Range War: Feds vs The People

[American Patriot]

The BLM Went After Bundy For The Benefit Of Harry Reid

April 22, 2014

The BLM/Bundy situation is interesting not because of the sensationalistic and misleading reporting of it by Fox News, CNN et al, but because of what Harry Reid is doing with the BLM land in Nevada. Reid needed Bundy off the land in order to get the Gold Butte area designated as a solar energy zone. He’s trying to become the solar energy king of Nevada because I’m sure the interests he represents, like BrightSource Energy, have somehow cut him in on the largesse. I have a feeling there’s big Federal money still available for solar energy projects.


The ONLY reason I took an interest in this situation was because of Harry Reid’s “domestic terrorist” comments. But, as it turns out, BLM/Bundy the fight was a sideshow that was methodically planted as the main stage show while the real action was happening in Reno and DC with Harry Reid and his maneuverings to control the BLM.


I wanted to revisit some issues that are still being discussed in the media and the blogosphere. As I showed yesterday, the Government has committed attempted theft when it moved to sell the cattle it had impounded. The impounding was legit, the attempted sale was not. In the process of trying to get Bundy’s cattle off the land, the BLM not only committed an attempted theft but it negligently omitted any claim to unpaid fees, the right for which has now been forfeited. Any lawyer worth the paper his degree was printed on would have at least asked monetary damage. That the BLM lawyers did not tells us that unpaid money due was not the motivation for suing Bundy.


However, many interested people are still asking about whether or not Bundy still owes unpaid fees and whether or not the Government is entitled to those fees. As it turns out, the answers are “no” and “no.”


I enlisted my attorney colleague. Here’s the short explanation: “The transaction here was trespass. The feds litigated that and could have obtained damages, but didn’t ask for them. Now it’s too late. The fed’s failure to plead correctly will operate as a waiver.”
My colleague dug up the original complaint, which you can read here: U.S. v. Cliven Bundy
Here’s his explanation as to why the only right the Government had was to remove the cattle from grazing on the BLM land:

Now I now believe, having read the complaint, that the BLM doesn’t have—and never had—the right to collect grazing fees, which were voluntary: in exchange for paying fees, cattlemen received a grazing permit. See para. 21.


When Bundy refused to apply for a permit in 1993, his cattle became trespassing chattels. That means the BLM’s only remedy against Bundy was an action for trespass. The BLM exercised that right by filing a 2-count suit in court, one count for trespass and another for a judicial declaration that Bundy’s cattle are trespassing in violation of law.


But a trespass action has never—not in 800 years of property jurisprudence—included any remedy that would grant a plaintiff any rights of dominion over the trespasser. There are but two remedies available to a plaintiff complaining of trespass. One is damages, the legal remedy. The other is an injunction, an equitable remedy. The BLM was only awarded the latter; it never even sought damages in its complaint


There was never any colorable legal justification for selling the cattle. The only cause of action available to the BLM was at all times since 1993 a trespass action, which did not, does not, and cannot transfer title.


Moreover, the fact that Bundy refused to pay the grazing fees does not mean that he owes back fees. He most certainly does not. Rather, it means that he voluntarily elected to became (via his cattle) a trespasser. The BLM filed suit for exactly this reason.


Interestingly, the BLM’s complaint does not seek any monetary damages. Thus, not only does Bundy not owe the BLM any money for the unpaid fees, Bundy doesn’t owe any damages to the BLM because the BLM simply failed to ask for any damages.


In short, the BLM’s act of attempting to sell the cattle, by entering into a $1 million contract for that purpose with a party in Utah, was a willful and wanton criminal act, as there was never any legal avenue that would have granted the BLM that right. The BLM and its lawyers had to have known that they were committing serious felonies.


What happens from here is anyone’s guess. In the current posture of this case, Bundy must keep his cattle off of federal land (Gold Butte, etc.). But he doesn’t owe the BLM and money and the cattle are still his and always were.

It is crystal clear once we learn the real facts of the BLM/Bundy dispute that the Government was NOT motivated to go after Bundy on behalf of the Taxpayer for unpaid cattle grazing fees. It also tells us that the only reason the BLM went after Bundy was to remove his cattle from BLM land, something for which I’m sure the average Taxpayer could care less. It stands to reason, therefore, that the sole motivation of the BLM actions against Bundy were taken on behalf of Harry Reid and his political and monetary interests.

[American Patriot]

LOL

http://ladyravensaspirincabinet.word...e-we-to-argue/
If Mr. Morals Reid says we are terrorists, who are we to argue?

Posted on April 24, 2014 by LadyRavenSDC
Our government, which believes many Americans are terrorists (most recently Senator Reid), must do everything in their power to stop potential terrorist activities (especially wannabe’s) right here, right now! Case in point –
Our civic obligation is to help our government identify home grown terrorists. Please read the following carefully in order to be able to pick out your neighbors and friends who most likely are threats, or just use the visual provided.

Harry Reid thanks you I’m sure!
72 Types of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents

Share this:

[American Patriot]

Larry Klayman: Bundy’s Will Take It To Court; BUNDY RANCH CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ALERT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:28


0


<a href="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_N UMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>
(Before It's News)
by Susannah Cole The Pete Santilli Show & The Guerilla Media Network


The Pete Santilli Show broadcasts live on The Guerilla Media Network. Please join us on the Guerilla Media Network broadcasting your favorite talk shows, political art and news 24/7.




BUNDY RANCH CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ALERT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On Thursday 24th April, 2014 at 1 pm PST an important Press Conference is set to be held at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Attorney Larry Klayman, will announce to the world what future action may be taken in the now infamous BLM standoff at the Bundy Ranch. All legal options are being explored, and every legal remedy available to the Bundy Family on behalf of We The American People are on the table. The current issues which must be dealt with through law enforcement and the judicial process are as follows:

1. Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th?

2. Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in violation of his oath of office, and did he violate the trust of the people who voted him in office?

3. Did Sheriff Gillespie put lives in danger as a result of his alleged gross negligence and unconstitutional conduct?

4. Was Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love 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?

5.Did Daniel P. Love inform Sheriff Gillespie that the BLM was going to “stand down”; release the land and cattle which he unconstitutionally seized under the authority of a fraudulently obtained court order?

6. Did Daniel P. Love evade and impede a law enforcement investigation initiated by the local residents of Bunkerville, NV when they had reason to believe that the BLM was allegedly killing cattle and maliciously destroying private property owned by the Bundy Family?

7.Did Daniel P. Love personally benefit from issuing no-bid contracts to Utah cattlemen who were hired by the BLM for the specific purpose of stealing cattle from the Bundy Family?

8. 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 to use deadly force with the use of AR-15’s and other lethal weapons against peaceful American citizens?

9.Can the U.S. government be restrained, or can an injunction obtained prohibiting them from taking any further action against the American people, particularly the Bundy’s, before a complete and thorough investigation is completed?

10.Can a formal legal investigation be conducted to review possible evidence and to hold Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Daniel P. Love legally accountable, as well as, and others who may have committed crimes and violated their oaths of office?

11.If so, can citizens make arrests once indictments have been issued and served?

12. Should Harry Reid and his son Rory be investigated and tried under the Racketeering Influenced and Corruptions Act (RICO)?

13. Are the threats from Harry Reid and his son related to their possible attempts to profit from removing the Bundy’s from the disputed land.

14. Does this rise to the level of Civil RICO liability?

These, and other questions will be addressed by the Bundy Family and their representatives after their private meetings with Larry Klayman and Assembly Woman Michele Fiore on Thursday April 24, 2014. Join us for the presser at the main “checkpoint” (flag poles on Riverside road, 15 freeway to exit 112; make a right and proceed approximately 8 miles just prior to the Virgin River.) Mr. Klayman, Ms. Fiore, and other dignitaries will be making some historic announcements and commentary regarding the Bundy Ranch Crisis.

Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is an American attorney and activist. He is known as the founder and former Chairman of Judicial Watch, a public interest and non-profit law firm, which initiated 18 civil lawsuits against the Clinton Administration, and later a lawsuit against Vice-President Dick Cheney in order to obtain information about the White House’s energy task force. Klayman formed the organization Freedom Watch to “protect civil liberties [and] rights of all persons, whatever their ethnicity, race, religion, sex or otherwise.” He says the name originated from an NBC episode of The West Wing in which he was caricatured as Harry Klaypool. Klayman wrote the books Fatal Neglect and Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, and writes a weekly column for the conservative news website WorldNetDaily. During the Ronald Reagan administration, Klayman was a prosecutor in the Justice Department and was on the trial team that succeeded in breaking up the telephone monopoly of AT&T. Klayman is representing families of members of Navy SEAL Team 6, the elite special forces who killed Osama bin Laden, who died after their helicopter was shot down by the Taliban three months later. Klayman contends the Obama administration put the Navy SEALs at risk by disclosing their identity. In June 2013, Klayman sued the Obama Administration over the National Security Agency’s collection of phone records. A federal judge agreed with Klayman that the program is likely unconstitutional, but stayed an injunction that would stop it pending an appeal by the U.S. government.

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore represents Clark County Assembly District 4 (Las Vegas) and is serving her first term. Michele was born in Brooklyn, New York, and has lived in Nevada since 1993. The only child of a single mother, Michele was taught to be fiercely independent and to value hard work. Michele has over 24 years of business and entrepreneurial experience. She owns a company that deals with healthcare issues, providing care to the sick and elderly. Since 2003, she has created jobs for more than 1,800 Nevadans. As a CEO, she made decisions that impacted policies and procedures, and utilized a solution-focused approach to issues as they arose. She is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, Michele has been interviewed on a range of subjects involving gun ownership and regulations, including school safety. She asserts that it takes a person, armed and trained, to use a gun to stop a gunman intent on doing harm to the public, and that the crime rate has gone down wherever people have been sufficiently armed to defend themselves. Her position on gun rights aligns with current Supreme Court interpretations, including the intent and purpose of the Founders’ words and writings on the subject. Michele’s primary areas of interest are children, the elderly and animals.

The following is a message from the Bundy Family April 22, 2014

Today is a beautiful day at the Bundy Ranch here in Bunkerville, Nevada. The birds are singing, the roosters crowing, the cowboys and cowgirls are working hard to feed all the baby calves that have been left behind from their mothers being driven mercilessly by the helicopters etc.

I guess all of us here at the ranch have been deemed by Harry Reid as “Domestic Terrorists”. What exactly does that mean? According to the new Patriot Act: Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “”domestic,”” as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “”dangerous to human life”” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Harry , I would like to ask, who had the guns pointing at whom?

We were not carrying weapons, only using our 1st Amendment Right. We were not in the 200ft by 200ft fenced in “1st Amendment Area” they made for us. Who were the civilians being intimidated? Dave was only taking a video from his I-Pad standing by the State road side. Thrown down, beaten up and arrested by threat of Attack Dogs, Tasers, and guns.

Margaret was demanding to know why the BLM needed to use a dump truck pulling a trailer with a backhoe to gather cattle? Ammon was hollering at the man who just threw his aunt to the ground and they tased him 3 times, and sent their attack dog after him.

2 young boys were only taking pictures of helicopters pushing the cows and leaving behind the poor little calves who couldn’t keep up with their mothers when they were completely blocked up and surrounded by a dozen or so BLM vehicles. When the family, friends and neighbors ran to the rescue and hollered at them, the men threw back the boys drivers licenses at them and pulled out. Who was being kidnapped?

Dave was arrested and taken to jail overnight bloody, dirty, and injured. Then taken to a federal court to see a judge but after a few hours of waiting to see the judge suddenly they come into the room, hand him two citations, unchain him and release him through the door into the streets of Las Vegas.

Did this occur in the U.S? Really? Is Nevada not a State of the Republic?

So Harry Reid, are you suggesting that every American who challenges Federal Governments Authority is a Domestic Terrorist?

May God Bless this Nation and all those who have the desire to stand up and take back your country using the US Constitution to restore our individual rights. Your God Given Rights. Please read the “Bill of Rights” and Pray for those who don’t even know them. Bundy Family Secretary Media Inquires: Contact Shawna or Ashley at press@gmn.is or newsdesk@gmn.is 828-738-6588
If you would like to express your opinions or concerns on the air during the live broadcast of The Pete Santilli Show, please call (218) 862-9829
Be sure to tune in to the Pete Santilli Show daily at 10am-2pm PST / 12pm-4pm CST / 1pm-5pm EST. Pete & his co-host Susannah Cole broadcast daily for 3 hours to discuss breaking news headlines, and interview some of our nation’s most interesting patriots & controversial guests.

[American Patriot]

Bundy’s Critics Overlook How The West–Or Turf Anywhere–Was Won In The First Place

By Donald Joy / 23 April 2014 / 41 Comments





Even among some Tea Party types, there are voices who are saying Cliven Bundy is just a free-loading, renegade rancher who should have been paying the fees to the feds for these last couple of decades, for his herds’ foraging around on “federal lands.” They say Bundy is flat-out wrong in the showdown with the Bureau of Land Management.

Such commenters miss an all-important point when arguing about who really owns the Nevada territory in question, who has jurisdiction over it, the right to use it, to demand payment for use, and so on.


In the paragraphs which follow, I will lay out the case that although might does not necessarily make “right,” the prevalence of stealth and superior physical force in acquiring, administering, and defending territory is and has always been the way of the world since time immemorial. To think that preceding tribal prerogatives, treaties, or modern legal arguments can or will ever change this fact is quite naive.


The most strident Bundy-bashers insist that the federal government has a clear-cut case against Bundy, and they point to the fact that multiple courts have already ruled against him–just who does he think he is, anyway, to think he can just skip out on paying twenty years’ worth of grazing fees to a *cough* “legitimate” government administration? Where does the Bundy family get off, rallying these heavily-armed militia types from all over the country to help them defy the feds when the heat comes down?


Well, I ask, in reply–just who did the Sons of Liberty think they were, when in 1773 they conducted a blatantly illegal midnight raid in Boston harbor, boarding ships disguised as Indians and dumping loads and loads of a shipment of tea overboard, in their now-legendary political protest against what they saw as a tyrannical government; a daring act of violence against property which helped spark the American Revolution?


Americans have traditionally seen that episode in our nation’s history, the Boston Tea Party, along with other famous protests and the bloody war which ensued, as an heroic struggle of defiance against corrupt authority, ushering in an unprecedented age of human experience: The birth of a new country and a new society in which government power–with its tendency to grow, encroach, and abuse–is held in check by citizens (instead of the other way around), and based on carefully written documents spelling out the paramount rights of individuals and the specific, strictly limited role and powers of government.


However, before our early leaders could finally, formally codify all of the ideas and principles upon which America was founded into systematized law and courts and agencies–they first had to sneak around, plotting and conspiring against the royal British colonial government, and then they had to openly confront and kill as many of the king’s warriors on the battlefield as necessary to obtain Cornwallis’ surrender, to be able to ultimately say, with triumphant confidence, that the territory “belonged” to the United States of America–not to the crown.


Oh yes, and before that, European explorers and pioneers and settlers and armies had to first cross the ocean and “steal” the land, as conquerors, from the Indians, or Native Americans, aboriginals, redskins or whatever we are to call them. I mean the tribes of once-migratory nations who had also “stolen” this land from whichever tribes held it or used it before them, those wandering tribes having defeated prior tribes, and down through the ages.


By the way, paleface and non-paleface readers, did you know that there’s fairly recent, good archaeological evidence (Google “Solutrean hypothesis”) that white people populated this continent centuries before the so-called “Indians” did, but that those old honkies were eventually genocided out of existence here by later invading tribes of non-whites? Kind of like what’s happening now, with La Reconquista, AZTLAN…”history repeats,” as they say…


I wonder if any of those who say Bundy is wrong for not paying to use property they say doesn’t belong to him, would also look back throughout history and declare all of our civilization’s explorers, pioneers, conquerors, rebel armies, and founding fathers as more or less equally wrong? What about the Israelis, who founded and won their Zionist homeland through incredible feats of agricultural reclamation and all-out battle against foes who insisted (and still insist) that the territory was/is really theirs?


What about the Falkland Islands? What about Ukraine? Cyprus? Taiwan? East Germany, The Balkans, Kurdistan, Armenia, Tibet, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Kuwait? Grenada? Those examples are just some of the more modern ones; never mind the centuries and centuries of Thermopylaes and Bunkervilles and Stalingrads and Viennas which came before, throughout the globe.


To the victor go the spoils.


There’s no real difference between the supporters of Cliven Bundy and the original Sons of Liberty of America’s founding at the Boston Tea Party (or at the Boston Massacre, or at Lexington Green)–none, that is, except in this case it’s the government, not the rebels, who are violently destroying property–killing Bundy’s cattle and dumping them in mass graves, whereas the Tea Partiers only dumped chests of tea into the harbor. And the feds have held their fire at Bunkerville. So far.


In common, the Sons of Liberty and Bundy’s supporters share an identical Declaration of Independence; specifically, the desire to live productively, free from oppressive micro-management by the dictates of distant, unelected bureaucrats and usurpers.


At the time of our Constitution’s ratification, the federal government was created by the several states to serve the individual states’ united interests–not the other way around. After the Civil War, which was yet another case of sheer, brutal and ruthless armed violent force determining the outcome of all-out conflict over territorial jurisdiction, the federal government obtained massive and heavy new powers over the states, under which the states have been chafing ever since.


My position is that if (and that’s a Mojave-sized if) Bundy and his supporters can successfully hold off the feds indefinitely, then what we are witnessing is the beginning of a bona-fide secession movement, not in theory but in actuality; secession from what even many of Bundy’s detractors acknowledge is in many respects an out-of-control, overreaching, and corrupt federal Leviathan.


If secession takes hold and spreads, we will see an outright revolution. I’m not saying I think it will happen, since the feds could squash it with enough ruthlessness, but who knows? Perhaps there simply aren’t enough willing corrupt-ocrats at the controls to put down the revolt, and ultimately, maybe the ranks of Obama’s minions contain enough “Oathkeeper” types to make revolution possible, given that such conscientious people find the movement sufficiently about more than mere turf to come along.


I wonder of what, who, and where, exactly, a new country on this continent would consist.


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/bundys...aUYaexEY7vE.99

[American Patriot]

Bundy ranch stand-off: Government helicopters shot cattle multiple times 'for fun'

Published time: April 24, 2014 15:36 Get short URL

Rancher Cliven Bundy poses for a photo outside his ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada (Reuters / George Frey)

Tweet
Share on tumblr



Tags
Animals, Clashes, Conflict, Court, Food, Human rights, Law, Politics, Protest, Scandal, Security, Shooting, USA, Violence

As the ongoing saga between Nevada ranch owner Cliven Bundy and the federal government continues, the rancher’s son claims federal agents killed multiple cattle during their roundup, shooting some animals up to five times.
The stand-off began earlier this month, when the Bureau of Land Management attempted to enforce a court order and seize nearly 1,000 head of cattle raised by Bundy. The agency claimed the rancher owed taxpayers $1 million in grazing fees that he stopped paying back in 1993. Bundy, however, disputed the allegation and said he owed the government nothing, and that his ancestors had been using that land since the late 1800s.
When the BLM showed up with hundreds of armed federal agents and began rounding up the cattle, almost 1,000 people came to Bundy’s aide – armed militia from multiple states and others who believed the government was overstepping its bounds. In order to avoid escalation, the BLM released the hundreds of cattle it had collected back into Bundy’s custody, confirming it would continue its case in the courts.
Speaking with Breitbart.com on Wednesday, Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, said some of the cattle had been killed, accused the BLM of using helicopters during its roundup, and said agents used “inhumane” methods to gather the animals.
“Well we know that two bulls were shot. And the one that they threw up in the mountain, Nickelcrick, he had a shot from above. He was shot by helicopter, but then he had four other shots to him as well. It looks like a fun shoot,” said the younger Bundy adding, “One hit him in the head and it ripped his whole face up. It was almost like a fun shoot.”

Rancher Cliven Bundy (C), with his grandson Braxton Louge in tow and armed security guards leave his ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada (AFP Photo / George Frey)

For its part, the BLM acknowledged that four cattle were killed, but stated officials “euthanized” them, and that two died during the roundup.
“The Bundy branded bull that was euthanized posed a significant threat to employees during the gather. The Bundy branded cow ran into a fence panel injuring its spine and was euthanized,” an unnamed BLM official told Breitbart.
The agency did not say whether its roundup involved the use of helicopters – a controversial practice that opponents claim frightens animals, forces them to run for miles, and can cause potential injury.
“Since Saturday they were in gathering this cattle by helicopter,” Ammon Bundy claimed. “They were pushing them all. When you do it that way, it was 90 degrees that week—in the 90’s, those cattle run too hard and it’s very difficult on them and they’ll overheat and die, but also this is calving season right now. So these cows are aborting their calves and they’re also separating their newborn babies from their mothers.”
Bundy also accused the BLM of dragging the cattle through the dirt by their necks, but said an autopsy would be necessary before knowing if that was done before or after the cattle had died.
Meanwhile, Cliven Bundy made headlines Wednesday evening as well, when he questioned whether African Americans were better off as slaves to a New York Times reporter.

Rancher Cliven Bundy (L), and armed security guards leave his ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada (AFP Photo / George Frey)

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy said, describing a time he passed a public-housing project in Las Vegas. “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.”
Asked about these statements, lawmakers who had come out in support of Bundy’s conflict with the government quickly said they did not share those beliefs. Speaking with the Times, a spokeswoman for Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said the senator "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

[American Patriot]

Dana Loesch: Cliven Bundy not ‘media trained’

• Tweet ?

• 247

Loesch suggested liberals are trying to distract from government overreach. | Courtesy




By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 4/24/14 10:36 AM EDT Updated: 4/24/14 12:09 PM EDT



Conservative radio host Dana Loesch said that the flare-up over Cliven Bundy’s comments on race is missing the point.


Loesch, who has defended the Nevada rancher on her website and on Fox News, on Thursday suggested that The New York Times coaxed an unseasoned public figure into a tangential discussion about race.




“I hope no one is surprised that an old man rancher isn’t media trained to express himself perfectly,” she wrote, noting that “it’s justified to have a healthy suspicion of the New York Times” for raising the issue.


(Also on POLITICO: Rand Paul slams Cliven Bundy's racist rant)


Bundy made the racial comments on Saturday during one of his daily news conferences that was attended by only one reporter and one photograher, according to the Times.


The paper quoted him saying, “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro [as he 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?” Bundy continued. “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.”


(Also on POLITICO: 10 things to know about Cliven Bundy)


Loesch said that Bundy’s comments might have been aimed at “decrying what big government has done to the black family,” as opposed to necessarily being racist remarks. She said the Bundy affair is primarily about “government overreach.”


“If Bundy is a racist, that is awful,” she wrote, “but what exactly does that have to do with the [Bureau of Land Management]? I’ve been saying for weeks that this isn’t about one rancher. It’s about government overreach.”


Loesch concluded by suggesting that liberals are trying to distract from government overreach by focusing the story exclusively on Bundy.


(Also on POLITICO: The left's secret club plans for 2014, 2016)


Ben Howe, contributing editor at the conservative blog RedState.com, seemed to echo Loesch’s statements on BLM with a series of tweets on Thursday morning.


In one message, Howe tweeted: “We’re running into classic conservative over-correction here. Bundy may be an idiot. This doesn’t make BLM actions correct. Come on ppl.”

[American Patriot]

From a leftist paper:

AP

Meet The Militia Rushing To Cliven Bundy’s Defense

By Christie Thompson April 23, 2014 at 10:52 am Updated: April 23, 2014 at 3:26 pm
11,809Share This 333Tweet This
"Meet The Militia Rushing To Cliven Bundy’s Defense"
Share:



James Yeager is calling from Cliven Bundy’s front yard, where he’s one of several (he won’t say how many) providing 24-hour security to the Bundy family. He and his friend packed up “a full medical kit and a camera” and drove 26 ½ hours from their home in Camden, Tennessee last week to document what he calls “a tremendous overreach of federal power.” He’s been posting daily videos to his YouTube site.


When asked if he also packed weapons, Yeager said, “of course. I’m always armed. This is not any different than any other day for me.”


James Yeager with rancher Cliven Bundy.
CREDIT: photo provided by James Yeager.



Yeager is one of hundreds of supporters who journeyed to Bunkerville, Nevada in support of the rancher’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management. Though federal agents released Bundy’s cattle over a week ago, many have remained on the ranch to protest and protect the rancher’s family. They’ve hailed Bundy — who owes the federal government over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees — as an “American hero.” The Mormon father of 14 has even inspired futuristic fan fiction from his most ardent admirers: “Yes, it’s been a great half-century for America, and we owe much of our good fortune to the bravery of Cliven Bundy.”


They call themselves militia members, oath keepers, protesters and patriots. Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists.”


So which is it? In the background of the Bundy debate over federal land is a battle over image: protesters who want to paint themselves as American citizens defending the Constitution against a tyrannical government, versus groups worried about the extremist anti-government militia members among them, who may be more and more willing to take up arms in the fight for “freedom.”

Armed agents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seized Bundy’s cattle in early April, a move that brought protesters (and their guns) from all over the country to the ranch, demanding that his cows be released. The situation intensified when a video of BLM agents tasing Bundy’s son went viral. As more and more of Bundy’s armed defenders streamed into Bunkerville, the BLM released the cattle and said they were rethinking how to move forward.


The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report in 2009 on the resurgence of right-wing militia groups, like some of those that rushed to Bundy’s support. “This is the most significant growth we’ve seen in 10 to 12 years,” one law enforcement official told the Center. “All it’s lacking is a spark.”


Was the standoff in Bunkerville that spark the militias needed? Patriot groups are now claiming victory in their fight against the federal government. It’s unclear what that means for Bundy’s $1 million in unpaid fees, or for future dissenters that decide to flout federal law with a bevy of armed backers.


“The militia movement is back, it is here in force and they seem to be roving the country looking for opportunities like this to make themselves known,” said Ryan Lenz of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who traveled to Bunkerville to cover the Bundy standoff. “As more people with anti-government views streamed into the area, the issue became more about federal tyranny.” Lenz said tension mounted until “it was literally just one wrong step away from going south.”

The militia movement is back, it is here in force and they seem to be roving the country looking for opportunities like this to make themselves known.

The showdown in the Southwest drew supporters from many different camps, not just militia groups or the far-right: Western ranchers angry over federally owned land (Bundy’s not the first to spar with the BLM over this issue). Free speech advocates upset by the “first amendment zones” roped off for protesters. Avid fans of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who answered his call to “stand up against tyranny” by “standing with Bundy.” Far-right (and fully armed) militia members looking for a standoff with federal law enforcement. And state legislators from across the West who saw an opportunity to drum up support among Bundy’s biggest fans.


“For me, it really had not a lot to do with Bundy or the cattle. My interest in it was really the first amendment zone and that something like that could even be set up here in America,” said Robert Richardson, owner of Off Grid Survival. Richardson, who lives in Nevada, traveled to Bunkerville to cover the protest for his blog. “It’s not a left-right issue. It’s something that almost everybody should be pretty enraged about.”


Professor Jack Kay of Eastern Michigan University has studied militias and the “rhetoric of hate” for over 30 years. He said though many at the protest weren’t extremists, the far-right fringe could radicalize a bigger proportion of protesters. “There were far more people there than members of the militia — there were the cowboys, the neighbors, the women and children,” he said. “[But] these radical militia see this as an opportunity for confrontation, an opportunity to recruit, [and] an opportunity to get a lot of media attention. I see over the next few years for the number of radical militias to increase their enrollment.”


Many in Bundy’s brigade reject the notion that they’re anti-government. “If you set up a Facebook page, called yourself the “Greater Metro Citizens Militia”, and took a picture of yourself in Camo, Within six months, The SPLC will list you as an ‘anti-government patriot group,’” wrote Michael Lackomar of the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, in an email to ThinkProgress. Lackomar coordinated communication between different militias during the Bundy Ranch protest from his home in Michigan. “It’s unfair to call us ‘Anti Government’…We are against over-reaching, unconstitutional government.”

It’s unfair to call us ‘Anti Government’…We are against over-reaching, unconstitutional government.

Lackomar says his militia’s main focus is survival. “Our mission is to prepare ourselves and our families to help out at home and in our neighborhoods in times of emergency,” he said in an email. They’ve provided protection for other protests, including one over a Michigan teen’s arrest for carrying a rifle and one held by Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones.


Kay sees militia members who actually intend to use violence as a “very, very small minority,” he says. “Most of them are just weekend warriors who go out in the woods and do some paramilitary activity and some camouflage painting.”


Bundy’s supporters are also adamant that they love America — they just don’t agree with (or in many cases, even recognize as legitimate) its government or the laws it passes.


Writings by many militias discuss the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any of the Founding Fathers’ words with an almost religious reverence. At a recent “Patriot Party” hosted on the Bundy ranch, Bundy greeted his fans with a copy of the Constitution tucked in the breast pocket of his button-up. A George Washington impersonator, clad in a full white wig and navy coat with tails, showed up to eat barbecue beside Bundy and his wife.


“I am the furthest thing from an insurrectionist,” said Yeager from Bundy’s yard. Yeager owns a gun store and training center called Tactical Response which, as it says on his Facebook page, “trains good people to kill bad people.”


“I love this country. Love it. Top to bottom. When I say the pledge of allegiance, I mean it. It’s funny that the word patriot has been turned into this negative thing.”

I love this country. Love it. Top to bottom. When I say the pledge of allegiance, I mean it.

Yeager mentions he made the cover of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s quarterly intelligence report for being an anti-government threat, but says they’re not “a credible source.”


He drew the SPLC’s attention last year for calling on fellow “patriots” to rise up against gun control. “If that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do,” he said in a video posted on his personal YouTube page. “If this goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”


He later apologized, saying he did not “advocate the overthrowing of the United States government, nor do I condone any violent actions towards any elected officials.”


Like many of Bundy’s fans, Yeager objects to being labeled as conservative or far-right. “I believe there is a slow train to the demise of this country and there’s a fast train to the demise of this country,” he said. “The slow train is the Republicans and the fast train is the Democrats. But they’re both wrong.”


As Christian Kerodin of the III Percent Patriots put it, “No existing political party represents genuine Liberty today.”


Harry Reid’s moniker of “domestic terrorist,” however, is a title many have ironically embraced. Photos of the “Patriot Party” showed many wearing “Hello my name is…” stickers with the line scribbled on. The group responded with cheers when Bundy asked, “Are you guys domestic terrorists?”


“Because my views are not popular with this administration, I had a US Senator, label me as a Dangerous radical and domestic terrorist,” Lackomar wrote to ThinkProgress. “If you don’t agree with him, like many oppressors of history, you need to be locked up, or… worse yet… Killed. Now, Has Harry said I need to die? No. But when you label people as criminal…then it’s not a real stretch.”


Though federal BLM agents released the cattle, many still fear a raid on the Bundy family’s home. “We are concerned that the domestic enemies of the Constitution that infest the federal government might try to take advantage of folks going home, and attempt to make a move on the Bundy family,” wrote Stuart Rhodes, founder of patriot group the Oath Keepers. The organization, made up of military and law enforcement members that pledge allegiance to the Constitution but not to the government, has been a leader among Bundy supporters. The Oath Keepers say they’re sending another team of people to the ranch later this week.


A meme showing a man in sniper position was shared among some Bundy supporters on Facebook.



Kay monitored a 24-hour public phone line manned by Bundy’s militia backers and heard many express suspicions that the Obama administration had drones following protesters as they moved across the country. Others have repeated rumors that the BLM had paid mercenaries on the ground in Nevada. Fear over the National Security Agency spying on their communications was also frequently referenced.


Militia experts say furor over issues like gun control, NSA surveillance and the IRS’ treatment of Tea Party PACs has spurred more interest in militias and patriot groups.
Publicity over the Bundy Ranch may spark even more enthusiasm. Kerodin of the III Percent Patriots, which gets its name from the claim that three percent of Americans fought in the American Revolution, said interest had “dramatically increased” since the Bundy Ranch gained national attention. “The number of people finding us through Google keyword searches is stunning,” he said in an email.


The group’s Colorado chapter used the events to recruit new members. “I think it is time for all of you to Join the Militia!” they wrote in a Facebook post. “Look what is happening at The Bundy Ranch in NV. That could happen here next!” On April 15, the Arizona State Militia wrote they were flooded with new applications, receiving over 100 in 72 hours.

I think it is time for all of you to Join the Militia! Look what is happening at The Bundy Ranch in NV. That could happen here next!

“It is absolutely a recruitment strategy,” said Kay. “Now that the government stood down on this one i think they’re going to claim this as a huge victory. It really is to me the perfect storm for the militia to increase their attention and increase their recruitment and get ready for the next standoff.”


Lenz agrees. “We’re in a moment of critical mass. We have so many anti-government groups who believe the federal government is working against them, who believe Obama is secretly a Muslim, a communist, or not even an American,” he said. “There are people who will stand up to the federal government and risk their lives to do so.”


Bundy’s supporters say they would not have pulled the trigger unless fired upon. Many assert they won the battle with protest and publicity, and not through force. But there’s no question that as tension rose, perceived threats on either heavily-armed side could have easily ended in bloodshed.


“Violence is only acceptable in self-defense and in defense of innocent people from tyranny,” Kerodin said. “There will be violent clashes in our future between those who mean to be Masters, and those who refuse to be ruled.”


As Yeager sees it, “if the BLM would have fired a shot, that would have been the second shot heard round the world.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...bundy-militia/

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, Apr 23, 2014 8:16 PM UTC Bill O’Reilly to Cliven Bundy supporter: What makes you different from Occupy Wall Street?

The Fox News host grills a member of the militia movement on why it's OK for Bundy to break the law but not OWS VIDEO

Elias Isquith Follow

• Share

Topics: Video, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor, Scott Shaw, cliven bundy, Occupy Wall Street, Media News, News, Politics News

Bill O'Reilly and Scott Shaw (Credit: Screen shot, Fox News)


To a significant degree, American politics is a story of insiders vs. outsiders, so it’s inevitable that people among the latter group would be lumped together, even if they’re quite different by any other measure.


Still, it’s probably fair to say that when most people think of Nevada renegade rancher Cliven Bundy, the Zuccotti Park protesters of Occupy Wall Street don’t immediately — or eventually — come to mind.


Yet on the Tuesday night edition of his Fox News show, host Bill O’Reilly drew that very comparison when he had a pro-Bundy militia man as a guest.


“What’s the difference between Mr. Bundy and the Occupy Wall Street crew, that doesn’t respect the federal government for a variety of reasons and feels it has a right to go into a city like Oakland and burn things down?” O’Reilly asked.


The militia-founding Bundy supporter, Scott Shaw of Oklahoma, who seemed a bit surprised by the question, answered that Bundy, unlike OWS, provides America with beef.
“He’s a cattle rancher He’s providing the country with beef,” Shaw responded before adding, “The Occupy movement — to this day, I still don’t know what they’re providing the country with.”


O’Reilly granted that Bundy is indeed outpacing the basically defunct OWS when it comes to beef production, but pushed Shaw, saying, “But they’re both dissenters. They’re both dissenting what they feel is an oppressive system. That’s what they have in common.”

---

---

Shaw said this was true but that “the way they go about it is different,” noting that no Bundy supporters have been arrested, while many OWS protesters were charged by the police for disturbing public order and damaging public property. (Shaw didn’t mention this, but we feel it’s worth noting that OWS activists, unlike the Bundyites, did not greet the authorities with loaded weapons.)
“OK,” O’Reilly smirked. “Legitimate point.”
Watch the segment below:

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/23/bill...y_wall_street/

[American Patriot]

BUNDY RANCH: THE AGENDA 21 “SHOT” HEARD ‘ROUND THE WORLD

Posted on April 24, 2014 by Land & Livestock Interntional, Inc.


[Editor's Note: The following post is by TDV Editor-in-Chief, Jeff Berwick]


The United States government is NOT concerned about the desert tortoise. There is something much larger at stake…a much bigger reason to lead an armed insurrection against a family’s property as we’ve seen at the Bundy Ranch. What’s for sure is the Bundy Ranch showdown is not over. Harry Reid assures us something big will happen:


“It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next,” Reid told KSNV-TV. “But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen. We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.”


“We are a nation of laws. not of men women.” What in the world does that mean!? For the laws, by the laws…I guess.


As Los Angeles Times writes, “The U.S. can’t let Cliven Bundy win his range war.” Why not?


Because control over land use in the United States is at stake; that is, the control of US territory by government and transnational corporations. It’s called Agenda 21, and its implementation is in full-swing. The federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in nine different states. It will tell you Agenda 21 is for sustainability and smart growth – so that evil corporate persons don’t destroy the planet – but, let’s face it, the government is after what it is always after: to make a buck and gain control.


The recently deceased researcher, author and expert on UN’s Agenda 21, Henry Lamb, wrote an article in 2003 called “Why the Government is Grabbing Our Land.” He writes:

“By 1976, the United Nations was ready to articulate a general policy on land use. This policy is stated in the final report of the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), held in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.”


The preamble to the section on Land states:


“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”


Here is what the US will look like under Agenda 21:





Notice that there is basically no space reserved for humans! The light blue is “Normal Use” zones. That’s where you go. I’ve probably driven more of the US than most US citizens. Let me tell you something – there is a lot of space in the US! Especially in the west…


But so it goes. An end to private property in the US. The US federal government already owns half the land in the west. The federal government’s control of so much land has led states to ask (ever so politely) for some of it back. In 2012 Utah passed a law asking the federal government to give up about 20 million acres of public lands, comprising most of the state, by the end of 2014. “Experts” say that would be “unconstitutional”… Forget that whole state’s rights thing.


The 13 western states are home to 93 percent of federal land. Here’s a rundown of the top states for federal land ownership:


Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent


Seven western states have demanded that the federal government return public lands, according to a March report from the liberal Center for American Progress:


“In the past year, legislatures in seven western states—Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho—have passed, introduced, or explored legislation demanding that the federal government turn over millions of acres of federal public lands to the states,” according to a report from the Center For American Progress.


TIGHTEN YOUR BELT, SUCK IT IN…


Under the guise of protecting and restoring wilderness, Agenda 21 is really about socializing all land. This means kicking people off land they have owned for centuries. Where are they expected to go? Urban areas. They’ll live like sardines while nations once considered poor live better off than most Americans.


The hundreds of armed federal agents who showed up at the Bundy Ranch on behalf of the United States Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed great restraint by not massacring what the media would call a bunch of right-wing gun nuts. They confiscated nearly 1,000 cattle they claimed trespassed on federal property and threatened the desert tortoise. In true US law enforcement fashion, they were sure to shoot a few of the cattle, but not before they buried a mass grave. Once armed Bundy supporters poured onto the ranch, however, the federal government backed off…for now, as Harry Reid makes clear.


Basically, the BLM is a criminal organization strongarming the Bundy’s on behalf of mafioso racketeers. Cliven Bundy is only their latest target, and that’s because he lives on the Gold Butte area of Nevada.


“It’s not about the turtles. It’s about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining military grade minerals for industry…They want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it’s close to I-15 and the Bundy’s have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for twenty years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years,” said Rusty Hill, a former land broker in the Gold Butte area.
It won’t end with Cliven Bundy.


Texas officials are concerned that the Bureau of Land Management has its eyes on a massive land grab in northern Texas along the Oklahoma border. The issue caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who wrote to BLM Director Neil Kornze stating the agency “appears to be threatening” the private property rights of “hard-working Texans.”


It’s even gotten to the point where, in this particular case, police helicopters are pulling over people in the middle of nature to do stop and frisks and ask for their “papers please”.


WHY WAIT TO BE ASKED TO LEAVE?


If you are an American landowner, the time might be coming in which you must make a choice. Leave or fight the federal government?


Why?


Because if people don’t fight they will be driven off their land in the US in the coming years and decades under the auspices of “sustainability.” How you fight is up to you, whether it be non-cooperation (stop paying taxes, etc) or spreading info on things like Agenda 21 so people will wake up. Or taking the path Cliven Bundy’s supporters took, which seems to have worked (again, for now).


But if you stay, there will be an army of zombies chomping at the bit to watch the US government pull another WACO, except this time with drones, on you:





It might be a good idea to leave the US altogether and go to a lesser police state with a freer countryside. Get a second passport while you’re at it so you can truly shed all your chains of the US.


Or you can stay. If living in the roach motel that is the US suits you, then you’ll likely also be pleased to know about a coming calorie counter and the option to only eat meat on your birthday. Think I am crazy? Then YOU’VE been conditioned for “Planned-opolis.” Congratulations. I will let some NGOs explain:


Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

[Ryan Ruck]

Rick Perry: 'It's a Promise' Texas Will Stand Against BLM

April 23, 2014

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says his state's Attorney General Greg Abbott wasn't making a dare against the federal government over a land rights dispute; it was a promise.

"He is on the right side of this issue, not just for the people of the State of Texas, he's on the right side of this issue from the private property rights standpoint," Perry said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"I don't think Americans want to see another one of these exhibitions from the federal government of them coming in with armed troops over an issue that ought to be taken care of with a little common sense," Perry told guest host Stuart Varney.

"I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Brietbart Texas reported Abbott as saying.

Abbott wrote a letter to Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze about his concerns that the agency is trying to take 90,000 acres of land along the Red River from private citizens who have owned it for years.

"At a minimum they are overreaching, trying to grab land that belongs to Texans. Or worse, they are violating due process rights by just claiming that this land suddenly belongs to the federal government," Abbott said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."

The action stems from a dispute between Texas and Oklahoma over the two states' common border. According to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Red River is the border between them, but as the river's course changes so does the border.

Numerous lawsuits between the states and the federal government have arisen over the years, and the BLM wants to solve the issue by federalizing the land, Texas officials say.

"We don't have a clue why their trying to claim it, what basis they have to claim it on," Abbott told Fox News.

But the BLM issued a statement saying it "is categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River," Fox News reported.

Abbott said if that is true he's happy, but he added that it contradicts other statemenst the BLM has made.

Ken Aderholt told Van Susteren that the agency is trying to take 500-600 acres of his 1,800-acre cattle ranch. He said the federal government owns the river and the sandy areas near its banks. But he said the local BLM office told him it wants part of his land that is far from the river's banks.

Perry told Fox News he has no problem with Abbott's words.

"Actually, it's not a dare. It's a promise that we're going to stand up for private property rights in the State of Texas," he said.

The federal government already owns too much land and needs to be talking about how they can divest themselves of huge landholdings "rather than coming in and taking over private property."

The federal government owns large portions of many Western states. It owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada, where supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy recently forced a retreat by BLM agents attempting to seize Bundy's cattle. He has refused to pay grazing fees for two decades.

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has said the Bundy situation is not over, and called the rancher's supporters "domestic terrorists."

"I would suggest Sen. Reid spend a little more time in Nevada and get out of Washington, D.C., and to visit with those people that he is disparaging," Perry told Fox News. Reid's words, he added, are "not something you would want a leader in this country saying about the citizens of this country."

Some of Bundy's supporters had weapons, and Varney asked if Perry supports people taking up arms against the government.

"I have a problem with the federal government putting citizens in the position of having to feel like they have to use force to deal with their own government," Perry responded.

"That's the bigger issue."

Abbott told Fox News that the border issue supposedly was settled in the mid-1990s. If the federal government tries to take private land from Texans, he said, the state will meet them in court.

[Avvakum]

This is how I KNOW Communists are in the government of the USA; any ordinary administration or political coalition is Washington is VERY sensitive to bad press, even if most press they get is fawning, and every political administration in the US previously paid at least some minimal lip service to reaching out to fellow Americans who disagree with them, even if that group is a politically weak and numerically small group of persons.

But whoever is running the Obama Administration seems to invite conflict and bringing the system and opposing political leaders to the edge of an Abyss, and welcomes any outrage from it's enemies, especially outrage that they can use to paint it's enemies to the public as 'racists', 'extremists', and the like. And it goes without saying they engage in hardball and in the politics of personal destruction. And some groups are so obviously enemies in the eyes of this administration, that all this rivals the days of the doomed Nixon Administration.

The Nixon Administration, which in my opinion, was crawling with Communists and Soviet Agents too. One went by the code name "Bor". Another was "Deep Throat", who wasn't the deceased FBI agent people say 'Deep Throat' recently claimed to be him, but in my opinion (and God please forgive me if my speculation is too slanderous on either man), is now still alive and kicking as a certain well-known political commentator.

[American Patriot]

Sean Hannity: 'Our government is simply out of control'

Published April 24, 2014 | Hannity | Sean Hannity

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 24, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: We kick things off tonight with reaction to some disturbing comments that are being attributed to Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Now, they appeared in today's New York Times and were made by Bundy in what the paper likened to a town hall meeting with supporters.
Now, audio was recently posted of the alleged remarks on line. Take a listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CLIVEN BUNDY, NEVADA RANCHER: I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HANNITY: Now, Bundy then reportedly recalled driving past a public housing project in North Las Vegas, and he continued by saying this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BUNDY: In front of that government house, the door was usually open, and the older people and the kids -- and there's always at least a half a dozen people setting 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, and so now what do they do? They abort their young children. They put their young men in jail because they never -- they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves picking cotton and having family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HANNITY: All right, allow me to make myself abundantly clear. I believe those comments are downright racist. They are repugnant. They are bigoted. And it's beyond disturbing. I find those comments to be deplorable, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that Cliven Bundy holds those views.
Now, while I supported the Bundy ranch as they took a stand against the Bureau of Land Management, I was absolutely dismayed and frankly disappointed after reading the article and then hearing the commentary.
However, I also want to say this. The ranch standoff that took place out in Nevada was not about a man named Cliven Bundy. At the heart of this issue was my belief that our government is simply out of control. Now, to me, this was about a federal agency's dangerous response to a situation that could have resulted in a catastrophe, and that means people dying and people being shot, kind of comparable to what we saw in Waco, Texas.
It was about hundreds of armed federal agents and snipers and sharp shooters surrounding a family, and not because that family posed a threat to anyone else, but because their cattle happened to be grazing on the wrong patch of grass, and they were eating government grass.
In other words, when I believe government officials, when they overstep their line, I think it's my job to call them on it. And make no mistake about it, I'll continue to do just that.
Because long before the mainstream media paid any attention to Cliven Bundy and his ranch, we on this program were focusing on similar issues -- issues like eminent domain, for many, many years. Now, after all, these stories serve as proof that we have a government gone wild today in America.
Now, we reminded you about some of them last night. Now, for example, back in 2006, my friend Alan Colmes and I introduced you to Lou Anzalone. This is a World War II veteran who was being kicked out of his home after living in his home for 46 years. Watch his emotional words.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY & COLMES"/FEB. 17, 2006)
LOUIS ANZALONE: I lived in here since the first time I bought it. I renovated. I winterized it. I did everything.
And I will bless this house because I'm able to be 89 years old.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank God.
ANZALONE: And my wife is 89. Now the city decides that this is a nice place for someone else, so they're throwing us out.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: Extremely sad. Now it took a while, three years to be exact, but I'm happy to report that the city because of public pressure -- they dropped their plans to seize Lou's land.
Now, we also met a great-grandmother by the name of Norma Peterson Fluke. That was in 2005. Now, she was going through a very similar situation. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY & COLMES"/ DEC. 14, 2005)
NORMAL PETERSON FLUKE: Family has lived here 65 years. Business has been here 56 years. And now the town has come and deemed us unfit to be in this town and wants to put us somewhere else. But we're centrally located for our business, and without this property, we would go out of business.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: Fifty-six years. Now, thankfully, because of media attention, including right here on this program, she got to keep her home.
And then there was the heart-breaking story of a World War II vet, Johnny Stevens. Now, back in 2005, doctors told him that he had lung cancer. He was given only two years to live. Now, while he wanted to spend his last days peacefully in his home, well, the government wanted to seize his property. Why? They wanted to build luxury condos for bigger tax revenue. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY & COLMES"/NOV. 17, 2005)
JOHNNY STEVENS: I don't have too much time left. I had intended to live out the rest of my life in that little house I got, tend my garden and be able to live in peace. As it stands right now, I don't know where I'm going or what I'm going to do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: Now, thanks to some public pressure, Mr. Stevens -- he got his dying wish. He was able to stay in his home.
Now, over the years, I haven't just reported on these stories from our headquarters here at Fox. I've hit the road to try and help people who are being victimized by the government.
Now, for example, in 2005, I traveled to the Riviera Beach in Florida to do a story on 6,000 residents who were being thrown out of their homes because of eminent domain. You may remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY & COLMES"/DEC. 7, 2005)
HANNITY: What does that feel like that you may lose your house to the government because they want to build a yacht club?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It makes you just totally infuriated. You are totally, totally hostile. But it's nothing that you can do except when you guys came down here, it made such a big difference. Now we're getting national attention, and it's exactly what we need.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've been here 42 years.
HANNITY: Forty-two -- and you may lose your home?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they took my home for the school to make a parking lot over on 17th Street. I moved over into this area. Now they want the little apartment I have to build a mall for somebody else.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: A mall, 46 years, take his home, a mall. Now, fortunately, after years of fighting and public outcry, the city council finally reversed course. The residents were able to keep their homes.
But our focus wasn't just on eminent domain. Far from it. In 2006, a couple of months after Hurricane Katrina, when residents were fighting to make sure that their homes were not bulldozed, we were there, as well.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY & COLMES"/JAN. 12, 2006)
HANNITY: These are the people that lost their homes in the hurricane and the ones that are concerned that the government and their redevelopment plan does not meet their needs and not is fulfilling their wishes.
Your home got bulldozed already, and you weren't allowed to get your possessions. And a lot of people say, at least let us get our possessions, right, you want to say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I mean, basically, I mean, we all share the same sentiment. I mean, you know, just let us -- give us an opportunity to go in to do what we got to do. You know, some of us may want to stay. Some of us may want to leave. But I mean, give us -- give us that -- just that much respect. I mean, we're just as human as anybody else.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: Sad again. And then there was the case of the delta smelt. That was out in California. All in the name of that tiny little fish, water was actually shut off to farms and their families. They were going to bed hungry and jobs were being lost. But unlike countless liberal environmentalists, we didn't take the side of the fish. We decided to stand with the people who were suffering in the valley that hope forgot. You may remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, "HANNITY"/SEPT. 17, 2009)
HANNITY: We are live in the Central Valley in California. This is some of the most fertile farmland in the entire country, and helps sustain the entire country in terms of food and what has become ground zero in a battle between environmentalists and whether or not the farmers in the Central Valley here have water. Ladies and gentlemen, this has become a dust bowl, and we came here tonight with a message for Washington and President Barack Obama. Please, for the sake of the farmers, where unemployment is now near 40 percent, please turn this water on now!
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HANNITY: Took a long time, which brings me to my next point. This is government gone wild. It's not limited to Cliven Bundy or to a California valley or eminent domain stories.
Now, in recent years, we have seen it play out in a vindictive tax agency's efforts to target and silence and intimidate citizens who happen to think this country is headed in the wrong direction. We watched tragically as our top diplomats and our commander-in-chief lied in the wake of a terrorist attack that took the lives of four brave Americans.
We've also endured the universal nightmare that is ObamaCare. Premiums have, in fact, increased in spite of promises to the contrary. Plans have been canceled in spite of promises to the contrary. And now a federal agency is telling you what doctors you can and cannot see when you were promised the exact opposite.
In my opinion, ObamaCare is the gold standard of government gone wild. But you won't read the truth about the stories that I mentioned tonight in places like The New York Times. Why? Because that paper has actively helped cover up what really happened in the aftermath of Benghazi. Its reporters don't have the time or the energy to stand with average Americans being victimized by eminent domain.
And by the way, the same goes for my good friend, funny man Jon Stewart. He's far too busy yucking it up on "The Daily Show" with his famous friends, and he simply lacks the moral courage to speak truth to power, even when he's looking it right in the eye.
And for the man who arrived in Washington lecturing the entire world on hope and change -- well, I think it's official. All hope is lost when it comes to President Barack Obama and his ability to stand for what's right.
Now, this is how his government is out of control, and that's something we will never ignore here on this program, and that's a promise I make to you.

[American Patriot]

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/0...i-call-real-j/

From the Bundy Ranch — What I Saw Today . . . this is what I call ‘real’. . . ~J

Posted on April 25, 2014 by Jean




Today I saw a man, a simple rancher, try his hardest to tell the world that we are all being abused by our government. I also saw the sound bite sharks swarming the waters of the Bundy ranch, waiting with baited breath for a man who struggled to come up with the word “vocabulary” to say something they could use to make him look bad. I think it is very sad that we have come to a point in our society where a man is required to be well spoken, highly educated, strictly politically correct and have prepared all of his messaging and sound bites to perfectly mesh with the medias expectations or he cannot get a fair shake.


I have not known Cliven for that long, but long enough to tell you he is definitely not racist. He is simply an old rancher. He has tremendous love in his heart and all he was trying to do was express the sadness that he feels for his fellow man. It is unfortunate that today we are so quick to snatch a few soundbites and use them to condemn a man so quickly. Even in this group “Support Cliven Bundy” I am seeing messages from people who are more influenced by the soundbite mafia than their own thought processes.


At the end of the day this whole issue is so much larger than Cliven or his ability to carry our banner for us. This is about our freedoms much more than it is Cliven or his cows. We need to wake up to the fact that all of us are being slowly, one regulation at a time, put into slavery to our government. So it is about time we picked up that banner and stopped making Cliven carry it for us.


- @Shannon Bushman’s

[American Patriot]

It's time for us to ask the hard questions, to stand firm, and to be ready to protect our freedoms with force if necessary

Some Lessons from Cliven Bundy

By Tim Dunkin (Bio and Archives) Friday, April 25, 2014 Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

By now, liberty lovers all across this country know the name of Cliven Bundy—the man who stood up to the federal government and won. Facing the destruction of his entire livelihood by corrupt government officials acting on the behalf of Chinese land grabbers, Bundy and his supporters—thousands of people who rallied to his defense—successfully withstood the jackboots of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and drove off armed federal agents, including snipers, who had been sent to steal Bundy’s cattle and destroy his way of life as they had already done to many other ranchers in Nevada and other parts of the West.


My intention is not to discuss the actual legal claims made by Mr. Bundy about who “really” owns the land that is in dispute. I am not a lawyer, and am not going to pretend to be one. Neither do I give any credence to the claims about Bundy’s “racist” comments that were engineered by the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney, a left-wing gay man following the “progressive” playbook of demonizing those against whom you can’t argue. I would only note that Bundy didn’t actually make any “racist” comments. Instead, what he DID do was point out how terribly, terribly destructive that Democrats and the rest of the “progressive” movement have been for black Americans over the past few decades. If there’s anything racist going on, it involves trapping African-Americans in a grinding cycle of poverty and despair, while psychologically bullying them into continuing to support the very people—the Democrats—who trapped them in the first place.


Instead, what I’d like to discuss are some conclusions that we can draw from the recent standoff at Bunkerville.
Corruption of our government

First, the corruption of our government has reached a tipping point where politicians and agencies no longer even try to hide what they’re doing. Removing Cliven Bundy’s cattle and killing them was not about “the public good.” It wasn’t even really about “protecting the turtles.” Instead, it was about clearing off land so that Chinese land developers in league with Harry Reid’s son Rory could use the land as a remediation site connected with a solar power panel farm they wanted to build further north as part of a $5 billion development deal. In other words, it was about using public land so that the Reid family and foreign developers could make a pile of money—which makes the Senator’s complaints about Bundy “profiting off of public lands” just a bit hypocritical.

Now, it used to be that when politicians were caught with their hands in the till like this, they at least had the good grace to backpeddle, apologize, and try to do some damage control. Not Harry Reid, however. He decided to double down on stupid, accusing patriotic Americans defending our constitutional rights of being “domestic terrorists.” He even went further, ominously warning that “something will happen” to Cliven Bundy and his family, presumably for getting in the way of the Reid family’s multi-billion dollar payday. One wonders if this threat has anything to do with the Obama administration’s self-proclaimed privilege of “extra-judicial killings” without due process, and often without the public’s knowledge? I would daresay that if you’re a government that kills American citizens without due process, or which even levels threats against private citizens who have displeased you, then YOU are the domestic terrorists.


Second, the federal government, while corrupt and overbearing, does not seem ready (at least not quite yet) to actually cross the line of committing open violence against American citizens exercising their constitutional rights. At least not against large numbers of them at one time. This ought to suggest that the proper way to deal with future government harassment of one or a few citizens, at whatever level of government, is for citizens to band together to come to each others’ aid. After all, WE are the source of power and legitimacy in our constitutional system. The police, the federal agents—they work for us. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws which are in line with that Constitution. When they step outside or against that document, they no longer enjoy any authority that we the people are bound to recognize. If it takes thousands of armed Americans standing up to government excesses to cause the government to start getting back into line constitutionally, then so be it. In other words, the primary purpose for the 2^nd amendment—to serve as a deterrent against overbold tyranny—still works.
Demise of the American patriot are overstated

Third, the reports of the demise of the American patriot are overstated, to say the least. Far from tamely sitting back and letting the government run over yet another American citizen, thousands of our people finally stood up to the excesses of the government in the Cliven Bundy case. Regardless of what you think of Bundy’s arguments or whether he owes grazing fees or not, the fact remains that the federal government was way out of line in its response. It destroyed his cattle—which regardless of whether they were grazing on these lands legally, they are still Bundy’s property and subject to Fourth Amendment protections. It attempted to curtail constitutional free speech rights by setting up useless and onerous “first Amendment zones” to silence and nullify protestors. Its agents tasered his son and beat his pregnant daughter. In such a case, standing up against such provocations and putting the government back into its place was the only reasonable response for those who actually care about freedom.
Fourth, however, we did also learn that liberty is not out of the woods. The fact that all the abuses mentioned in the previous point were backed up by federal snipers and helicopters ready to use deadly force even before armed Americans came to the Bundies’ rescue points to a serious problem with our government and its agents. Our government apparently employs many agents who are more than happy to point high-powered rifles at the heads of pregnant women and other American citizens if some toady in Washington tells them to. It is high time for the federal government to be cleared out of its more psychopathic elements. There are apparently many people with a badge in our government who need to be kept far, far away from any job involving the opportunity to use deadly force against other people.
Why can the federal government expend so much money, time, and resources on one rancher in Nevada grazing a few hundred head of cattle, but seems incapable of projecting any sort of useful manpower on our southern border?

Fifth, a good question we can ask that is tangentially related to all of this is: why can the federal government expend so much money, time, and resources on one rancher in Nevada grazing a few hundred head of cattle, but seems incapable of projecting any sort of useful manpower on our southern border? The federal government goes to great lengths to (supposedly) protect a few turtles, but yet it doesn’t even try to stop thousands of often hostile foreigners from crossing our border every day? Foreigners who, besides being here illegally, also dump hundreds of tons of trash and garbage all across our desert lands each year. If protecting the turtles and the environment is such a big deal for the BLM and other federal agencies, what about the environmental damage done by all of this pollution?


Sixth, while the legal arguments used by Mr. Bundy regarding the ownership of federal lands (federal versus states) may not have gotten him very far, it ought to raise a more foundational question—just why does the federal government continue to hold so much land, especially in the western states? Seriously, if you look at a map of the American West, more than 50% of the surface area in many of these states is claimed by the federal government. In some states, that number reaches 80%. Why? Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 of the U.S. Constitution says,

“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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

If you go by the plain wording of the Constitution, federal ownership of something like 95% of the lands it currently holds is illegal. There is nothing in the Constitution that says—as the government has argued in the Cliven Bundy court cases—that the federal government gets to keep certain state lands because they were originally ceded to the United States following the Mexican War of 1848. If the federal government wants land in a state that has been accepted into the Union, then it needs to purchase that land upon the consent of that state’s legislature. The federal government—despite its pretentions—does not just get to march in and seize land from states and from property owners in those states, as it is also trying to do now in the Red River valley in Texas. Further, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to own lands for the purpose of building solar farms for the Chinese, protecting desert turtles, or anything else that doesn’t involve a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or other needful military or infrastructural building (presumably we can assume that air force bases are contextually included in this).


I’m sure there are many more lessons that could be listed here but which I am omitting for the sake of space. But let the take home message from all of this be that we the people are responsible for whether we continue to enjoy our freedom or whether we lose it to Leviathan. We can either be like Cliven Bundy and his supporters, and like the gun owners in Connecticut who are refusing to register their guns under that state’s unconstitutional new firearms law, or we can continue to yield our liberties one piece at a time. It’s time for us to ask the hard questions, to stand firm, and to be ready to protect our freedoms with force if necessary. Nothing else will be true to the spirit of manly fortitude that animated our forefathers in their own fight for liberty.

[American Patriot]

These fucks trying to make Bundy into a racist are the racists. Why is ANYONE listening to CNN?

Rancher, Cliven Bundy, defends racist remarks: ‘I think I’m right’

• 1 hour ago
  by Matt from FOX43
  

Cliven Bundy

By Ralph Ellis and Greg Botelho, (CNN) — Cliven Bundy — the Nevada rancher turned conservative folk hero for bucking the federal government’s attempts to stop his cattle from grazing on public land — admits he doesn’t understand the bipartisan uproar over his comments suggesting blacks might have been better off under slavery.
But in a contentious interview Friday on CNN’s “New Day,” Bundy stood by his remarks, saying he’s not a racist but only somebody who spoke his mind, perhaps using politically incorrect language.
“Maybe I sinned, and maybe I need to ask forgiveness, and maybe I don’t know what I actually said, but when you talk about prejudice, we’re talking about not being able to exercise what we think. … If I say Negro or black boy or slave, if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be (offended), then Martin Luther King hasn’t got his job done yet,” he told anchor Chris Cuomo on Friday, adding, “We need to get over this prejudice stuff.”
Bundy brought up civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, who was arrested in December 1955 for not giving up her seat on a public bus to a white man. The arrest sparked the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott.
Bundy said King would have wanted Parks to sit anywhere on a bus. Bundy said, “I want her to sit anywhere in the bus and I want to sit next to her anywhere in the bus.”
In one exchange with Cuomo, Bundy said, “I don’t know how to talk about these ethnic groups …”
“Then don’t,” Cuomo said.
For two decades, Bundy’s cattle have fed off government-owned land without paying grazing fees like thousands of other ranchers. He claims he won’t do business with the federal government because, in his view, the Constitution doesn’t say Americans can’t use land owned by the federal government. He said he’d be willing to talk with state and local authorities..
“I’ll be damned if this is the property of the United States. They have no business here,” he said on “New Day.”
“This is a sovereign state, the sovereign state of Nevada. The federal government has nothing to do with public land in Nevada.” He said other ranchers are as frustrated as he is.
This stance made him a darling of some conservatives in the media and Republican circles upset over what they’ve deemed government overreach. Militiamen rallied by the side of the 67-year-old rancher as armed federal rangers tried to force him off his land.
Bundy won that standoff, but he didn’t stop talking.
Speaking to reporters over the weekend, he recalled driving by a public housing project in North Las Vegas, Nevada, and seeing “at least a half-dozen (black) people sitting on the porch, they didn’t have nothing to do.”
“Because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he added in comments first reported by The New York Times and later seen on video. “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.”
The remarks have since gone viral, drawing widespread condemnation from Democrats and Republicans alike. The rancher said he doesn’t feel “abandoned” by the uproar by the likes of right-wing radio firebrand and Fox News host Sean Hannity, who has ripped what he called the “ignorant, racist, repugnant, despicable comments.”
Sen. Rand Paul, who originally supported Bundy’s case, issued a statement Thursday decrying Bundy’s racial comments.
“His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” said the Kentucky Republican, who’s considering a 2016 presidential run.
GOP Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada earlier called Bundy’s supporters “patriots.” But Thursday, the senator’s office said he “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who had not weighed in on the land dispute, said Bundy’s words were “beyond the pale.”
On Thursday, in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Bill Weir, Bundy was asked to elaborate on his remarks. He explained he’d been simply “wondering whether (blacks) are that much better off in the situation we’re in now.”
He backtracked somewhat, insisting he “didn’t really mean it to compare (African-Americans’ current plight) with slavery. I meant to compare it with maybe life on the farm or life in the South, where they had some chickens and the gardens, and they had something to do.”
At the same time, Bundy stood by his general premise that blacks once had better lives — stating that, right now, “they don’t have nothing to do with their children, their family unit is ruined. … That’s what I was referring to. I don’t think they have the life that they should have” because of the government.
How did he arrive at these generalizations?
“I feel that, because I see that,” Bundy explained. He said, “I don’t think I’m wrong. I think I’m right.”
Weir at one point challenged the Nevada rancher about whether he was any more or less a “welfare queen” since his cattle have been feeding off the government, literally, by eating grass on public land.
Bundy’s response: “I might be a welfare queen. But I’ll tell you I’m producing something for America and using a resource that nobody else would use or could use. I’m putting red meat on the table.”
– CNN’s Joe Sterling and Jason Hanna contributed to this report.


Read more at http://fox43.com/2014/04/25/rancher-...1cz4f0goyrE.99

[American Patriot]

Well, here it comes:

Feds To Hit Bundy Ranch Again With Multi-Agency Force Including Army Rangers; Covert Video Of Staging Area

25 Friday Apr 2014
Posted by Mary W. in ATF/BATF, BLM, Domestic Terrorism, Energy, FBI, Military, Police State, Politics, Sagebrush Rebellion, Technology, Tyrannical Government, United States, US Constitution
≈ Leave a comment

Tags
ATF, BLM, Bundy, DHS, Domestic Terrorist, enn, FBI, Harry Reid, Kornze, Land Grab, Nevada, Raid, Range War, Solar Farm, SWAT


On Sunday April 13th, an episode of The Truth Is Viral was published that questioned how easily BLM agents were run off of the Bundy Ranch. Never before has the federal government ever turned and run from a fight, and believe me that sets a huge and dangerous precedent.
That show was based on a report by investigative journalist Doug Hagmann who said that a highly placed source inside the Department of Homeland Security told him that the BLM withdrawal was a fake and that they intended to return with greater numbers. Hagmann also stated that his DHS informant told him that the first raid on the Bundy compound was an exercise designed to determine what kind of resistance the government will face should gun confiscations begin.
The very next day on Ben Swann’s radio program Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association revealed that he had received intelligence from multiple credible sources inside the BLM and Las Vegas Metro that there is “no question” that the federal government is planning a second raid on the Bundy home and the homes of their children who live on the property.
Harry Reid doesn’t think it’s over either, and he said so in an interview with mynews4.com
And then “Dingy Harry” doubled down by calling everybody that supports the Bundy’s “domestic terrorists” in an interview published by the Las Vegas Review Journal. How can the government let “domestic terrorists” run free? They are going to have to do something or lose all credibility in the eyes of even the most ardent Obama supporters. Judging by the comments left by liberals around the blogosphere, the progressive left is fully in support of squashing the Bundy’s like bugs. Some have even suggested that the Bundy’s be struck with drones.
Since that initial information came out both Mack and Hagmann have said that the publicity generated by their reports has caused the federal government to go back to the drawing board. Apparently what they’ve done is call for reinforcements because the last time the federal government stood toe to toe with patriots they were badly outgunned and a massacre was narrowly avoided.
I need to reiterate here that backing down from a group of armed protesters makes the federal government look extremely weak. This is something that the entire world has come to realize about Barack Obama, that he is the weakest president this country has ever had the misfortune of seeing in office. Even though it was really al-Qaeda terrorists that used chemical weapons in Syria and not Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad, Obama was seen as ‘womanly” by the Arab world when he did not take action once his so-called “Red Line” had been crossed.
Right now the rest of the world is watching and laughing at the weakness of Barack Hussein Obama as Russian president Vladimir Putin bends him over on the world stage and spanks him viciously nearly every single day. Obama is a joke, and the whole world sees it. Now the American people are seeing it too, and being the malignant narcissist that he is Obama just will not let that stand; he can’t. He cannot allow a few brave patriots to stand up against him and succeed.
A video posted yesterday by Freedom Fighters 2127 News claimed a source in Las Vegas had been told by a law enforcement officer that there were about 140 agents in Las Vegas where the government has set up a staging area for a second, more forceful, raid on the ranch. The video goes on to say that Las Vegas hotels are being filled with federal agents; BLM Rangers and FBI that are arriving in unmarked vehicles. “J,” Freedom Fighter’s source, said that the vehicles are being parked in secure areas and parking lots in the Las Vegas area. “J” says this doesn’t include those agents who may be flying in to take part in the raid.
This reinforces the facts published on the 13th which included a phone call to the Holiday Inn in Mesquite Nevada, which is just miles from the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville. Every time that I mentioned the phrase “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,” or “ATF,” the Holiday Inn desk clerk hung up on me. You can listen to those phone calls by clicking this link.
Today I received brand-new video from one of my spies in Las Vegas that seems to confirm that federal agents are indeed massing in Sin City. This video shows federal agents in the bar of the hotel bragging about past exploits and warning about “bad breaches.” My spy also took a tour of the hotel’s parking facility and managed to capture their vehicles on video. This man speaks with me in an exclusive interview, describing what he saw, heard, and recorded with his cell phone.
As this episode of The Truth Is Viral was being uploaded, my source called with an update. He reported that he had returned to the Las Vegas Marriott hotel where he recorded the original video and had spoken with a hotel employee who told him that many of the men were Army Rangers. Interestingly, my source reported that whenever the Rangers left the hotel they were always escorted by Las Vegas Metro officers.
My source, just an ordinary everyday Patriot, has promised to keep me up to date with his latest observations.
Blaine Cooper

Blaine Cooper, the man who threatened to charge John McCain with Treason – to his FACE – at a town hall meeting, has been providing security for the Bundy family, literally putting his humungous body in harms way in order to protect the rancher and his family. Cooper reports that all is quiet at the Bundy ranch and they have no fear of a second government attack on their ranch.
Still, members of Stewart Rhodes Oathkeepers organization and the Constitutional Sheriffs and PeaceOfficers Association led by Sheriff Richard Mack, along with militia members from around the country, are still encamped at the Bundy Ranch where they recently enjoyed a performance by the popular Patriot band Madison Rising in appreciation for their brave stand against federal Jackboots. Calls have gone out for reinforcements that will be expected to stand up to, and possibly fight, a much larger attacking force than that which assaulted the Bundy’s the first time.
If Doug Hagmann’s source inside the Department of Homeland Security is correct, that part of the motivation for the initial raid was to gauge the reaction of the American people, I think they got their answer.
The American people have had enough.
See more at The Truth Is Viral

[American Patriot]

http://benswann.com/exclusive-source...on-bundy-home/

http://2127news.net/2014/04/red-aler...-update-video/

http://bobpowell.blogspot.com/2014/0...ndoff-not.html

[American Patriot]

From One Domestic Terrorist to Another: An Open Letter to Harry Reid

Darwin Rockantansky 2 hours ago


The (Less Than) Honorable Harry Reid
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Reid,

In August of 2011, our Vice President Biden joined Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) in calling us involved with the Tea Party movement as "Terrorists." I have thought about that designation quite a bit since then.

I wanted to thank you for your recent clarification of that charge when you announced to the world that those of us citizens you are supposed to represent are only "Domestic Terrorists." I would really not want the world to think that We The People had joined forces with Al Qaeda. American ingenuity and the Second Amendment to our Constitution provide us with all the resources we need - Thank you very much.

As I just said, since first being labeled as a "Terrorist" by this country's "leaders" I have given the subject some considerable thought. After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that you have a great deal in common with the rest of us "Domestic Terrorists."

Being a simple man, I prefer the simple definition of the word:

Terrorist - A person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Yes, YOU most definitely qualify if not indeed personify the term.

I worked on the Sharron Angle campaign in 2010; a campaign to which I am told you manipulated large donations amounting to a million dollars or more. That campaign was my baptism into Nevada Politics and I have never felt so soiled since the day I had to retrieve my dog from a Japanese "benjo ditch" (open roadside sewer system).

Our neighborhood walkers were berated by recent immigrants over the lie that America has become. A recent immigrant from Eastern Europe raged over the fact that he could not vote for the candidate of his choice because his union bosses assured him that his vote could be tracked and that if he did not cast a vote for you he would lose his livelihood. As Providence would have it, he worked for one of the casino companies for whom you arranged a bailout when Dubai pulled up stakes and left them hanging at the barely begun City Center project.

And then there were those union members who were told that the casinos would stop their support of citizenship applications which would result in deportations if they did not vote for Harry Reid. The tales are endless and more disgusting with each iteration.

Yes, Senator, I understand that We The People terrorize you and your felonious friends on both sides of the aisle. You live in terror of losing your power, position, and privilege. You live in terror that all your dirty laundry will be hung out for all to see and the inevitable pillory of you and your entire nest of freedom crushing and liberty sucking vipers will occur. Senator, that is inevitable; it is only a matter of time. But I do understand your terror. I have seen it in the eyes of other petty despots as their worlds imploded.

On the other hand, YOU Sir are of the traditional type of Terrorist. You hide in the shadows and manipulate others to do your bidding. You use your position of power and influence to intimidate people to comply or suffer the consequences.

When We The People present that which terrorizes you the most, our unity - defended only by the American Flag and our Constitution, you arm your bureaucrats and hire mercenaries to deploy snipers against unarmed and defenseless old men, women, and children. At which point We The People provide the armed security.

Yes, Senator, as One Domestic Terrorist to another I understand your terror, but somehow I feel that I am more comfortable with my form of terrorism than are you with yours. For although you may be unwilling to acknowledge the truth of history, despotism and tyranny, such as yours, will inevitably fall at the feet of the one ever enduring and insurmountable human power: The God Given love of freedom and soul deep need for liberty shared by all free men.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/on...vXJc4Et9Kub.99

[American Patriot]

Bundy's Black Bodyguard: 'I Would Take A Bullet For That Man' (VIDEO)

CNN - TPM ^ | April 25, 2014 | Catherine Thompson –

Posted on Friday, April 25, 2014 1:01:13 PM by george76



One of the supporters serving as a bodyguard for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy during his standoff with federal authorities -- and who also happens to be black -- said he would still "take a bullet for" Bundy after the rancher made racially inflammatory comments.


CNN's Dan Simon noticed Jason Bullock, a six-year Army veteran who serves as one of Bundy's bodyguards, hanging around at the Nevada ranch. Simon asked Bullock whether he found Bundy's remarks about blacks and slavery offensive.


"Mr. Bundy is not a racist," he told CNN. "Ever since I've been here, he's treated me with nothing but hospitality. He's pretty much treating me just like his own family."


"I would take a bullet for that man if need be. I look up to him just like I do my own grandfather," he added. "I believe in his cause and after having met Mr. Bundy a few times, I have a really good feel about him and I'm a pretty good judge of character."


(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...

[Ryan Ruck]

Here's a little more detail from that gentleman. From Kevin Jackson's website...

Black Marine Says Cliven Bundy Is NOT A Racist

April 25, 2014

Below is what a black Marine has to say about the Cliven Bundy comment.

Charlie Delta



The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator. One thing he definitely isn’t – a racist. I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso’s view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine? Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, “I wonder IF” … Hell, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family. Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government “assistance” and the long term result of accepting handouts. It’s not progress at all. I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue. Don’t let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground.I sincerely hope you real patriots out there who can see through the smoke.

Semper Fidelis

For my part, I say to the Left, shove Clive Bundy’s statement up your Harry Reids!