cliven Bundy's place in the Nevada desert: Most don't know a thing about cattle ranching. See, it's calving season across most of the country ... While the BLM was wise not to confront the mob, the current triumphalism among far-right zealots can't be seen as anything but ominous. One wonders, however, how the armies of April will react to a Las Vegas TV station's revelation that much of Bundy's personal saga is make-believe. – The National MemoDominant Social Theme: This Bundy fellow is a crackpot.Free-Market Analysis: There's been a lot of pushback regarding Cliven Bundy and most recently in the article above, Bundy comes in for direct criticism as a serial liar.Yet it is not difficult to understand the disapproval people feel when confronted with what seems to be another heavy-handed action by US authorities. We keep in mind the following when it comes to US government actions in the 20th and 21st century:
- Both the federal income tax and Federal Reserve were implemented under false pretenses. Voters were assured that the income tax would affect only a tiny percentage of the very wealthy. And Congress was assured that the Fed would be bound by a stringent gold-to-bill ratio. Neither of these assurances remains in force today.
- The management of the US economy by appointed government and quasi-government officials has left the US with a national debt of US$200 TRILLION as well as a much reduced middle class, 50 million on food stamps and cities and infrastructure in virtual ruin due to invasive regulations and treaties that have pushed employment off shore.
- The US serially has been involved with ever-increasing frequency in overt and covert wars that benefit an extremely small power elite while reducing prosperity for hundreds of millions and ruining the lives caught up in the combat.
- The military-industrial complex has been joined by an Intel-industrial complex (of some 16 separate security agencies) and a penal-industrial complex that when observed in aggregate terrorizes tens of millions, incarcerates millions at a time and spies literally on billions through the use of modern communications technology.
- As has been pointed out recently, the US more resembles an oligarchy in its current configuration than the Jeffersonian republic of its beginnings.
- Over time, in various instances, fedgov has revealed its authoritarian impulses more nakedly. Operation Gladio reportedly saw US Intel determinedly whip-up violent anti-government sentiment in Europe in order to increase tensions between Europe and Moscow. Operation Paperclip saw the US import, wholesale, Hitler's Nazi brain trust to staff NASA. Today, US civil policing is awash with incidents of brutality and corruption, and the trend seems to be toward an expansion of aggression rather than a diminution.
- Fedgov reportedly owed Native Americans hundreds of billions in compensation for lands and resources. But a recently settled court case will only provide the tribes with a pittance of what they likely were due. At the same time, fedgov land administration has grown more onerous – with endangered species providing a rationale for Draconian confiscations and regulatory abuses.
These are just a few points and more could surely be enumerated. One does not have to oppose the federal system itself to disapprove of its ruinous actions.here are "good" people in federal government and surely there are elements within the political system generally that mean well. But fedgov is awash with depreciating paper assets and increased tax revenue. The result has been an ever more aggressive expansion of federal power.Power corrupts ad absolute power corrupts absolutely. US fedgov today is in many ways a corrupted institution. This is obvious and much commented on.It is also the reason that many people instinctively support Bundy in his confrontation with BMS. It probably has less to do with the specifics of the case than with a general sentiment that fedgov is out of control and that many of its actions benefit an "oligarchical" few at the expense of the many.The article excerpted above is only one of many now appearing that attack Bundy and point out that his actions are "unlawful" whereas the actions of his peers in cooperating with BLM eschew unlawfulness. Here's more:No rancher worthy of the name is going to run off leaving his cows to fend for themselves while he fights somebody else's battles. Particularly not some deadbeat who refuses to pay his grazing fees, and who claims that the same laws that apply to every other rancher in the United States don't apply to him.... See, it's partly a costume drama Fox News is helping this con-man stage. Although my own little operation is more of a hobby than a business, I do try not to lose money. However, many of my Perry County, Arkansas friends and neighbors are cattle ranchers for real.It's damned hard making money on cows, but nobody around here imagines they can graze cattle in the Ouachita National Forest for nothing. Every single one pays for his own land, pays property taxes, pays the water bill and pays for any pasture he rents—all things Cliven Bundy takes for free from the U.S. government while styling himself a rugged individualist.... No way could Bundy or anybody like him afford to buy the vast acreage he's grazing for free. Many westerners only think they'd like to see the feds sell off their extensive properties in states like Nevada, where the U.S. government owns fully 87 percent of the land. But they might feel differently after the likes of Ted Turner, the Koch brothers and various international corporations bought up the range, cross-fenced it, and posted "No Trespassing" signs everywhere.See, it's a form of welfare the BLM oversees, but it helps sustain a way of life Americans are nostalgic about. The various "Sovereign Citizen" groups and armed militia types playing soldier in the desert, however, are something else.Again, we're not sure of the reason for the upsurge of anti-Bundy articles, though we have our suspicions. But what we are sure of is that pro-Bundy sentiment has more to do with anti-Fed sentiment than Bundy's own story.It is perhaps the endless and increasingly bold dissemination of dominant social themes that rubs people the wrong way. The Internet itself has increasingly revealed the lies authority tells to defend itself and to mislead. It is one reason we cover the memes of the elite, those globalists who stand behind the US government and its propaganda.Whether it is the phony war on terror, "climate change," or the continued Wall Street Party that the power elite is determined to keep throwing, it is important to understand the mechanisms of control and the rationale behind them.In the case of the Wall Street Party, one may have expected the stock market to have moved down long ago, and yet it still continues to defy gravity and may do so for months or even years.One can make a good deal of money by understanding elite memes; one can also educate oneself in order to better protect one's wealth, family security and even community prosperity.Those who wish to defend the BLM and to damn Bundy are probably faced with a difficult task. It is the history of the US fedgov that people are reacting to when they feel sympathy for Bundy – Bundy's actions and history may have little to do with it. Conclusion
Bundy is merely a metaphor in this case – a convenient vessel for larger, problematic actions. - See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-ana....inYsBzrx.dpuf
I gave them one star, If I could I would have given a go to hell with a minus star.Quote:
Originally Posted by mick silver
Nothing about changing the terms of the contract and the fact that the federal govt does NOT own the land.
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Public_Lands.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mddeW_1FxEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mddeW_1FxEs
I think we need to embrace racism. No seriously. The Left uses it to silence and demonize us. If we make it normal and shrug our shoulders it wont have the same effect.
Labeling someone racist is like labeling someone a "witch" in the puritan days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Will They Drone the Bundy Ranch 42514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2poTb9yBHs&feature=youtu.be
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2po...ature=youtu.be
I came across this story of another family like the Bundys that live close to the land and nature. The Dann family story in Cresent Valley, Nevada sounds similar to the Bundys.
The Dann Sisters are/were Shoshone Indians if they are still living. The Shoshone never ceded their land to the United States. Read up on the treaty of Ruby Valley. The treaty says the Shoshone people will live in peace and harmony with whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...by_valley.html
http://www.h-o-m-e.org/nuclear-colon...-shoshone.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dann_and_Carrie_Dann
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
There is much more:
Ben Colvin's cattle were seized:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cattle.htm
http://www.livestockweekly.com/paper.../whlseized.asp
In 1972 every ranch in Nevada had cattle on the Forest and BLM land. By 2003 very few had cattle on the range. The ones who did were forced by the BLM to move thier cattle under the pretence of range managment. The ranchers were told where the cows would be allowed to graze and for how long. This constant moving the herds walked off any weight gain the cattle made. It also forced the ranchers to haul water to the cattle in tank trucks. The condition of the range was not one iota better in 2003 than in 1973. When I left to work in the truck shop in 1972 I could lay down on my belly and drink the water from any one of the mountain streams. It was clean and puré. In 2003 when I returned the streams were full of beaver fever. In 1972 there were very few government employees out here. By 2003 there numbers are many.
This isn't about range management at all,but simple a way to drive the cost of ranching up to the point It is not profitable.
The BLM has re vegetation seed kits for mining and gravel reclamation protects. Now we have weeds that never existed in the desert before. That is range management.
Another thing the BLM did was to lease Wayne Hage's allotments to a Gary Snow after forceing Hage's to remove their cattle.
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
BLM allows Gary Snow to run cattle on Hage and Colvin allotments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/591370/posts
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
NEVADA RANCH STAND OFF ONE COWBOYS WITNESS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=suqzL7L9lJk
link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=suqzL7L9lJk
But for a couple of places the US government CAN NOT OWN LAND but are only the caretakers of the same till it is given to the people.
V
This bill board was unveiled in April 2005 along I-80 near Elko, Nevada after a BLM ranger pointed his pistol at a Nevada rancher.
Attachment 6321
Members of the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood and others hold up "Bye Bye BLM" bumper stickers at the site of a newly unveiled billboard Thursday along Interstate 80 east of Battle Mountain. (Ross Andréson/Elko Daily Free Press)
http://elkodaily.com/news/local/stat...a1a19b2f8.html
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
"Sage Brush Rebellion states now, having someone willing to stand, should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs, and give strength to the intended objective—getting back to the Constitution."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponce
Ponce . . . I and this writer agree with 110%!
http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014...nt-own-nevada/
Does the Federal Government own Nevada?
By Harold Pease, Ph. D- The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal government’s, hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?
But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.
States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.
But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “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, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.
Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.
Sage Brush Rebellion states now, having someone willing to stand, should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs, and give strength to the intended objective—getting back to the Constitution.
Dr Harold Pease is a History and Political Science Teacher at Taft College, CA
I am afraid they do. Do some research on Harry Truman's actions on and around June 20th, 1948. He passed some acts of congress into pubic law (quasi law because he certainly exceeded his authority) while congress was on a major recess. The acts he signed and which are to this day PRESUMED to be law deal with extending federal judicial areas over the several States using the names of those states.Quote:
Does the Federal Government own Nevada?
To compound the problem everyone PRESUMES they are U.S. citizens and by this proclamation the federal government gains control over the actions of those people who should be supporting their individual states. You cannot have any control over anything when you are a subject.
I am afraid some federal judges agree with you. Perhaps "A well regulated (Constitutionaly mandated) Milita" might convince them that Article I Section 8 Clause 17 hasn't been amended. And President Truman's quasi laws do not extend beyond 10 square miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
Here goes Ponce again...thanks Palani, and that's why I am more than just a plain "subject" with a Land Patent and that's why I am only one of the few who can legally vote (I am not sure if it means county, state of federal) and if taken to court there are procedures that must be followed....break the rule and I go free.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
V
The land patent is just a piece of paper. Your ability to assert a right is what makes you not subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponce
Reliance upon paper money is hard to overcome. Once you overcome this urge you might be able to establish more claims that you are presently unaware of. Bundy's use of land for commercial purposes is what is being regulated. What if he had no commercial claim or commercial use? What would be the basis of the BLM regulating him? They would have no purpose.
But that is nonsense, right? Everyone has to make money so they can pay the gas and electric bill. So they can pay property tax. So they can take vacations to other countries. Money is essential ... isn't it? Isn't that why everyone on this board is here? To be able to make more money from PM's? What do you have when there is no motivation to make money? No regulation? Freedom?
Stewart Rhodes OATHKEEPERS CORPORATION : KICKED OUT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wXHdtPDpNY&feature=youtu.be
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wXHd...ature=youtu.be
BREAKING: Eric Holder ORDERS DRONE STRIKE ON BUNDY RANCH
Rumors are floating about suggesting that Attorney General Eric Holder has officially given the O.K. for a drone strike on the Bundy ranch. Although any such action has yet to occur, a source within the Department of Defense felt obligated to come forward as he expresses the legitimacy in such concerns.
The information comes from John Jacob Schmidt of Radio Free Redoubt, who says he was able to obtain information from a source that reports to the Oath Keepers. According to the report, Holder has given the go ahead on a, “hot drone strike,” that would certainly wipe out anyone and everyone in the immediate area.
Schmidt also explained in his report that no such action has thus far been made and expressed his hope that the government could come to some other form of resolution.
The national administrator of Oath Keepers, Leslie Bishop Paul, also wrote on his Facebook wall that the claims, “may, or may not,” be true, but expressed his optimism that, “sunlight,” would bring about another solution.
“Pray it isn’t true and pray it never happens,” Paul concluded.
The Liberty Beacon recently released a blog on the matter saying that the government is treating the Bundy situation like that of a schoolyard bomb threat. They go on to suggest that such an act of aggression would certainly, “be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back,” and would effectively trigger a revolution.
They further speculate that there may be manipulative means behind the threat saying that violence isn’t actually their intention. Instead, the Beacon suggests that the government is hoping to instigate violence from the militia guarding the property which, in turn, would allow for the government to enact martial law.
According to the blog, “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.”
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-co...bf4056484c.jpg
Adding to the credibility of such an explanation, the founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes explained that it is entirely likely that the government would use the claims in a sort of a disinformation campaign. He further noted that, “The person who reportedly gave the information, he said, believes what he heard,” according to the Examiner.
Rhodes went on to explain that his source mentioned that Holder felt justified in his decision after being inadvertently backed by Reid’s claims where he labeled Bundy supporters as, “domestic terrorists.”
Mr. Conservative was not able to independently validate any such claims.
Adding further confusion to the claims, Schmidt conveyed, “Personally, I call “BS” on this supposed source. The story screams ‘set up’ and ‘operation whack-a-mole’. I understand this administration already thinks it can legally kill someone, without a trial, and their lemmings have referred to the patriots as “domestic terrorists,” but I believe someone (possibly in the Obama Administration), like a school kid, pulled the school fire alarm just to see what would happen.”
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/break...y-ranch_042014
Oath Keepers Bundy Ranch Debrief
http://youtu.be/4HkSAewoESg
Link to video: http://youtu.be/4HkSAewoESg
One guy talking the whole time? I mean 99% the time? Not sure what to get outta this video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
Not what I heard, everyone had their say and they sound a hell of lot more credible than the little guy in the sons of liberty video. He's hollering about provocateurs and sounds like one himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
I guess a child rapist owns the child in his basement because he said so? Is this the reason and logic you use to come to this conclusion? Do i need to 'research' his actions in order to be able to tell if he should own the child in his basement? Im really trying to find the moral principle of this statement. I dont believe you have any.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
Quote:
To compound the problem everyone PRESUMES they are U.S. citizens and by this proclamation the federal government gains control over the actions of those people who should be supporting their individual states. You cannot have any control over anything when you are a subject.
Again, where did you find this rabble? Have you been reading the scribbles of insane lobotomized monkeys again? Why do you persist at doing this? Havent you realized your NEVER going to find any reason or logic in the scribbles of 'Politicians'?
How about you stop analyzing things from a 'legal' (INSANE) perspective and try and apply your own moral code to the world. Is this a crazy idea to you?