Old Jedi Mind Trick

The issue is the federal government sending in a heavily armed paramilitary unit to rustle cattle and collect a debt.

People get distracted very easily.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Old Jedi Mind Trick

    • _Jim says:

      More farcical articles (I know, I am being redundant) in the HuffPo? How long have they been (so-called) ‘publishing’?

      Ever notice Jon has the hoarse voice of a coke user, and relies on ‘writers’ for his material, whereas Hannity does not? Ever notice that? So, I have to ask, who is genuine here?

      • miked1947 says:

        Go to CBS channel 8 in Las Vegas and look at what they are reporting.

        • _Jim says:

          Why don’t you concisely summarize THE FACTS they are presenting? The who, what, where and when. Give us the heart, the ‘meat’ of the story sans the fat, the hyperbole and the unneeded glitz and glitter, tossed in by the on-the-air personalities giving them an excuse to show off their smiles and nice dental work.

          (Most ‘reporting’ is fluff, but, I give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are unaware of this …)

          Have you ever noticed Jon has the hoarse voice of a coke user, and relies on ‘writers’ for his material, whereas Hannity does not? Ever notice that? So, I have to ask, who is genuine here? Maybe this does not enter your mind, ever, nor does it bother you like it may bother (or irritate) some …

          Jon *does* look good on a set, delivering his lines, as rehearsed. Reading a ‘promter. I’ll give you that. Makes him look really, really smart and on top of things. And God bless his writers, without whom he might ‘tumble’ to the ground without that safety net, having to actually think on his feet, or work to keep his ‘stories straight’ w/o that ‘promter.

          .

        • miked1947 says:

          Jim:
          I do not watch JON or read HuffPo.
          I gave you a link to the local TV station that did research on this issue and the Bundy history.
          If you had followed my direction you would have read the history yourself.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          “The issue is the federal government sending in a heavily armed paramilitary unit to rustle cattle and collect a debt.”

        • miked1947 says:

          Chip:
          Someone Broke the Law and some one has to enforce the law. Bundy could have followed court orders. since the 90s rather than cause it to escalate to this BS!

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Someone Broke the Law and some one has to enforce the law.

          And under CFR, who is supposed to provide law enforcement?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Someone Broke the Law and some one has to enforce the law.

          Still nothing? Here, I’ll give you a clue: 43 U.S. Code § 1733(c)(1)

        • miked1947 says:

          Go build a house in Yellowstone National Park and see who is breaking the law.
          Build a house in the national park nearest your home and see who is breaking the law.
          Bundy is grazing cattle on “Federal Land” without permission. It can not get simpler than that. Everything else is just hype from both sides.
          If the laws are wrong, have the laws rewritten or revoked. When Nevada became a state the federal government retained possession of most of the land in the state. BLM has been auctioning off land in the state of Nevada for as long as I can remember. The 160 acres where the Bundy ranch is located was acquired under the federal homestead act and I knew people that also acquired their land under the federal homestead act in the southern Nevada area. I knew people that grazed their cattle on federal lands in Southern Nevada, while it was still legal. The paid their grazing fees.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Go build a house in Yellowstone National Park and see who is breaking the law.
          Build a house in the national park nearest your home and see who is breaking the law.
          Bundy is grazing cattle on “Federal Land” without permission. It can not get simpler than that.

          I asked a very simple question that you’re ignoring: under federal law, who has the authority to enforce the law ostensibly being broken in this circumstance? If BLM determines that force (i.e. firepower) is necessary to enforce the law, who, under federal law, are the ones holding the firearms?

        • miked1947 says:

          Seeing how everyone is so respectful of the laws, the BLM now must have a group of people to enforce laws on BLM lands.
          The Justice Department is the group that enforces federal laws through the FBI and the US marshals office. However it has become necessary for the NPS and other government agencies to also enforce their laws as they can not rely on local law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws. The BLM had already gone to federal court and the federal judge had already ruled against Bundy.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Wrong.

          I even cited the applicable USC reference. You obviously didn’t read it.

        • miked1947 says:

          I did not read it because you refer to obsolete references. The federal judges ruled Bundy is in violation of federal law. Most likely the Bundy family will lose their property as it will go to pay what they owe the government.
          The old references have been superseded with new powers for the agencies I quoted.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Refusing to read the cited federal law doesn’t cause that law to cease to exist, no matter how hard you jam your fingers into your ears, or how loudly you yell, Nah, nah, nah! I can’t hear you!.

          Under federal law, BLM must contract through local law enforcement when armed enforcement is deemed necessary.

          (And thus, we come full-circle to the point Steve was making in his post.)

        • philjourdan says:

          Anyone wondering where all those billions of bullets Obama bought went to now?

        • Gail Combs says:

          So what happened 20 years ago that made BLM change course and decide to grab land from American citizens?

          Bill Clinton sign the Biodiversity Treaty, and they tried to ram it through the Senate in 1994. This is the treaty that would make 50% of the USA off limtis to humans and another 20%-30% limited access. link and more history

          The USA ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 21/03/94 (signed 12/06/92)

          ….Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he called “this new global era” and “the emerging international system.” Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking America into a “web of institutions and arrangements” to set “the international ground rules for the 21st century.” He identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty.

          Clinton said that “the forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things.” Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia as “citizens of the world.” Those men signed up to serve in the American armed forces. Who made them “citizens of the world”?

          The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he said: I’m trying to promote a “reorganization of the world” into a “global system.” He said he wants “to build a global system” by merging “integrated economies and integrated democracies.”
          (wwwDOT)eagleforum.org/topics/EO/cc_speech.html

          Think interdependence the progressives dream.

          My extension service agent was at this ceremony and heard Al Gore first hand, I walked into the office while he was telling the other agents. He was spitting nails and his boss was having a tough time calming the guy down. This was in 1996.

          “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.

          “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.”
          news(DOT)hjnews.com/opinion/give-thanks-to-our-farmers/article_5c1a7732-27e5-11e0-835a-001cc4c03286.html?mode=jqm

          The Global Warming Treaty was agreed to by Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997
          House adopts 25X25 resolution

          …the House of Representatives adopted a resolution that calls for 25 percent of the nation’s energy needs to be met by renewable resources by the year 2025.

          Under the leadership of House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and ranking member Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), both lead sponsors of the resolution, the full House now joins the Senate in setting an energy policy that calls on America’s farms, ranches and forestlands to provide a fourth of the energy consumed by 2025 to come from land-based resources — biomass, biofuels, wind energy, solar power, geothermal energy and hydropower — while continuing to provide a safe, affordable and abundant supply of food, feed and fiber.

          The resolution, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate in June, [Jun 14, 2007] springs from an expanding coalition that now includes 600 agricultural, forestry, environmental, energy, business, labor, civic and government organizations – partners include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Forest Resources Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the “Big 3” U.S. automobile manufacturers – as well as 27 governors and 12 state legislatures.

          “The 25x’25 resolution is a statement of our national commitment to support the development of renewable energy sources,” Peterson said. “I believe that we can not only meet but exceed the goal of 25 percent by 2025, but every journey starts with a first step, and this resolution is a very important first step that we can take to achieving energy independence.”

          The resolution has enjoyed bipartisan Congressional support representing rural and urban constituencies….
          (wwwDOT)dairyherd.com/dairy-news/latest/house-adopts-25×25-resolution-113964209.html

        • miked1947 says:

          Gail:
          I know it is a government conspiracy against the “Ranchers”
          However you might want to take time to read this site and the links provided regarding Bundy’s claims
          http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25341271/historical-accounts-bundy-ancestors-were-farmers-but-not-full-time-ranchers

      • hannuko says:

        Jon Stewart was funny when he was just a little man poking fun at the world’s most powerful man (Cheney):

        “You know you are the most powerful man in the world when you shoot an old man in the face and he apologises *you*!”

        Hilarious!

        When Obama got elected, he was unable to get past his partisanship and see the ridiculousness of his own political side. He became a little man who makes fun of those who oppose the world’s most powerful man.

        And when he attacks libertarians, the situation becomes even more sad. He defends the world’s most powerful man and belittles people who struggle to have *any* say in the political process. That feels a lot like beating up an invalid, and there is nothing funny about that.

    • _Jim says:

      So, let me get this straight, the network that purposely blew up pickup trucks to make ‘news’ and now which has a MAJOR anchor of a historic Sunday news show under the scrutiny of a shrink cites a story originating from ‘the stupid party’ about racism?

      Can you give me any reasons to believe ANY of this crap?

      .

      • miked1947 says:

        Jim:
        I spent time in the area that Bundy is talking about, or at least where they claim Bundy is quoted as talking about. He sounds more like a Reid supporter than a Republican supporter.
        As usual Bundy is exaggerating to increase his fan base.

        • _Jim says:

          Non-sequitur post; an off-topic, not-in-line with the present discussion at hand post (i.e. about network accountability, and their reporting an what some ijits in an opposition party claim; who is to be believed? Do I have to spell this stuff out? This is going to get boring REAL fast if I have to explain everything.)

          Can you give me any reasons to believe ANY of this crap as proffered by a network that purposely blew up pickup trucks to make ‘news’ and now which has a MAJOR anchor of a historic Sunday news show under the scrutiny of a shrink and cites a story originating from ‘the stupid party’?

        • miked1947 says:

          I do not care about the “Network”!
          I worked with the local reporters at channel 8 and I trust their reporting. It would not matter if I read it at Channel 8, Channel 3, Channel 13 or even in the Review Journal. All four are reputable sources for local news. Editorials are biased and should be taken with a grain of salt.

        • miked1947: Good luck with convincing Bundy fans about what is going on. I rarely use the term “koolaid drinkers”, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Few people who back Bundy understand anything about the BLM and grazing fees nor do they care to. I doubt you can make any progress in convincing people that Bundy is just a guy who wanted free grazing and used the Constitution and evil government to justify his theft. I live in the West and am quite familiar with how the BLM works and the very important facts that Bundy followers care nothing about. Facts are irrelevant when you’re in the “right”. Surely you know that.

        • miked1947 says:

          Reality Check:
          54 years f living in that area and dealing with people that are not interested in “facts” made me aware of that.

        • Nice to find someone else who “gets it”.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Reality check says April 25, 2014 at 4:13 pm
          ” miked1947: Good luck with convincing Bundy fans about what is going on. …”

          He hasn’t posted DIDDLY!

          Neither have you for that matter. Repeated conjecture sans any cites or references is NOT a way to ‘present’ your case and convince minds either way! Of course, you do not understand this … and your continued ‘flailing’ in this thread demonstrates just that …

          I would further state that we have arrived (by you and Mike’s continued failure to make salient, concrete points in this thread) in 2505, but early (excerpt from the movie “Idiocracy” showing a steadily declining “IQ” curve follows):

          .

        • Wow! Didn’t take long to get to the ad hominem, did it? Insult and then complain the other side has no point. Really, you are a warmist hiding here, right? (Insulting enough for you, Mr. Far left side of the Bell Curve. You’ve posted nothing but drivel and still you claim others are at fault–wait, that makes you a progressive! Cool–progressive and warmest! You’re just so darling.

    • _Jim says:

      re: John B., M.D. says April 24, 2014 at 4:40 pm

      I think I found his (Bundy’s) statement:

      That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering. .

      Did your article on NBC have his words transcribed, John?

      Could this raise the point of ‘bondage of the body’ versus ‘bondage of the mind’? Serving mammon or serving God (Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters.”)?

      • John B., M.D. says:

        Well, I saw video and audio of his comments. Disgusting. Widespread bipartisan condemnation on news reports. Doesn’t excuse BLM overreach, though – we almost had another Waco. Then you have the land grab along the Red River between OK and TX.

        Contrast with liberals who rarely, if ever, condemn their own for reprehensible comments or behavior.

      • Robertv says:

        In those days a small group of the population were slaves. Today 99,9 % of the population are slaves. At least they could dream of one day be a free person now even that dream is stolen by government. America , Land of the Slaves.

    • Lou says:

      How is that a racist? NBC is last thing I want to get my news from. They’re never honest about things when it comes to Republicans/libertarians/conservatives.

      http://patdollard.com/2014/04/shock-hoax-exposed-full-clip-of-cliven-bundys-non-racist-pro-black-anti-government-remarks-vs-media-matters-deceptively-edited-hoax-version-see-that-cliven-bundy-is-actually-an-advocat/

    • kuhnkat says:

      I think most of us, after watching the FULL statement by Clive Bundy in this link, will NOT think Bundy is a racist. You will probably still think he is.

      http://pumabydesign001.com/2014/04/24/exposed-nyt-caught-editing-distorting-clive-bundys-remarks-see-full-clip/

  1. _Jim says:

    Another Darren Brown “Jedi mind trick” – lifting wallets by simply asking for them.

    Worked on 2/3 of the ppl approached, he says. I’ll bet it works on Mike1234 too.

    • miked1947 says:

      I seriously doubt it!
      It looks like a trick you would fall for as you fell for the Bundy farce!

      • _Jim says:

        Who fell for the ‘Bundy farce’? I’m here to ask questions (and wind you up in the process) …

        You assume an awful lot, it would appear, and incorrectly so I will add.

        You still appear quite obdurate, thick as well as dense. Might that be due to your age, as well as continued immersion in the usual CNN, MSNBC agitprop and dribble? I don’t expect much of a response, I just like beating the punching bag. You provide a nice ‘foil’ in that regard.

        • miked1947 says:

          I do not watch cable news or even network news.
          You are promoting the Bundy Farce and you probably believe in CAGW as well.
          I lived in the west and worked with government agencies and citizens in that area. I am familiar with the history of Southern Nevada, which apparently you are not.

        • Living in the area, knowing how the BLM works and much familiarity with the issue counts for nothing. Really, actual evidence is ignored in favor of your “model”? Where have I heard that before???

        • _Jim says:

          Not really following you guys; maybe it’s because:

          a) you assume waaaay too much regarding my position on this issue

          b) You do not posses the ability to write with clarity.

        • You were clear about wanting to “jack you up” so that is what I at least am obliging–being “jacked up”. You might be disappointed with anything less. So, if you really wanted something besides “jacked up” answers, you need more clear. Otherwise, if I just quietly sit here, you might have to go elsewhere to “punch the bag”. Come on, I’m trying to help you out. Do I need to use more ad hominems or something to add flair? I can repeat the “kool-aid drinkers” label in each answer if that would help. Help me out here. I’m trying.

        • _Jim says:

          I see you’re still ‘headed nowhere’ with your posts and your thoughts; thanks for playing …

  2. Chip Bennett says:

    Well, IMHO the real, root-cause issue is that the federal government is unconstitutionally claiming ownership of land within a Sovereign State; but, point taken.

    • miked1947 says:

      BLM does not own the land but manages it for the citizens on this country:
      http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html

      • kuhnkat says:

        The BLM does NOT manage it for the citizens of this country you moron. If it did we would be receiving some advantage from the land. The only advantage received is for the cronies of Politicians or people who were using the land before the BLM was established.

      • philjourdan says:

        And since when did “We the People” tell them to kill cows?

        • miked1947 says:

          The death of the cows was the result of Bundy’s illegal actions. If he had complied with court orders the situation would never have escalated to the point it did. It is all an over-hyped show meant to entertain the gullible.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The death of the cows was the result of Bundy’s illegal actions.

          You are what the communists refer to as a Useful Idiot. By your logic, the State would be justified in use a SWAT team to remove you forcibly from your car, and then destroying it, all over an unpaid speeding ticket.

        • miked1947 says:

          Patience is a “Virtue”! 20 years of defying lawful orders tend to destroy patience. Interference by outsiders that do not know what is going on did not help the situation.
          Chip: I lived in the region and knew what was going on, you are the useful IDIOT!

        • philjourdan says:

          Enough of who is an idiot. respond to what he said.

          So you are going to destroy the car because of unpaid parking tickets?

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, no. The ocean did not eat your homework, nor the devil made you do it. They died because of the conscious actions of the BLM. So again, I ask you:

          And since when did “We the People” tell them to kill cows?

          Please answer without any more lame excuses.

        • miked1947 says:

          Philjourdan:
          I rad the cows were injured running into fences that were erected by Bundy on federal land and had to be put down because of injuries. That is why I said Bundy was responsible. Bundy was also told to remove his cattle in 1998, again Bundy is responsible for his cattle being where they do not belong. He received “Fair warning.
          Read this:
          http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

        • kuhnkat says:

          Mike you moron, cattle do not run into fences they have been around their whole lives. Your fellow morons rounding them up ran them into the fences IF they actually ran into fences. You gullible types are hilarious!!

          Oh, and those fences prevent the cattle from degrading more land than what Bundy uses.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • philjourdan says:

          I am sure you believe a video was responsible for Benghazi as well. Sorry if I question the official word of this regime. The cows were alive. The cows are dead. The action between those 2 states was the BLM brown shirts.

          Not any action Bundy did.

  3. squid2112 says:

    This also brings to light the FACT that the federal government is expressly prohibited from “owning” any real property (real estate), outside of the “seat of government” (25 sqr. miles called the District of Columbia), period …. – Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    • squid2112 says:

      Further, if you read the federalist papers, you will discover that there was decided a very strong argument as to why the fed’s should not be allowed to own property and have no right to eminent domain. If the fed’s can confiscate real property under the cover of eminent domain, then nothing could stop them from acquiring all real property, and indeed Jefferson argued (and the federalists concluded) that such a federal government would in FACT ultimately do exactly that. And you are seeing this despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 was crafted to protect “The People” from just that!

      Now, is there any question as to whether or not your “leaders” (supposed “representatives”) care a whit about you and I, or that they care a whit about our Constitution? It has been trampled on repeatedly from almost the day it was signed.

      • miked1947 says:

        The Federal Government does not own the land, It manages the land for all the citizens
        http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html
        Get your facts straight.

        • kuhnkat says:

          You moron, squid2112 did NOT say the BLM owned the land. They didn’t even mention the BLM.

        • philjourdan says:

          Kind of like they manage your taxes, right? Go to the IRS and demand your money back.

        • miked1947 says:

          I thank my Government representatives and fellow promoters of large government for the outrages of the IRS and other unnecessary agencies.
          People like Bundy make government oversite necessary.

        • philjourdan says:

          Circular logic. The government created the situation, which then it had to go in and correct. It is a “self fulfilling prophylactic” (in the words of one comedian).

          You must love big government. You see the reason for it being the actions of the government itself.

          I hear there are miscreants in NYC that have not paid parking fines. Send over a couple of Nukes to deal with them. That appears to be your way.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Barry said he is worried about a Nuke in Manhattan. Is this where it comes from??   8>)

        • philjourdan says:

          It would not surprise me.

    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      Use of force suggested to be fear of Bundy finally winning in court if BLM places an actual lien on his cattle:

      “Cliven Bundy’s Grandfather purchased grazing rights from the General Land Office in the 1880’s. Note: He PURCHASED those rights. Not the land, just the grazing rights.”

      “Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense.”

      So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.”

      Swann explained that if no one, even a government agency, challenges a prescriptive right in five years, then the right is secured and trespass cannot be legally claimed.”

      http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/cliven-bundys-justifiable-defiance-part-i

      • squid2112 says:

        Not sure what this has to do with my comment Nick.

        • David A says:

          I do not think it did, but it is informative. I had just that example with my property and a new owner next door attempted to challenge it. He backed off with a well written letter forcing him to acknowledge my prescriptive rights to the easement. The questing of a state or fed govt imposing fees, and how they set those fees is interesting ad complicating.

        • “It is well established that prescriptive rights cannot be obtained against the Federal
          government; mere occupancy and improvements of public lands without color of title create no prescriptive or vested rights as against the United States; and adverse
          possession of Government property cannot affect the title of the United States, except as provided by Federal statute.”

          Click to access 172IBLA296%20LEO%20HARDY%209-20-2007.pdf

          Prescriptive rights are only given through courts, or upheld through courts. Counties and the BLM have lost easements which were used for years and years by the public, because without paperwork to prove this, the easement was lost.

      • miked1947 says:

        Bundy’s Grandfather settled in Arizona. His father bought the farm in Nevada after Bundy was born. The Federal courts have ruled he does not have any grazing rights on that land.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Yes, the federal courts rule to maintain the power of the fed. You know that but won’t admit it. Bundy bought the title AND RIGHTS with the land from the men who established them. Try Prescriptive rights among others YOU MORON!!

          You may also want to familiarize yourself as to WHY the fed may lose much of the BLMN land in the West if we don’t back down form their Mafia.

          http://nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/

          Yes, the fed was supposed to, by the bills admitting these states, sell the land and give the states part of the proceeds. Since they did not they could lose all rights to the land. It is a rather complicated issue, but, basically all states are admitted equally meaning that if all the states admitted before the western states either kept their public lands or had the Fed dispose of them then that is what should have happened for the western states, ESPECIALLY since it is in the bills admitting them. oh yeah, YOU MORON!!!

        • miked1947 says:

          Khunkat:
          Go back and read your history. You managed to get it all WRONG!
          The BLM has been selling land in Nevada for many years and in the 60s they were still granting Homesteads to people that could fulfill the requirements
          Bundy bought the WATER Rights for the 160 acre farm they bought in early 1950s. Bundys did not get grazing permit for federal land until years later.
          You are being a fool.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Mike you moron, I should go back and check in the 1950’s or somewhere YOU think is important?!?!! Try going back and checking where the US legislature said the federal government SHALL sell the public lands and shall give Nevada 5% so they would be dealt with the same as other states admitted to the union. Wait, Nevada never got 5%. Does that mean they should get the land back?!?!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • miked1947 says:

          Kuhnkat:
          The federal government has been selling land in Nevada and the state has been receiving their share of the money. Las Vegas and Henderson would be same size they were when they were established if not for the sale of public lands by the federal government.
          From the Nevada constitution:
          All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Mike you Moron , still trying to make excuses. Nevada became a state about 150 years ago and they still have over 90% of about 80% of Nevada to sell?? The more you write the more my moron joke applies to you.

        • miked1947 says:

          Kuhnkat:
          Sorry about that! I was raised in Nevada and spent my entire working life in Nevada. I worked with government agencies and individuals. I was involved with BLM land auctions and became aware of all that as part of living in that state. I lost whatever respect I had for your posts with this exchange. You should have kept quiet about Bundy’s illegal activities when the time was in your favor.

        • kuhnkat says:

          BLM Land auctions Miked?

          Those must have been really big and recent. What happened to selling all the land over 100 years ago. The Fed still retains over 50% of the western public lands and 80% of Nevada that they should NOT have by their own laws.

          Try reality fool!! if they had followed their own LAWS none of those legal decisions by biased courts would have been possible and Bundy would not have come into conflict with a corrupt bureaucracy trying to steal people’s land and rights!! Well, at least not over these specific reasons!!

          You have no respect for my posts??

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        • kuhnkat says:

          The Federal was supposed to sell that land over 100 years ago!!! They still have most of it when they should have NONE!!!

          Using force to retain their illegal control simply adds to their crimes FOOL!!

        • kuhnkat says:

          I apologize Mike. It was rude of me waving my arms around after that sweaty workout. To make it up to you here is a link to the actual legislation:

          Click to access 1864Act.pdf

          Sec. 10. Five percent of subsequent sales of public lands by United States to be paid to state for public roads and irrigation. And be it further enacted, That five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said state for the purpose of making and improving public roads, constructing ditches or canals, to effect a general system of irrigation of the agricultural land in the state, as the legislature shall direct.

        • miked1947 says:

          There is no monetary value of the land on Gold Butte. Bundy’s cattle are degrading the land, just like wild horses and burros are degrading other lands across the west.
          I also think the feds are abusing power but in this one case Bundy is wrong. There has to be a balance between protecting the land and property rights but Bundy has no right to that property, at least no more right than you would have to building a house in a national park.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Mike your moron, you say the land has no monetary value then say his cattle is degrading it.

          If there is no monetary value what is the cattle degrading?? You and the EPA’s fevered envirowhacktard imagination apparently.

        • kuhnkat says:

          The Fed has no RIGHT to this land and has been abusing those they come into conflict with. You whine about degrading land. What does solar and wind turbine installations do FOOL!!!

          What good is the land if it is not used. You gonna go to theatres in the high density Agenda 21 housing and watch 3d video of what we threw away?!?!?!

        • kuhnkat says:

          The land should have ALL BEEN SOLD long before the BLM would have been created. In fact they would not have NEEDED another corrupt federal bureaucracy if they had sold the land as they were bound to do by their own LAW!!

        • _Jim says:

          re: kuhnkat says April 26, 2014 at 4:10 am
          Yes, the federal courts rule to maintain the power of the fed. You know that but won’t admit it. Bundy bought the title AND RIGHTS with the land from the men who established them. Try Prescriptive rights among others YOU MORON!!

          Oops. A purported ‘ad hom’. This won’t sit well with Mike1234 … not that Jerry Seinfeld would find anything wrong with any of that …

          .

        • miked1947 says:

          Jim:
          Both you and Kuhnkat are the MORONS on this one. Go talk to a federal judge about the case. Beter yet the both of you could get a cranialanalectomy. Come back when you WTF you are talking about.

  4. philjourdan says:

    It got the headlines off Obamacare and its woes.

  5. Streetcred says:

    The actions of the Feds in this matter is interesting when read with the back drop of the “Vancouver Declaration 1976”. Be warned. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/vancouver-declaration-1976/

  6. David A says:

    Miked is not responding to very rational points being presented.

  7. Andy Oz says:

    “I have found that it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love.” Hears to the ordinary folk, like Steven and many posters here, keeping the stupid climate religion at bay.

  8. Just amazing how some people can make a hero out of a deadbeat moron with a gun. A guy who fails to pay his taxes, who fails to pay legitimate fees.
    Equally amazing is a blog allegedly talking about “real science” championing this excuse for an American.
    Scratch a denier and out springs socialism paranoia, conspiracy theories and the tinfoil hat brigade.

    • Robertv says:

      What is legal about taxes ?

    • Morgan says:

      Hey hoaxy hoax. If you want to discuss the actual science behind Catastrophic Global Norming, feel free to let us make a fool of you.

      You start, tell us why adding CO2 to the atmosphere will block more IR in the N band even though the atmosphere is already opaque to it because of the CO2 that’s already there. Study the following diagram

      and tell us why those little dots at 750 ppm will cause worldwide climate catastrophe when the solid line at 375 ppm hasn’t. I’d love to hear this.

      And tell us why, knowing that CO2 is practically the only molecule at the TOA that can radiate heat to space, why increasing CO2 doesn’t INCREASE heat to space and cause global COOLING. I’d really love to hear your answer, but you will probably just stick your tongue out at us.

    • philjourdan says:

      Just amazing how any moron can jump to a conclusion about paying taxes based upon a story about dubious fees. And then declare that not lynching someone is making them a hero.

    • kuhnkat says:

      Agw… you MORON, Bundy has -aid ALL TAXES he owes or the IRS would have his property locked up and he would be in jail. Yeah, they have their own “special” courts and enforcement.

      Bundy does not even owe grazing fees. To owe the fees he would have had to sign the agreements that the BLM changed on him. Since he did not he was convicted of TRESPASS and the BLM was allowed to remove the cattle from the land NOT take them and sell or kill them!! They F’ed up badly and had to retreat and regroup after their stupidity. Oh, and Bundy is STILL willing to pay the fees to the County where the property resides but who won’t accept it. If it was just about the fees they could have the county collect them for the BLM.

      For some stupid reason the courts apparently decided that even lacking a signed agreement for the new restrictions the BLM could charge him the grazing fess anyway and the grazing FEES, INTEREST on the fees and FINES amounts to about 1.1mil. The actual fees are about 300,000 for 20 YEARS!! Not even pocket change to the BLM and Fed. Of course, they spent millions on this move to throw Bundy off the land while euthanizing the Desert Tortois that they had in a care center because they didn’t have the funds to continue their care.

      Another interesting allegation is that land has been disappearing off BLM parcels and appearing in private parcels without the paperwork showing in the data bases. Who wants to ask Reid what is going on?!?!?!

  9. Robertv says:

    You know when they start losing the battle. They get ugly.

  10. Organic Fool says:

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/24/bundy-responds-to-race-storm-as-media-attempt-to-divert-away-from-blm-criminal-activity/

    “Onlookers were not expecting Bundy’s recounting of his experience in Los Angeles during the 1965 Watts Riots, telling the story of how a black residents had escorted him 20 miles to safety in one of the worst hit areas of LA. “It took me 40 years to realize it, but those people were my angels, they protected me”.

    “What I’m really excited about is the fact that our Constitution was formed so all of us people could have some liberty and freedom – and be able to exercise our Conscience“.

    On the false media charge that Cliven was somehow endorsing slavery, he explained, “I might not have a very big word base or vocabulary, but let me tell you something… I understand what slavery is all about and there is no question in my mind that I don’t know what slavery is about. Slavery is about when you take away choices for people, and when you have forced labor and transfer people and sell them.”

    Bundy added, “If you think that’s what I’m all about, then you’re wrong. I don’t believe in any of that.”

    “I’m not just talking to you the media here, I’m talking to America, and I’m talking to the world. What I want to see the world have is that individual freedom and liberty to be able to express themselves. That’s what America is all about.”

    What wasn’t covered at the conference were some serious legal questions regarding the behavior of the federal government, including:

    Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th? Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in violation of his oath of office?

    Was the BLM grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the time leading up to, as well as during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th, and did the special agent in charge inform Sheriff Gillespie that the BLM was going to “stand down”?

    Did the BLM evade and impede a law enforcement investigation initiated by the local residents of Bunkerville, when they had reason to believe that the BLM was killing cattle and maliciously destroying private property owned by the Bundy Family (two crimes which were later found to have taken place)?

    Did any BLM agents personally benefit from issuing no-bid contracts to Utah cattlemen who were hired by the BLM?

    Is the BLM a private corporation, or a government agency? If the BLM is a privately held organization, do they have the power of arrest, or the authority to use deadly force against peaceful American citizens?

    Should Harry Reid and his son Rory be investigated and tried under the Racketeering Influenced and Corruptions Act (RICO)? Are the threats from Harry Reid and his son related to their possible attempts to profit from removing the Bundys from their land?”

  11. Let’s see. Lincoln made Neveda public land and NIxon signed the ESA. Yet the evil current democrats are responsible for a rancher behaving like a common thief. We must stop those evil Democrats before another Republican passes any more laws for Bundy to ignore.

    • _Jim says:

      ESA? How about a ‘reality check’ on that?

      Besides, liberalism is a mental disorder, not necessarily associated with any particular political party …

      You’re not a strict devotee to a (quite possibly false, as asserted by some) left-right political paradigm?

      And now, an aside: Do you think the democrats are presently acting with full and open honesty? How about when the ACA (Affordable Care Act) was passed in the house? Did you like the ‘trick’ where another bill was co-opted in the senate to expedite the passage of the ACA there?

      On Dec. 24, 2009 the Senate approved similar health care reform legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), in a 60-39 party-line vote.

      HR 3590 began as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, a bill passed by the House on Oct. 8 that modified the homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees.

      In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted HR 3590, removed all existing language, and replaced it with the language of their health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. .

      Open, transparent, straightforward … democrats …

      .

      • This is not about the openness of the Democrats. It’s about the people who decried lawlessness until it benefitted their side. The Democrats behaviour is bad, but so is that of the supporters of a lawless rancher. The argument seems to be “We” can behave badly because “they” are. Not buying it. “We” become “them”.

        • _Jim says:

          What should Rosa Parks have done? Why wasn’t (rather isn’t) the Dread Scott decision the ‘law of the land’ anymore? Same with Brown vs Board of Education?

          Just when should ‘protests’ be mounted, and when should stupid or unjust laws be protested or attention be drawn to them? Would you support a ban on burning the flag, regardless that that too is a freedom of expression right? Do you disagree with Antonin Scalia on that right?

          .

    • kuhnkat says:

      Yes, Lincoln helped push through Nevada statehood, which stated that the fed SHALL sell the private lands and give Nevada 5% of the proceeds, long before it reached enough population to justify becoming a state. Why?? Because he needed another friendly state in Congress to ram through his Crony Crap and, oh yeah, ratify a few AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!

      You need to find a little more reality!! The Republicrap party was established as the progressive party and has always been. The Dhimmicraps passed them in the 60’s I believe.

  12. Wow, all you have to do in America to get free grazing and lots of media support is yell “Unfair”, drag in a bunch of media and militia guys and make up all kinds of stories. Luckily, Americans really do not care at all about whether things are accurate or not. Which is interesting coming from people who demand accountability from warmists, but nothing from gun-toting, freeloading, lying ranchers.
    Skeptics complain that warmists put too many rules on whose science they should accept, yet here we have rules that only things that support Bundy are allowed. The rest is ignored or discounted as drivel. Warmists should have a field day with this one……

    • I’ll put you down for supporting heavily armed Federal paramilitaries being used to settle civil disputes.

      • Not a civil dispute–Bundy did not obey the judge’s order to not interfer in the roundup and brought in armed militia to back him up. Had Bundy gone through the courts–oh, wait he did and lost so then he just stole the use. Had Bundy not interferred and threatened violence against those rounding up the cattle with their lawful order to do so–but wait, he did. I’ll put you down in favor of breaking the law, arming yourself and then complaining when the SWAT team shows up. The new “might is right” philosophy.

        (Still don’t know why backing Bundy and ignoring all lawbreaking and refusing to acknowledge any sources of information one does not like is different in any way from what warmists do.)

        • I will put you down in favor of gunning down Vietnam War protesters for disobeying judges orders. Also for running over protesters with tanks in China.

          Because government is always right, and we the people are not allowed to object to tyranny.

        • David A says:

          You ignore the constitutional issues brought up, as well as the historical context of the constitution with regard to federal ownership of land. You ignore the fact that they, the feds, tried to force him off the land by reducing the number of cattle he could allow to graze on the land by almost 90 percent, and stipulated a large fee increase in grazing rights per cattle allowed. You ignore that many other citizens have been forced off their land by baseless imminent domain statist decisions, which, if you are a billionaire you could fight, but losing in court often has very little to do with right and wrong, but a lot to do with deep pockets. Yu ignore that their may well have been nefarious objectives to use that property for government sponsored energy projects, which are chalk full of graft and corruption. You ignore the truth that the feds way overreacted with their show of force, may have violated state laws, likely used the wrong party to enforce the courts decree, and, damaged the land, the tortoises, and killed some expensive cattle for no reason whatsoever.

          You are the one ignoring facts. The federal government has no business claiming that land. It did not cost them a penny for the cattle to graze. It helped keep food prices down. They had no use for it.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Hey Steven, don’t forget to put him down as in favor of reeducation so he won’t have to worry about people disagreeing with the gubmints diktats. You know, like in Cambodia…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s