Reply With Quote
what were you told not to discuss and why would you care?
Now it sounds like pure bull .
what were you told not to discuss and why would you care?
Well my only position on this topic was that I oppose the aggressive police tactics that were being used. After listening to Hannity interview with Bundy and his sons I'm going to change my mind. I don't think there is any other way to deal with them...these dudes are ing nuts.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/sheriff-f...raid-on-ranch/
SHERIFF: FEDS STRATEGIZE FOR 'RAID' ON RANCH
Warning follows threat from Harry Reid that grazing dispute 'not over'
Published: 4 hours ago
The executive director of the Cons utional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government warn that Washington’s weekend retreat in a dispute over grazing land in Nevada was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, because a raid on the family’s ranch still is planned.
And there probably would be violence involved, said Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz.
“I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence, he told WND Monday. “I don’t think the Bundys would lie down and be taken.”
He cited the vow by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the confrontation was far from over, despite the weekend’s retreat by armed gunmen working for federal agencies.
Reid on Monday told KRNV-TV in Reno: “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”
The grazing-land conflict has been developing for decades.
Cliven Bundy, who ranches in Clark County, and members of his extended family have grazed cattle on land there for more than a century. He stopped paying federal grazing fees years ago, contending his operation existed before the federal government was there.
But the standoff reached a boiling point one week ago as hundreds of federal agents and allies surrounded Bundy’s ranch and were faced with citizen resistance, both armed and unarmed.
The Associated Press said the U.S. Bureau of Land Management decided over the weekend to stop rounding up Bundy’s cattle and release animals agents already had seized.
BLM chief Neil Kornze said in a statement: “Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public.”
Mack, a longtime sheriff, told WND that Reid’s statements are beyond the pale.
“That kind of stupidity, where he puts federal regulations and policies of bureaucrats ahead of a family in his state that has done no wrong or committed a crime,” Mack said.
He charged that it is Reid who is destroying his own state’s ranching industry as well as the U.S. Cons ution. The sheriff chided the senator for making statements about abiding by laws.
“Isn’t that amazing? The biggest crook in Washington,” Mack said.
On the issue of a raid, he said: “That’s what we have heard. It’s not confirmed. People we had on the inside told us the BLM still is considering raiding the Bundy ranch. We’re going to keep in touch with them, protect them, pray for them.”
Details that are uncovered will be posted on the CSPOA website, he said.
Mack said his organization is part of an effort to save America.
“Yes, America is in deep, deep trouble. The good news is that there is hope,” Mack said. “We do not have to stand by and watch while America is destroyed from within. If our counties, cities, and states and all local officers keep their oaths to protect us from tyranny, we can win this battle to take our country back.”
As WND reported, an estimated 200 armed officers of the BLM had been deployed to Bundy’s property in Bunkerville, Nev., 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, charging the rancher has been in violation of a law that aims to protect an endangered desert tortoise. The BLM also said Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees to the federal government.
But Bundy found support from the governor and other prominent political leaders along with a host of protesters from other states, including fellow cattle ranchers and private armed militias.
A Montana militia member, Jim Lardy, told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas his group, Operation Mutual Aid, was prepared to “provide armed response.”
He said he was not afraid to shoot, if necessary.
“They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government,” Lardy said.
Other militia members were joining him, he said: “There is many more coming.”
Nevada’s Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval said the federal government’s tactics allowed the tensions to nearly erupt in armed violence.
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of cons utional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” Sandoval said. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, told WND earlier that federal authorities had not been merely relocating the cattle but were engaged in actions that killed some animals.
“They are flying helicopters over the herd to chase them,” Ammon Bundy said. “It was over 90 degrees here today, and the cattle can’t run very far in this heat before collapsing. This is especially true for the young calves. We have a lot of them being born because it is springtime, and they don’t have the strength to keep up with their mothers when they are running. The cattle then become overheated and die.”
Cliven Bundy is the last rancher operating in Clark County, where he’s been grazing his cattle on a 600,000-acre portion of land managed by the BLM called Gold Butte. His family, whose ties to the land go back to the 1880s, has been engaged in a dispute since 1993 with the Bureau of Land Management over long-established cattle-grazing rights.
After years of wrangling in the courts, BLM last week secured a federal court order declaring Bundy’s herd to be “trespass cattle” and began removing the animals.
Ammon Bundy said he was with a group of about 50 people “peacefully protesting the removal of the cattle” when “suddenly, 14 units with Rangers came off the mountain – 13 of them were armed ranger vehicles with two rangers per unit.”
He said the protesters went over to see what was in a dump truck, “because we were afraid this might have been a rendering vehicle, and we wanted to know what was in the back of the truck.”
See video of the confrontation with Ammon Bundy and protesters:
The rangers got out of their vehicles and the conflict escalated, he said.
“Things got pretty ugly for awhile. They threw a 65-year-old woman on the ground, they tased me twice and they had dogs out there.”
"aggressive police tactics that were being used"
govt wanted his animals off the property, he wouldn't do it, so the govt did. Not very aggressive, except when the protesters forced the issue.
I wonder if the IRS can garnish his bank account, income to recover the $1M.
I guess the militia assholes think they won and be encouraged to more of the same.
That's the gist I got when he was saying he would pay the fees to the city but not the feds... you might not like the federal government, but when your stance is that they have no authority over you, then yeah, pretty kookoo
yeah they think Nevada is a sovereign nation and the United States is a foreign government.
The BLM withdraws and the Bundys get the media megaphone on Hannity for their sovereign citizen message.
Meanwhile, shadowy G-men warn TSA to stop posting on a sports-related bulletin board...
from the Nevada State Cons ution:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
less gun fellators show their wonderful lessness
"We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.
If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...own-with-feds/
Here are three ways that the federal government might ensure that Bundy and at least some of his armed supporters are brought to justice:
1) Contempt of Court:
The normal sanction when a person subject to a court order refuses to comply with it is contempt of court. Contempt, according to a manual provided to federal prosecutors, is “an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch of the government, or an interference with its orderly process.” By law, federal courts may “punish by fine or imprisonment, or both” when someone engages in “[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
As a general rule, courts must “exercise the least possible power to obtain the desired result,” meaning that a federal judge should not issue a sweeping contempt sanction when lesser sanction will suffice to ensure that the person subject to contempt proceedings complies with the court’s order. Nevertheless, the fact that Bundy was willing to defy a court order for 20 years — and that he could rally supporters willing to put up armed resistance to federal law enforcement to his cause — suggests that he would simply ignore any fines that a court imposed on him. A judge may decide that the best way to convince Bundy that the federal government exists is to jail him until he agrees to comply with the court’s order.
2) Criminal Charges for Threats To Federal Officers
Federal law provides that anyone who “threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge [or] a Federal law enforcement officer . . . with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties” may be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years (although a threat to assault carries a maximum sentence of only 6 years). So, if Bundy or his supporters threatened federal officials or law enforcement officers who were enforcing the court order against him, they could have committed a serious crime.
There is one big caveat to this approach, however. Although the First Amendment permits some laws banning threatening language, under the “True Threat” Doctrine, these bans are only permitted when they target “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Moreover, at least one older Supreme Court case suggests that threatening language is not a “true threat” when it is made using conditional language. Thus, for example, if Bundy said something like “if you Feds don’t get off this land in two days, I will kill every last one of you,” that may not cons ute a true threat because he placed a condition on what the federal officials would have to do before he killed them.
Among legal scholars, the current state of the True Threat Doctrine is widely viewed as incoherent, so there is some uncertainty about which kinds of threatening statements could form the basis of a prosecution against Bundy and his supporters.
3) Criminal Charges Against Militia Members Who Brought Guns To Nevada
Another federal law provides that “[w]hoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder” may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. This statute could potentially form the basis for criminal charges against some of the militia members who traveled to Nevada with their guns in order to support Bundy. In order to convict someone charged under this law, federal prosecutors would need to prove that the militia member transported their gun with reason to know that it would be used “unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder,” so this statute could not be used against someone who had no reason to suspect that they were traveling towards anything other than a peaceful protest. A civil disorder is defined as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.”
At least some of Bundy’s supporters made statements to the press suggesting that they fully intended to use their weapons to further such a disorder. One militia member, for example, said that he was at the ranch to provide “armed response,” adding that “[w]e need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”
Similarly, a message purporting to be from one militia organization that was published on several right-wing websites announced that “[w]e have made the decision to mobilize to Nevada” and concluded with a fairly explicit statement suggesting that the purpose of this mobilization was to spark a deadly conflict:
“All men are mortal, most pass simply because it is their time, a few however are blessed with the opportunity to chose their time in performance of duty.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...r-behind-bars/
Fox loves these lawless asshole martyrs, while calling Obama lawless.
LOL these patriots using Al Qaeda tactics
Smart choice, pussies never could beat al Qaeda tbh.
http://theweek.com/article/index/259...the-governmentBut let's look at Bundy's larger point, that the federal government shouldn't control 87 percent of Nevada and 60 percent of the 12 states in the West. This includes many of the country's most beautiful national parks, forests, and wilderness areas, but also huge swathes of scrub lands, timber forest, and areas with mineral and energy wealth.
Wikimedia Commons
It is sort of an accident of history and because of the whims of Congress that the federal government controls all that land. In the mid-1800s, lawmakers passed laws encouraging settlers to colonize the West, with the idea of carving up the new U.S. territories into privately held parcels. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, though, U.S. lawmakers started to conserve public lands for the public with the creation of the national parks.
In 1934, Congress created the U.S. Grazing Service to manage cattle and sheep grazing on public lands, and in 1946 the Grazing Service was combined with the General Land Office to create the BLM. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, formally setting aside federal public lands for multiple public uses, including recreation, ranching, and mining. The BLM, Forest Service, and National Park Service have been juggling those competing interests ever since.
For Bundy to have the right to graze his cattle in Gold Butte/Bunkerville area, the U.S. government would have to sell him the land, cede it to Nevada, get the area's endangered species removed from the endangered list, and/or lose to Bundy in a court of law. What seems certain is that this standoff isn't over. Even if Bundy and the BLS reach an amicable settlement, the inherent conflict will always fester between environmentalists and hikers who want to preserve the land and ranchers, miners, foresters, and motor-vehicle enthusiasts who want to be a little rougher on the public lands.
freeloading, America hating takers with a victim mentality expect special treatment from the government.
and get it
Why Bundy Ranch Thinks America's Sheriffs Can Disarm The Feds
Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, whose dispute with the Bureau of Land Management spurred a tense standoff between armed anti-government activists and federal officials over the weekend, had some strikingly specific directions for sheriffs across the country Monday night.
“Disarm the federal bureaucrats," Bundy said in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity. He had been asked to respond to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assertion that the Bundy Ranch standoff (as it is now officially known on Wikipedia) was "not over."
Bundy had already asked his local sheriff to arrest the BLM officials who were rounding up his cattle, but he directed his new message to "every county sheriff in the United States."
Bundy's statement brought to the forefront a theory that some on the far right have held for decades: that local sheriffs are ordained with an immense amount of power, going beyond that of even federal authorities.
In the Bundy Ranch dispute, that theory is the driving ideology of some of the groups that have rallied to the rancher's side. Those include the Cons utional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Oath Keepers, whose members are law enforcement officials and military who have pledged to defend the Cons ution against government overreach.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...+%28TPMNews%29
Seems to be a lot sickos, deranged, damaged people, sadists, killers, gun fellators, etc who spend their lives in the military or law enforcement, or prison guards.
one of America's best ever sheriffs:
Where the white women at?
Facts that disprove conspiracy theory about Harry Reid, Cliven Bundy and solar power
STEVE MARCUS
Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, left, and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., right.
By Karoun Demirjian (contact)
Thursday, April 17, 2014 | 2 a.m.
WASHINGTON —
JUSTIN BOWEN
Laughlin and Bullhead City, Ariz., as seen in 2011.
Future Uncertain in Bundy-BLM Dispute
Launch slideshow »
The conspiracy theory about Sen. Harry Reid started soon after the Cliven Bundy story went national.
The theory: The Senate majority leader masterminded the takeover of Bundy’s cattle in Gold Butte to clear land for a solar facility that Chinese company ENN hoped to build in Southern Nevada. That thought appears to have originated at the blog Godfather Politics and was picked up by writers in more mainstream conservative media outlets, such as NewsMax and the Washington Times. The story also suggested that Reid had his former aide, Neil Kornze, do his dirty work as the week-old Bureau of Land Management director.
Reid’s spokeswoman, Kristen Orthman, said any connection between Bundy and the solar project is “bogus.” She added: “People find anything to label him as, or to connect things to that aren’t connectable. … If it wasn’t this, they would be talking about something else.”
It’s true that Reid had been working on a solar project in Nevada. But based on the facts, the rest of the theory doesn’t pass the smell test. Here’s why:
Geography: Bundy’s ranch is in Bunkerville, about 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas. The land that Reid identified for the solar plant was about 90 miles south of Las Vegas in Laughlin. That puts the Bundy ranch and the solar plant site about a three-hour drive apart. They’re simply not in the same part of the state.
Another project comes close. But not that close: Bundy’s home in the Mojave desert is closer to the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, a corridor that has been slated for renewable energy development. The BLM is planning a mitigation strategy that may stretch toward the area where Bundy has been grazing his cows. But even there, the maps don’t match up closely enough to suggest that Bundy’s specific grazing land was the intended site of a solar facility. Also, the Chinese company ENN had not been planning a facility in the Dry Lake area.
Where Reid’s agenda and Bundy’s cattle grazing do overlap: Bundy’s cattle have been grazing on land that Reid and Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., have targeted for future wilderness protections. Both Reid and Horsford have filed legislation to turn the Gold Butte area into a national conservation area. But this is entirely separate from the solar project. A conservation status discourages development, and it’s near impossible to greenlight a solar project on conservation land.
The start of the Chinese solar project: Reid went to China in 2011 to lock down the deal. The ENN Mojave Energy project was supposed to help yank Southern Nevada’s flailing economy out of the recession and into the foreground of renewable energy development in America. Clark County fast-tracked the required reviews and approvals. But construction never started.
Where it got stuck: In June 2013, ENN said it was dumping the project because the “market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time.” So right now, there is no massive Chinese-backed solar project in the works and certainly not one that requires the removal of Bundy’s cows.
The timelines don’t line up: Bundy’s battle with the BLM started in 1993 when he stopped paying his grazing fees, 18 years before anyone talked about putting Chinese money into the Nevada desert for renewable energy. Talk about the Chinese solar project started in 2011 and ended in 2013. And the Bundy-BLM confrontation came this month, long after the solar project died.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014...t-sen-harry-r/
"mainstream conservative" oxy-maran
You sir Mr. Pusha are a silly man!
"Another project comes close. But not that close: Bundy’s home in the Mojave desert is closer to the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, a corridor that has been slated for renewable energy development. The BLM is planning a mitigation strategy that may stretch toward the area where Bundy has been grazing his cows. But even there, the maps don’t match up closely enough to suggest that Bundy’s specific grazing land was the intended site of a solar facility. Also, the Chinese company ENN had not been planning a facility in the Dry Lake area."
Facts? This guy claims the maps don't match up yet the BLM specifically names Bundy and the Gold Butte land on their own page.
"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."
http://archive.today/nvlzr#selection-213.0-213.313
From the BLM's own page, mysteriously deleted but thankfully found.
While I agree that this dispute was not directly tied to the Chinese solar deal as it is dead, it looks to most certainly be tied to the Dry Lake solar project. If you don't think Reid has his hands in this I don't know what to tell you other than you are being naive. Reid has been tied to unethical deals in Vegas time and time again, this time isn't different.
Want to see a timeline that matches up?
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04...med-blm-chief/
Mr. Pusha your facts article loses credibility when the same site posts a story like this.
The world through militia eyes
http://m.lvsun.com/news/2014/apr/20/...-militia-eyes/
The Las Vegas sun is not a reputable source Mr. Pusha you should be ashamed claiming such as their bias is obvious.
Oregon car registration renewal is $77 + $21 DEQ fee. Drivers license renewal is $60.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
