Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'

[Theowl32]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

We are detached from reality because we believe that in a democracy a person should follow the law? We are detached from reality because we believe in a democracy it is wrong to use violence to solve problems? We are detached from reality because we do not approve of people who want all of their rights (the right to graze cattle on government land) without any of the responsibilities (refusing to pay for the use of that land). If anyone is detached from reality, it is you and the shit heads who think like you.

Funny, you fucking hypocrite how your selective outrage about upholding constitutional law for tortoises.

Meanwhile you and your pathetic fellow asswipes ignore all of the blatant crimes of this gang of Chicago criminals against the constitution. You fucking stink hypocrite.

1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama's house in Hyde Park, Ill. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

2. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election.

3. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.

4. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.

5. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.

6. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.

7. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.

8. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.

9. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.

10. Fast And Furious Scam, The Administrations cover-up of guns sales to Mexican drug lords that lead to the death of an American citizen Brian Terry. The House voted to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for contempt of Congress due to the cover up and refusal to release documents by the Obama administration and Holders office.

Congress Unconscionably Silent on Obama's Constitutional Crimes - Reason.com


That is just 10. Let me know if you want the 50 more on the list.....you stupid fucking worthless pieces of shit on the left. Let me know.

 

[peach174]

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

Maybe he has said it but he has not done so. According to the article I have posted this has gone on since the early 90's which means he has had plenty of time to pay his debt. To the best of my knowledge there is over a million dollars in grazing fees that are unpaid. Provide your proof that he has agreed to pay or STFU.

Big difference between paying the State and not paying the Feds.

Starts at around 3 min.

 

[The T]

Another thread proving once again the far left is far detached from reality.

We are detached from reality because we believe that in a democracy a person should follow the law? We are detached from reality because we believe in a democracy it is wrong to use violence to solve problems? We are detached from reality because we do not approve of people who want all of their rights (the right to graze cattle on government land) without any of the responsibilities (refusing to pay for the use of that land). If anyone is detached from reality, it is you and the shit heads who think like you.

The violence was used by the Feds who threw women down on the ground and tasered people. Killed prized expensive Bulls and orphaned more than 16 calf's.

Doesn't matter...a HUMAN in their mind challenged the IMPERIAL FED...others got killed...particuliarally animals that they claim to care about...the FED is out of bounds and has been for awhile...THIS is the first of many instances to come. The FEDS had better be watching their backsides.

 

[Camp]

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

 

[jillian]

No
Obama put in a 35 year old who is inexperienced, in charge and he doesn't know what he is doing.
He used excessive force against protesters instead of using the courts to settle this.

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

who cares what he would gladly do. the land is owned by the feds. the feds charge grazing fees. if he can't follow the law, then he belongs in jail.

if he lifts a weapon against the government, he deserves more than that.

no one cares what the gubmint hating wing nuts want.

 

[tyroneweaver]

play an anti Mormon video and have all us nutty Mormon in the area go nuts, and see if Barry blames it on the video then

 

[peach174]

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

Nevada State Constitution
Article I
Sec. II
Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  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 existance [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.

They are not trying to Secede from the Federal Government.
They are trying to get Nevada land back from the Feds.

 

[Vigilante]

Seems the BLM thievery has been happening for years!

BLM steals cattle

 

[peach174]

Did you notice where it says;
Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people.

Not the
Desert Tortoise, the people.

 

[peach174]

Seems the BLM thievery has been happening for years!

BLM steals cattle

Yep
Our Ranchers down here in Southeast Arizona has been fighting them for over twenty years.
But for a lot of other different reasons. So far they haven't stolen the cattle.
The Ranchers have been wining, so far.

This fight with them is over trying to steal our water.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012...mpting-to-halt-development-in-cochise-county/

They are attacking all of the Western States.

 

[CaféAuLait]

This has been in the courts for several years. To the best of my knowledge bundy has lost every court case. He refuses to accept the court decisions. The government acted in a legal and lawful way.
"First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument."
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy | Power Line
The bottom line is this, bundy wants all of his rights (to graze his cattle wherever he wants) and refuses to accept any of the responsibilities (paying for the use of government land). That is not how things work in a democracy.

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

( emphasis added)

LOL

How many states have legalized pot? ( Feds: Controlled Substance) And illegal immigration? The feds (DEA ) has not taken any action in Colorado or in Washington. The Feds do not take action against sanctuary cities....

So yeah, states question federal courts and laws all the time...

 

[Camp]

He has repeatedly said that he would gladly pay to the State.

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

Nevada State Constitution
Article I
Sec. II
Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  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 existance [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.

They are not trying to Secede from the Federal Government.
They are trying to get Nevada land back from the Feds.

The article and section are not limited to secession. The secede portion is followed by the "forcibly resist the Execution of its laws" portion. There is also the portion that addresses the "Supreme Authority of the government of the United States."
In regards to trying to get Nevada land back, the land never belonged to the State of Nevada. Not ever. The land was part of territory that was completely controlled and owned by the United States. When Nevada became a state the US ceded certain lands and land rights to the newly formed state. Lands that were not specifically ceded were retained as federal property.

In specific regards to Bundy. His family acquired the property 20 years after the Constitution of Nevada was accepted. The Constitution specifically forbids him from disavowing the government of the United States or rejecting it's supreme authority in regards to law.

 

[Vigilante]

Seems the BLM thievery has been happening for years!

BLM steals cattle

Yep
Our Ranchers down here in Southeast Arizona has been fighting them for over twenty years.
But for a lot of other different reasons. So far they haven't stolen the cattle.
The Ranchers have been wining, so far.

I had often wondered if the ENFORCERS would care more about their salaries, and pensions, then the Constitutional rights of individuals...after this display of force, I believe my question has been answered. Many in law enforcement, will NOT give up their plush paychecks, to preserve what our forefathers were willing to give up, in order to form that once great Republic.

I, for one, will never trust another "BROWN SHIRT" again.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Seems the BLM thievery has been happening for years!

BLM steals cattle

You should read the story about Wayne Hage

Federal Misconduct Corralled by Federal Judge

Below written by the Judge that awarded them over 4 million (unfortunately it took near 30 years for that battle to end and the rancher DIED while waiting, not to mention the amount of money he spent) :

"The government's normal discretion is restricted under the present injunction, an injunction required in this extreme case because of the conspiracy noted and the history of violations of the Hages' due process rights in their permits and vested property rights in the use of water, and the obvious continuing animus against Hage by the government officials charged with administering his permits."

Judgment here:

Final Judgment Award | The Estate of Wayne Hage v. United States | Nancie G. Marzulla - JDSupra

http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-su13-hage-decision.pdf

Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

 

[peach174]

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

Nevada State Constitution
Article I
Sec. II
Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  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 existance [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.

They are not trying to Secede from the Federal Government.
They are trying to get Nevada land back from the Feds.

The article and section are not limited to secession. The secede portion is followed by the "forcibly resist the Execution of its laws" portion. There is also the portion that addresses the "Supreme Authority of the government of the United States."
In regards to trying to get Nevada land back, the land never belonged to the State of Nevada. Not ever. The land was part of territory that was completely controlled and owned by the United States. When Nevada became a state the US ceded certain lands and land rights to the newly formed state. Lands that were not specifically ceded were retained as federal property.

In specific regards to Bundy. His family acquired the property 20 years after the Constitution of Nevada was accepted. The Constitution specifically forbids him from disavowing the government of the United States or rejecting it's supreme authority in regards to law.

Not when it violates the protection, security and benefit of the people.
Which is what BLM is doing.

 

[eagle1462010]

He can say it all he wants. He, nor Nevada have the right to question the federal court. Nevada would be violating it's own constitution if it collected funds for the property in question. That is not an opinion, it's a fact that is easy to look up. Nevada has a paramount allegiance clause in it's constitution. Article 1, Section 2. Not all states have a paramount allegiance clause. Nevada does.

Federal authority is clear. It comes from the US Constitution, Article 4, sec 3, clause 2. It's first use was with the Land Ordinance bill of 1785 and two years later with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Specific grazing laws used today are rooted in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

Nevada State Constitution
Article I
Sec. II
Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  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 existance [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.

They are not trying to Secede from the Federal Government.
They are trying to get Nevada land back from the Feds.

The article and section are not limited to secession. The secede portion is followed by the "forcibly resist the Execution of its laws" portion. There is also the portion that addresses the "Supreme Authority of the government of the United States."
In regards to trying to get Nevada land back, the land never belonged to the State of Nevada. Not ever. The land was part of territory that was completely controlled and owned by the United States. When Nevada became a state the US ceded certain lands and land rights to the newly formed state. Lands that were not specifically ceded were retained as federal property.

In specific regards to Bundy. His family acquired the property 20 years after the Constitution of Nevada was accepted. The Constitution specifically forbids him from disavowing the government of the United States or rejecting it's supreme authority in regards to law.

The Supreme Authority of the Federal Gov't.................

Don't you just like the sound of that BS................

We are getting kind of tired of their Supreme BS............

200 armed officers to take on one Cattle Rancher who refused to back down.

Now pandora's box is open. Let's see where this goes now. The Feds and Libs like the courts, guess they get to see more time in them now as States are now joining this fight.

 

[The T]

Did you notice where it says;
Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people.

Not the
Desert Tortoise, the people.

You meant the tortoise they claim is endangered and the very same that they are killing?

 

[Vigilante]

Harry Reid's view on Terrorists

 

[The T]

Harry Reid's view on Terrorists

No picture 'Bro...I can't see it...

 

[jon_berzerk]

A man disobeys the law. An element of anti social, anti government, armed men come to the law breaker's defense. An element of anti Obama self defined conservatives conflate a simple issue into an hysterical rant based on flawed logic, prejudice and hypocrisy.

That about sums up the current crisis exploited by FOX, Limbaugh and the rest of AM radio 'philosophers'.

What's wrong in America today? A minority of people who wrap themselves in our flag, carrying guns and a cross interpreting law to suit their personal needs.

So did the men at the Boston Tea Party! Yes, morality, and ethics, the very essence of what let us win WW II is almost snuffed out by the likes of you!

The Revolution, which we hold so dear as the very beginning of a ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC was only fought by 15% of the population.... Chew on that for awhile, subversive!

The Revolution, which we hold so dear as the very beginning of a ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC was only fought by 15% of the population.

during the Revolutionary war active forces against the king was 3 %

another 10% actively supported them

20 % favored the the revolution but did little or nothing to support it

33% favored the king

by the end of the war

more Americans were fighting for the king than there were in the field against him

and 33 % blew with the wind and accepted whatever was to be