Range War: Feds vs The People

[American Patriot]

"Shove Cliven Bundy's statement up your Harry Reids" LMAO

[American Patriot]

FOX News – Judge Jeanie – Truth about Federal Land Grabs

Posted on 2014/04/28 by Jim Harwood



This is a written in advance Scheduled Posting for 7:00 a.m. CT Monday 28 April 2014 – at The Lantern Journal - posted by Jim Harwood, Independent voter in Norman Oklahoma USA



The following video is from the 8:00 p.m. CT broadcast of “Justice with Judge Jeanie” Saturday 26 April 2014 on FOX News. At the time I’m writing this on Sunday, the video titled “Judge Jeanine: Oh to put ‘Dirty Harry’ under oath” is not yet available at YouTube – where her videos usually end up being posted, but you can search for that video there now if you want to. Meantime, watch it at the following link…


Judge Jeanine: Oh to put ‘Dirty Harry’ under oath


…That is the best presentation of the “federal land grabs” issue I’ve so far seen – telling the truth about it – explaining how it really works and what its intentions of our government are.


This is not limited to the Bundy Ranch issue, and what has been revealed about the land grabs in Texas – as well as Oklahoma along the Red River. There is a bigger picture to consider.


In Nevada, it is about building the world’s largest solar energy plant. Although I’m not aware of anyone else who has suggest it, I believe the real reason for the land grab along the Red River has more to do with taking over hydro-electric power plants, rather than just establishing land for public recreational use – such as camping, fishing, and hunting. There’s always a “cover story” for their real intentions. In Nevada it has been to protect turtles. In Texas it is about taking more land for for public recreational use. It is mainly about how the federal government can get a bigger share of the big money pie. Less money for state governments. No money for private businesses owned by Americans.


In Nevada, it’s not just the issue of the federal government taking over private-owned land, and state-owned land, but to then turn it over to China.


The Nevada solar energy plant will not create new jobs here in the US for US citizens. It will be entirely Chinese owned, built, and operated. So when US citizens get solar energy from that plant, they will be paying China for it. No doubt, Harry Reid and his family get a big kick-back for arranging the deal, and the federal government will get tax money from it. Harry Reid is selling out America. I consider Harry Reid to be a traitor to the US and its people. Harry Reid has claimed that the American patriots, who are opposed to his actions in Nevada, are “domestic terrorists.” Clearly, he is the “domestic terrorist” in this issue.


It is not just a matter of the federal government targeting farmers and ranchers, to take their land and used it for alternative energy sources. The liberal Democrats, when in power, have been for a long time and still are targeting the oil and gas industry – especially the oil industry – to do everything they can to force oil companies out of business. There are the claims of damage to the environment by oil businesses. This sets up a kind of hypocrisy, because most alternative energy sources also have some negative impact on the environment. If the federal government expands hydro-electric power on the Red River, then it will very likely mean less water and less grazing land for cattle and horses, or they will at least be charging farmers and ranchers more money for that source of energy and water as well as land use. It is of course a similar situation in Nevada, but with solar energy.


Republicans must take back the US Senate with the November 2014 mid-term elections.

[American Patriot]

So... I collected some information. These are quotes from another site:

There has been supposedly leaks about possible drone strikes on all personel and a sanitizing opperation to follow the strike. This could be true or it could be scyops.

This is a link to a radio inerview with Stewart .

[radiofreeredoubt.podbean.com]

And an interview with smithfix

[www.youtube.com]

Now l do believe that firing a drone on American citizens ON American soil when there is no clear and present danger to life loss would be the absolute turning point in the relationship the average American has with the Federal gov't.

I don't care how much ammo they have purchased or how many "No More Hesitation" targets they have shot up, May God himself have mercy on their collective asses because the American people will have none.

ABSOLUTLY!!!! let's look at the facts

1.as it sits right now, the actual # of III% out there would be relatively (costly in lives on their side and our) easy compared to them destroying all of the average Americans trust
2. As it sits right now they know they can wait a few months and the masses will likely forget about the situation (other than patriots who will have painted a larger target for themselves
3. There's still too big of a Dirty Harry Ried on it

Liklyhood: wait for Rissia to invade Ukraine (or blow up the resistance as a false flag, blame Russia for doing it and try to start a civil war here, create a movement for entrance into a European theater.

Also likely: Surround the resistance, bust out a Haliburton insta-fema camp as a dry run... Hear comes martial law

Point: at this breaking point they know they either have to divert attention (and they'll try to divert the attention to their benifits) or risk civil war here

If a hot civil war (because l believe there is a cold civil war right now) is started then l do believe that there will be foreign forces on our soil stoking to fire that burns in the people against the Federal gov't to try and divert resources or destroy it from within.

That's entirely what I'm talking about!!!! It's incredibly logical, the same exact way we are arming "rebels" who are actually terrorists

Speakin' of, l really didn't hear the BLM guys do a lot of talkin', and l noticed that every one of them was white.

Made me wonder if some were Russian.

There were reports of BLM agents with strong accents during the initial flare up. Now, I'm not saying that I believe it just saying what I had read on a report somewhere.

Latest update:

[www.libertasintel.com]

[Malsua]

I don't care how much ammo they have purchased or how many "No More Hesitation" targets they have shot up, May God himself have mercy on their collective asses because the American people will have none.

Yup.

[American Patriot]

Daybreak Sends: My Line In The Sand

Posted on April 28, 2014 | Leave a comment

Folks in the Southwest should already be planning to attend the classes run by Sierra12, who wrote this excellent AAR from the Bundy Ranch and who sends this piece on the realities of leaving the porch:


Friday, April 11th, was my line in the sand.



I was at work, reading updates from online sources about the Bundy ranch. I had not seen the video of the BLM attacking unarmed protesters until Friday evening. As soon as I saw it, something clicked. I think some call it the stacking affect. Things just became clear, we are on our own. There isn’t any political party coming down from on high to put a stop to the abuses at the hands of the .gov. No, if we want change we are going to have to invoke the changes needed to bring back true Liberty and Justice.


I quickly left work and arrived home at a little after 1700, I walked into my gear room and started going through equipment which I had previously considered organized and ready for deployment. The personal equipment such as plate carrier, war belt, weapon systems, they were all ready. I had issues with the sustainment portion and special equipment.


Sustainment, I wasn’t ready for that. I was tossing supplies over my shoulder, MRE’s, Mountain house, water purification, sleep systems, radios, extra parts for weapon systems, you name it I was trying to determine if I needed it. I didn’t know how long I would be gone; I just knew that I had to pack to be self-sufficient for the foreseeable future. It took a good 20 minutes to put together a sustainment load I was confident would meet my needs. 20 minutes is a lifetime when you are trying to hit the ground running and get to the rally point yesterday.


I had known better, go-to-war gear isn’t just your PC, weapons and full magazines. No, you need to have all the support and sustainment gear just as readily available. I think over time I had talked myself into not leaving certain things fully packed and staged just out of convenience. I became complacent. Sure maybe I had my initial fighting load but what good is that when you run out the door and never look back again. Wouldn’t it have been nice to grab your sustainment bag that was sitting right next to your war fighting load out?


It was obvious that over time I had gotten soft. It was a game, just semantics, going operational was just talk, I would have plenty of time to actually get ready to go operational, that is until April 11th, at that moment I had no time to prepare. I was on the move, my mind was made up. I was going to put up or shut up but unfortunately my preparations weren’t supporting my hasty call to action.


I tossed everything I felt I needed in my truck, kissed my wife and boys, told them I didn’t know when I would be back, I would call when I could, then hit the road. Damn, I didn’t have any cash. Okay I will hit the road right after I stop at the ATM and get cash and …for fucks sake, get fuel. I was at half-tank. That wouldn’t cut it.

Now I’m finally on the road. WRSA keep me as up to date as I could be through twitter, email, and web. Without that I would have been totally in the dark. Thanks again for the guiding light.


A suggestion, Have someone you can rely on back in the rear with the gear in your AO. Someone you can communicate with that can give you intel updates. Even though you are boots on the ground at the operation, you quickly lose perspective. Information flow at the Bundy ranch was limited to what we could see and hear directly in front of us.


Having outside support to give big picture overviews of the operation, suggestions, summaries of recent activities in support of .gov, as well as near real time logistical updates and support for incoming FREEFOR is imperative. This is a requirement it is your key to a successful operation; you cannot be successful without information you must have solid, timely information or you don’t have anything.


-Daybreak

[American Patriot]

LOL - It's time to play Cowboys and Communists!

#bundyranch: Volunteer And Rumor-Quashing Hotlines Established

Posted on April 19, 2014 | 9 Comments

From Oathkeepers:

We have set up two phone numbers for Bundy Ranch related issues.


The first number is for those wishing to volunteer for watch and other duties at the ranch and also for those who wish to send supplies to the ranch and need to know how best to send those supplies. Please do not call this number unless you wish to volunteer or send/donate supplies to the ranch. The individual on the phone will have a list of needed supplies. The main point of this number is to be able to establish a tentative schedule in order to best have all positions covered. We need people now but if you can’t make it for a few days or weeks we ask that you still call the line because we WILL have a need long term and we would like to get our roster fleshed out. If you are calling to volunteer be prepared to provide contact info, an estimated arrival date, the length of time you may wish to stay and give us some idea of the skills and equipment you have to offer.


Anyone volunteering for security/watch duty MUST put themselves under the leadership of the on-site security team leader, Jerry DeLemus, an Oath Keeper and the leader of the largest 912 Project group in New Hampshire.


The Watch Roster Hotline number is: 702-793-9217


The second number is to verify or quash Bundy Ranch related rumors. If you are hearing rumors, positive or negative, that are potentially of great importance use this number to get information directly from the folks on site. PLEASE use good judgement before calling this number. If we are overwhelmed with nonsense the line will be of no use.


The Rumor Verification Hotline number is: 702-793-9219

Share this:

[American Patriot]

BLM Siege At Bunkerville - The Real Story

By Steve Miller (Bio and Archives) Monday, April 28, 2014

AmericanMafia.com

• Big profits are being threatened by animals grazing on prime real estate, but the real story has been lost in a haze of inciteful rhetoric
• A rancher’s refusal to sell his land and stop his cattle from grazing nearby may have created a crisis in the real estate industry

BUNKERVILLE, NEVADA - Neil Kornze joined the Bureau of Land Management in 2011. He has been leading the BLM as Deputy Director for the past year. Before his appointment, Kornze worked as a Senior Policy Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.


In 2013, following a five year recession, business in Mesquite, Nevada, five miles north of Bunkerville and 80 miles north of Las Vegas, began a miraculous recovery. Millions of dollars began to be invested in the area, and tired resort properties were lavishly refurbished. Retirement communities such as Sun City Mesquite sprung back to life and realtors began to again find buyers for expensive riverside or golf course frontage homes.


However, unbeknownst to the public, several miles down the Virgin River from the City of Mesquite, a lone hold out Mormon rancher named Cliven Bundy was about to throw a wrench in the works and bring anticipated development in the Riverside Road and Gold Butte area to a sudden stop because his cattle were “trespassing” on some of the most desirable real estate in Clark County. He was to act alone because all his fellow ranchers had sold their spreads earlier.

Enter United States Senator Harry Reid.


On April 5, 2014, dozens of heavily armed federal agents arrived near Bundy’s Ranch and began seizure of his cattle that were illegally grazing on prime real estate presently controlled by the BLM. Federal agents also entered Bundy’s 160 acre ranch and later admitted to destroying water tanks, and killing six cows.


The BLM’s armed cattle seizure was undeniably an extreme and very expensive over reaction, when a lien could have been placed on the ranch until the court ordered grazing fees are paid. That’s why many believe there’s an underlying reason such a raid occurred, a reason the BLM does not want the public to know.




Undeveloped BLM grazing land near Bunkerville, April 2014



Developed former BLM land near Bunkerville, May 2013



As a former land developer, and later a member of City of Las Vegas and Clark County land planning boards, I learned that the Director of the BLM has the authority to schedule auctions of public land. That’s how the land surrounding Las Vegas was bought cheap and developed. Too often, the choice of what land to auction, when, and the minimum acceptable bid has political overtones. If Neil Kornze decides to auction the land and water rights along the Virgin River or on Gold Butte overlooking the Bundy Ranch, I personally believe that investors close to the Reids will be first to know, and first in line to bid and purchase way under market value.


During 2013, Cliven Bundy unsuccessfully represented himself as a pro-se defendant in United States of America v. Bundy in the court of Federal Judge Lloyd D. George. Judge George ruled that Bundy owed the government hundreds of thousands in unpaid grazing fees. On August 9, 2013, Cliven Bundy acting as his own attorney appealed Judge George’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Bundy’s appeal on January 30, 2014. Since then, Bundy has refused to abide by Judge George’s order claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over Clark County land. (Lloyd George, a graduate of Brigham Young University, is a respected leader in the Southern Nevada Mormon community. The Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas, is named in his honor.)
No Fly Zones

When the armed feds arrived on their land, the Bundy family sent out an SOS through social media. Over a thousand ranchers and supporters arrived to support the family along with a number of militia members. Most arrived more than a day after armed BLM agents closed public roads and confronted the Bundy family, tazing several family members, all caught on cell phone cameras and uploaded to the Internet.


As the standoff and media coverage escalated, on Friday, April 11, the FAA suddenly established FAA NOTAM 4/1687 TFR Mesquite, Nevada, an unprecedented TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction). TFRs are most often used to prohibit civilian aircraft from flying near places where the President or Vice President are visiting. However, this TFR was specifically designed to prohibit all civilian flights including news helicopters from flying over a ranch during a cattle seizure. (Steve Miller is an ATP rated instructor pilot and former flight school owner.)
First Amendment Areas

Then, also lacking precedent was the establishment of “First Amendment Areas” intended to corral media and protesters far from view of the cattle roundup. Cliven Bundy’s 37-year-old son David was arrested for taking photos outside one of these areas. The presence of First Amendment Areas insulted members of the press, and they responded by converging on the Bundy Ranch in droves, many taking the Bundy’s side in the dispute..





On April 12, knowing the feds were outnumbered ten to one by Bundy supporters - many carrying weapons, and seeing reporters from around the world on site covering the breaking story, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie asked the BLM to stand down.


After the federal agents retreated in a cloud of dust caused by spinning the wheels of their official vehicles, Bundy ordered his sons to open a temporary corral set up by the BLM, and release his cattle. Severely dehydrated in 90 degree heat, the cows headed directly to the Virgin River to drink while the Bundy family and hundreds of supporters celebrated by wading in the muddy water near the hydrating cattle.


After the BLM (temporarily) abandoned their effort, many thought the danger was over. However, Senator Reid appeared on national TV that evening and issued the warning “It’s not over!”


During the next week, the international media stood vigil at the entrance to the Bundy Ranch waiting for Reid’s threatened next move. Hundreds of armed militia members camped on the river’s edge nearby. During the lull, the media turned their interest to all things Bundy. That’s when the world got to know the Bundys, a church going pioneer family with fourteen grown children who are decedents of the first Mormon settlers in Nevada. The Bundys and their ancestors have operated the same ranch in the Bunkerville area for over 150 years - vividly contrasting the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, Terry Nichols, or Branch Davidian comparisons made by pundits on MSNBC.


Inspired by the attention, the family patriarch Cliven Bundy unwisely used his fifteen minutes of fame to express several personal opinions that totally distracted from the crisis at hand.


Mr. Bundy’s ill-timed and distracting remarks included demanding local sheriffs seize guns from all federal agents, and his wondering out load if some “Negroes” who live in North Las Vegas would be “better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?” (Full transcript of his remarks.)


Bundy’s unsolicited comments totally distracted the media from more important subjects such as whether the No Fly Zone was intended to block news coverage of the actions of the federal agents? Or was a massive land grab by politically connected real estate developers in the works?


One way or the other, establishing a No Fly Zone, and dispatching hundreds of federal agents with M16s and helicopters to rustle up a few hundred “trespassing” cattle took overwhelming political clout, the kind of clout only a U.S. Senate Majority Leader could muster!


It also cost taxpayers millions of dollars more than Bundy owes in grazing fees.


But, Bundy’s misplaced opinions about the plight of some North Las Vegas “Negroes” and his subsequent inarticulate apology took center stage and allowed those who opposed him to rally behind Reid who responded by calling Bundy a “hateful racist,” and calling Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists.” Reid’s unqualified and hypocritical (see his statement below) “hateful racist” remark, and calling ordinary people “terrorists” carelessly fanned the flames in an already explosive situation, but not everyone agrees with Reid’s racist description of Bundy. Here are two qualified opposing views: Youtube.com; Canada Free Press.



Cliven Bundy’s poorly thought out remarks remind me of when Ross Perot withdrew his candidacy during the 1992 presidential election claiming he received threats by the Bush campaign to sabotage his daughter’s wedding. It had nothing to do with Perot’s campaign, and totally distracted the media from his message. He also lost his base over it, and was never heard from again.


Bundy had the option to stay on subject and not be goaded into responding to questions about his personal views on subjects unrelated to the cattle seizure. Now he, like Perot, has lost much of his base, is being called names by Reid and his followers, and the real story of the BLM siege at Bunkerville may never be told.


Based on the distraction, I now envision master planned communities coming years sooner on land that was formerly grazed on by Bundy’s cattle. In the meantime, I hope the Bundy’s are paid for the infrastructure damaged by federal agents, and for the six cows agents killed and buried. Had he kept his opinions on unrelated subjects to himself, Bundy’s cattle might have been allowed to continue grazing on prime BLM real estate for some time - that’s if he paid his past due fees. Now I expect a BLM auction of that beautiful real estate and water rights within the next several years with help from Senator Reid, his former advisor Neil Kornze, and Reid’s lawyer sons Rory and Leif.


There’s so much more to this story. It’s clearly not about cows! It’s about cheap BLM land with water rights, and about greedy developers. It’s well known that Reid’s sons represent Chinese investors. After all this aggravation, it’s hoped that only American citizens are successful in buying the cheap Bunkerville land if and when it’s auctioned.
That said, guns should never have been brandished against citizens or government officials over real estate. If developers want to buy the now BLM land and water rights along the Virgin River or on Gold Butte bad enough, they should not use their stooges in D.C. to try to take it at gunpoint. If and when the BLM decides to auction it off, I hope they will get fair market value for the taxpayers, not discount it to favored bidders as the BLM is well known to do.


On March 26, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said, “No drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow, in my opinion.” And conversely, no drop of human blood is worth spilling over someone’s desire to buy beautiful BLM real estate at discount prices, either!


Cliven Bundy’s careless remarks should never have become the main topic of this story any more than Senator Reid’s careless “Light skinned with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one” remark about Barack Obama that was underplayed during the 2008 Presidential campaign, or then-Delaware Senator Joseph Biden’s careless (Obama is the) “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” remark in 2007 that was never criticized by the same media commentators who are now attacking Bundy for making equally careless racial remarks. (All three apologized after learning they offended people.)


A Senate Majority Leader and a Vice President were never called “hateful racist” for their remarks! Why is a similar remark from a nobody rancher now making headlines?

Maybe to distract from the real story - the BLM being used as a pawn in a land and water rights grab to benefit politically connected developers.


For the time being, the real story of the BLM siege at Bunkerville is lost in a haze of inciteful rhetoric. It’s time to get back on point before the BLM returns to complete their ominous orders.

0 Comments--Comment here Scroll down this page for Disqus Comments
Steve Miller, is a former Las Vegas City Councilman. In 1991, the readers of the Las Vegas Review Journal voted him the “Most Effective Public Official” in Southern Nevada. Miller writes internationally syndicated columns on organized crime and political corruption for Rick Porrello’s AmericanMafia.com.
Steve can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
Older articles by Steve Miller

[American Patriot]

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
"The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states)."

Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 in an interview on "Hannity"

Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states

Share this story:

Tweet

Judge Andrew Napolitano waded into the rancher Cliven Bundy controversy, arguing that the constitution gives Washington no right to own a large portion of Nevada.

As we heard over and over during the Nevada standoff between federal agents and Cliven Bundy and his gun-bearing supporters, this fight wasn’t about cows or tortoises, it was about land and who controls it. For Bundy, the starting point was clear.
"I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing," Bundy said in an April 10 radio interview.
Even in libertarian circles that is an extreme view, but Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News did lend his weight to the general argument that Washington is in the wrong. Napolitano was talking on Fox’s Hannity when the host pointed out Washington’s extensive holdings in the West.
"Look at the percentage they own in Nevada, 81 percent. Utah, 66 percent. Idaho, 61 percent," Hannity said. "Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"
"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."
We wanted to hear Napolitano’s legal explanation, but he did not get back to us. However, he is not the first to make this claim and we were able to review the legal record to see whether the federal government lacks the constitutional authority as he said.
The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.
In 2007, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that works on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, explored the legal roots of federal land ownership. Its finding was unambiguous.
"The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’ power to legislate under this Clause as ‘without limitation,’ " the researcher wrote.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution. It provides the key text from Article IV of the Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."
The accompanying essay, by Columbia Law School professor Thomas Merrill, noted that many people have debated the scope of this clause. The most narrow interpretation, Merrill wrote, "simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes."
For the purposes of this fact-check, even that limited approach leaves Napolitano high and dry.
We asked another legal scholar at Heritage, John Malcolm, if we were misinterpreting anything. Malcolm told us we had it right.
"I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution that would preclude the federal government from owning land in these western states," Malcolm told PunditFact.
Critics of Malcolm’s view point to an 1845 Supreme Court decision having to do with control over rivers and other navigable waterways. The nut of this ruling, as we read on the libertarian website Armstrong Economics, is that "once a territory becomes a state, the (federal government) must surrender all claims to the land."
This argument has special relevance for states such as Nevada and Utah that were formed from large swaths of land owned by Washington. By this legal logic, when those states entered the Union, the federal government lost the ability to own land there.
But according to the Congressional Research Service, that interpretation is "contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution." On top of that, under the law that created Nevada in 1864, the state specifically agreed to give up any claim to "unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."
For you history buffs, the United States acquired the land (see map) that became Nevada, California, Utah, plus chunks of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona from Mexico in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War. Mexico also ditched any claim to Texas. In exchange, the United States paid Mexico $15 million. Napolitano said the land should be returned but given this chain of title, it is hard to see who would have any claim. We doubt he is thinking of Mexico.
That Congressional Research Service report along with Heritage Foundation’s guide note that since 1845, the Supreme Court has issued many decisions that strengthen the government’s hand. An 1897 case said Congress could block someone from putting up fences on private land if it blocked access to public land. In 1911, the court affirmed the use of large tracts of land as national forests, held in the public interest.
John Leshy is a professor of real property law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Leshy served in the Interior Department in the Carter and Clinton administrations and was part of the transition team when President Barack Obama first took office.
"Napolitano’s statement is absurd," Leshy said. "The constitutional basis of federal land ownership is not subject to any serious debate among scholars, and hasn’t been for a very long time."
Our ruling
Napolitano said the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land in many Western states. The underlying legal argument rests on a tenuous interpretation of constitutional language and the rejection of about 125 years of Supreme Court decisions. The legal scholars we reached, regardless of any political leanings they might have, agreed that the Constitution clearly grants Washington the power to own land and that arguments to the contrary are baseless.
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

[American Patriot]

It’s 1860 In Nevada-the War of Northern Aggression Moves To the Far West

Posted on April 26, 2014 by Land & Livestock Interntional, Inc.
Actually, the first paragraph of the main body of the article is in the bull’s eye but a tad out of the “V” ring. The War of Yankee aggression DID make one big drastic change.
History’s most heinous serial killer (aka Dishonest Abe) made it official (through military action that murdered the modern day equivalent of 5.5 million Americans). From that day forward, the FedGov was to be the sole judge to the limits of its own power. Not surprisingly, it has since judged that there ARE NO limits to that power. Think secession. At least it is a step in the right direction. – jtl, 419
Posted by Charleston Voice by Al Benson Jr.
Did you learn in government school that the Confederacy never surrendered? Well, they never did as a country; only Lee surrendered his army. Our Constitution isn’t just a southern ‘thang’, it’s our thing. Our rule of law. Stand up to protect it.

General Robert E. Lee, wearing the gray uniform, surrenders to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, seated center, at the courthouse in Appromattox, Va., effectively ending the American Civil War.

It has probably been around two decades now since I first made the observation that the War of Northern Aggression solved nothing, (it was never intended to) except to demonstrate who had the most money, men, and guns. All the problems attendant to that War remain with us today–and some of the folks in the Western states are now beginning to realize that.
Just today (4/24) I saw a short article on http://libertycrier.com that plainly stated: “While the debate continues over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s dispute with federal land managers, supporters in nearby Southern Utah say the much publicized quarrel has brought the issue of states’ rights to the forefront. ‘I think the Bundy issue is just a symptom of the many issues that are out there,’ said Washington Country Commissioner Alan Gardner. Gardner said the dispute raised awareness for states’ rights issues and energized those who feel the federal government has too much control over the public lands in Western States.
”States’ rights! Anyone ever heard that before? I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center will condemn all those in the West that harbor states’ rights sentiments as “racists” because they dare to think in those terms. After all, “Honest” Harry RE(i)D has gone out of his way to label the ranchers as “domestic terrorists” so that now gives the lapdog media two different horrific titles to throw at the Western folks. Westerners may soon begin to realize how we in the South feel, because they are about to become victims of the same brand of Cultural Marxism that has been shoved down the throats of Southerners for decades now.
I still think it would be a great idea if the “Cowboys and the Confederates” could sit down at the same table and begin to discuss what has gone on and what is going on in this country. For the most part we should all be on the same page. Someone with the ability of an organizer should work on this idea, provided we can keep the agent provocateurs out. The Northern Aggressors have shafted and are shafting both groups and they should seek out ways to help one another out. Real states’ rights would be good for both the South and the West because, let’s face it, none of us has them, nor have we had them in my lifetime–in fact, as the Nevada State Constitution of 1864 plainly shows, Nevada never had them to begin with as a state, with the feds owning over 80% of the states’ land.
I noted only this past weekend that representatives from nine Western state, more than 50 of them, according to http://www.foxnews.com “…made their proclamations at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management…Whether the federal government will use the court system or other methods to try to resolve such disputes remains unclear.” It’s those “other methods” that concern people, not only in the West, but in other areas where this situation is being observed.
And thanks to the alternate media, it is being observed. It was only their observation and commentary that caused the lapdog media to finally deign to comment on the situation.
Honest Harry said earlier this week that he had talked with what passes for an Attorney General these days and “that a task force might be formed.” Law enforcement people said Saturday that there are no plans for this. (Translation: they may well try it so the militia folks on the ground there had best be prepared.)
The folks in the Western States feel that they are better qualified to manage the land in their respective states rather than leaving it up to some one-size-fits-all bureaucrat in Sodom on the Potomac. Can’t argue with that assessment.
It seems that the BLM (Bureau of Licensed Marauders) have plans for a lot more Western land than Mr. Bundy’s ranch. In an article on http://www.breitbart.com someone sent me yesterday, someone said:
“The Eyes of the BLM are on Texas, on the Bureau of Land Management’s intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.” Gen Abbott said: “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.” He has already sent a strong letter to the BLM director, Harry Reid’s old buddy, Neil Kornze, strongly expressing his concerns about this attempt at Texas land usurpation.General Abbott stated: “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country…And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Let’s hope General Abbott sticks to his guns.
He is right on the money about one thing–the Obama administration couldn’t care less about the rule of law–that’s for us “petty bourgeois” not for our exalted Marxist rulers. They are above all that. They do what they please and if they do manage to do something that’s really over the edge and Congress calls them on it, they just get “Attorney General” Holder to stonewall Congress so nothing ever happens. He’s good at that.
One thing all of us, Southern folks, Western folks, all sincere folks, had best get firmly implanted into our “thinking caps” is that this administration is at war with the American people. They have orders to tear this country down and they are not about to let a ragtag group of Cowboys or Confederates or whoever, deter them from that agenda. They will remove their opposition any way they have to, lawful, illegal, or otherwise. This is what we are dealing with folks. We’d better get used to it.
via revisedhistory

[American Patriot]

I just liked this...

• 

[American Patriot]

See these guys…

Posted on 04/14/2014 by Battlefield USA
These are armed federal agents.

They were going to kill a Cattle Rancher, if need be, on behalf Senator Harry Reid and the Chinese.
They were going to kill a Cattle Rancher, if need be, on behalf of Desert Tortoises.
The federal government claims that a Cattle Rancher owes them user fee’s for grazing his cattle on its territory, which his family has grazed on since 1870, and brought in federal agents to confiscate his cattle and kill him if necessary.
This is a picture of the land that the federal government claims to own:
The federal government claims ownership of 84.5 percent of Nevada. The federal government claims to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” does not apply here. The District of Columbia and it’s territories are NOT a State. These red areas are nothing more than an extension of the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal government… its exclusive territory… to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.
Where do the Sovereign 50 States of the Union begin? And where do they end?
Update: Enumerated purposes (Seems I had a few rounds on the same subject with a couple of fed lickers just a few days ago).
Meanwhile…
“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press, adding, “The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything, there was no deal we made.”
To… game the resolve and practicality of the people.
So, they’ll have to send in armed federal agents, once again.
Remember: The FEDS and its AGENTS, in all its glory…

When you defy Rome.
Will not stop… ever…
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – G. Washington
Get it… while you… still can
It is the bureaucratic mind at work

[American Patriot]

Two parts:

« The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?
The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II »

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

April 23, 2014, 6:23 pm
The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014
Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.
They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.
Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.
We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.
Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.
With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?
On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.
In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.
Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.
This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.
With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.
The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.
That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?

[American Patriot]

« The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

April 29, 2014, 8:25 am
The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014
In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.
From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.
Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.
At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.
I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?
The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.
Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.
Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.
Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18″) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.
Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?
The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?
Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.
Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.
So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.
First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.
The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.
Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.
Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.
Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.
Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.

[American Patriot]

BREAKING: Eric Holder ORDERS DRONE STRIKE ON BUNDY RANCH

Secrets of the Fed
Secretsofthefed.com
April 29th, 2014
Reader Views: 5,466

Rumors are floating about suggesting that Attorney General Eric Holder has officially given the O.K. for a drone strike on the Bundy ranch. Although any such action has yet to occur, a source within the Department of Defense felt obligated to come forward as he expresses the legitimacy in such concerns.


The information comes from John Jacob Schmidt of Radio Free Redoubt, who says he was able to obtain information from a source that reports to the Oath Keepers. According to the report, Holder has given the go ahead on a, “hot drone strike,” that would certainly wipe out anyone and everyone in the immediate area.


Schmidt also explained in his report that no such action has thus far been made and expressed his hope that the government could come to some other form of resolution.

The national administrator of Oath Keepers, Leslie Bishop Paul, also wrote on his Facebook wall that the claims, “may, or may not,” be true, but expressed his optimism that, “sunlight,” would bring about another solution.
“Pray it isn’t true and pray it never happens,” Paul concluded.

The Liberty Beacon recently released a blog on the matter saying that the government is treating the Bundy situation like that of a schoolyard bomb threat. They go on to suggest that such an act of aggression would certainly, “be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back,” and would effectively trigger a revolution.


They further speculate that there may be manipulative means behind the threat saying that violence isn’t actually their intention. Instead, the Beacon suggests that the government is hoping to instigate violence from the militia guarding the property which, in turn, would allow for the government to enact martial law.


According to the blog, “So is this disinformation to get the boots on the ground to evacuate the scene so that BLM people can move in Waco style, or is it absolute bull to have us put out false info and destroy our credibility.”



Adding to the credibility of such an explanation, the founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes explained that it is entirely likely that the government would use the claims in a sort of a disinformation campaign. He further noted that, “The person who reportedly gave the information, he said, believes what he heard,” according to the Examiner.


Rhodes went on to explain that his source mentioned that Holder felt justified in his decision after being inadvertently backed by Reid’s claims where he labeled Bundy supporters as, “domestic terrorists.”


Mr. Conservative was not able to independently validate any such claims.


Adding further confusion to the claims, Schmidt conveyed, “Personally, I call “BS” on this supposed source. The story screams ‘set up’ and ‘operation whack-a-mole’. I understand this administration already thinks it can legally kill someone, without a trial, and their lemmings have referred to the patriots as “domestic terrorists,” but I believe someone (possibly in the Obama Administration), like a school kid, pulled the school fire alarm just to see what would happen.”


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/break....6FD9EMvi.dpuf

[American Patriot]

Dear Congress;

We promise that if a drone strike occurs on the Bundy Ranch, REGARDLESS of the "illegality" of Bundy's actions or the "legality" of the actions of the Federal Government that we the American people WILL end your tenure in Congress and you will have joined the wrong side in History.

Signed: ALL American Patriots of the United States of America

CC: Harry Reid, Eric Holder, Barack Obama

[American Patriot]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...o-disarm-blm-/

http://youviewed.com/2014/05/01/disa...h-congressman/

Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says 'They're not ...

Washington Times-Apr 30, 2014
They're not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us. ... arming its own special units for various agencies, like the BLM and the IRS.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US Lawmaker wants IRS, BLM disarmed - Not Paramilitary Units

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

US Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies. “There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.” His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court. Militia from all over the nation came to the ranch to support Mr. Bundy in his standoff with the BLM — and for that, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid labeled them “domestic terrorists,” various media reported. The BLM finally backed off and left — but not before a shocked nation expressed outrage at the government’s armed stance against a man who, at the root, was guilty of not paying a bill. Mr. Stewart said it’s high time the government end its practice of arming its own special units for various agencies, like the BLM and the IRS. “They should do what anyone else would do,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune. "Call the local sheriff, who has the capability to intervene in situations like that." The Interior Department, for its part, said the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the 'public' and of their workers. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25193/61/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Utah Lawmaker Moves To Disarm BLM, IRS, Says ‘They’re Not Paramilitary Units’




” Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.

“ There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”
“ They should do what anyone else would do,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune. “Call the local sheriff, who has the capability to intervene in situations like that.”

This statement gets our vote for most idiotic proclamation of the year from the Obama junta …

” The Interior Department, for its part, said the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the public and of their workers.”

[Malsua]

the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the public and of their workers.”

See, it's all about the safety of the enforcer.

[Ryan Ruck]

BREAKING: Eric Holder ORDERS DRONE STRIKE ON BUNDY RANCH

Secrets of the Fed
Secretsofthefed.com
April 29th, 2014
Reader Views: 5,466

[Malsua]

Yeah, as if the rat faced AG has that kind of authority.

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, let me elaborate on the ...

Reality is outrageous enough, I guess I don't understand why people need to try and take it to outlandish levels.