Author Topic: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch  (Read 12993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,820
  • Gender: Female
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #175 on: April 15, 2014, 03:21:13 pm »
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: FEDERAL AGENTS STOLE BUNDY PROPERTY, & SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPusi7TXzH4&feature=player_detailpage

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #176 on: April 15, 2014, 03:37:35 pm »
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: FEDERAL AGENTS STOLE BUNDY PROPERTY, & SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPusi7TXzH4&feature=player_detailpage

Which makes Napolitano a hypocrite.

As a judge, he would have had Bundy arrested for ignoring his orders.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,356
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #177 on: April 15, 2014, 04:00:08 pm »
Luis wrote above:
[[ If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.
Not this Bundy guy. ]]

Here's something I found posted over at TOS today (link included)
==========
“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.”
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
(H/T SatinDoll)
==========
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144597/posts?page=20#20

Who would sign an "agreement" that was designed to all-but destroy the signer?
Sounds like Mr. Bundy refused an "offer that you can't refuse".
Only this time pen was being held by the government, not the godfather.
(Aside: is there a difference, these days?)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 04:01:44 pm by Fishrrman »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #178 on: April 15, 2014, 04:27:28 pm »
Luis wrote above:
[[ If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.
Not this Bundy guy. ]]

Here's something I found posted over at TOS today (link included)
==========
“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.”
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
(H/T SatinDoll)
==========
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144597/posts?page=20#20

Who would sign an "agreement" that was designed to all-but destroy the signer?
Sounds like Mr. Bundy refused an "offer that you can't refuse".
Only this time pen was being held by the government, not the godfather.
(Aside: is there a difference, these days?)

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
 
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #179 on: April 15, 2014, 04:29:38 pm »
Which makes Napolitano a hypocrite.

As a judge, he would have had Bundy arrested for ignoring his orders.

With tanks, weapons and thugs??

Surely you jest....
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,356
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #180 on: April 15, 2014, 04:29:57 pm »
Another interesting post about Mr. Bundy's "contract" with the BLM. I have no way to vouch for its veracity. Take it for what it is:
==============
The Feds & the BLM are out of control. They spent over $3 million to harass Bundy & go after $1 million in grazing fees they say he owes. Also- They cut his grazing allotment down to where they were only allowing him 250 cows on 260,000 acres!!! Do the math! That is over 1000 acres PER COW!! It is also not enough cows to run the ranch profitably. That kind of land/cow ratio is nuts!!!
==============
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144592/posts?page=31#31

Again -- why sign an agreement imposed under such duress?

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,799
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #181 on: April 15, 2014, 04:30:50 pm »
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
 

and the wheel goes round and round....... Wish Alan Dershowitz and/or Mark Levin would tell us their respective POVs.

Glenn Beck however, is quite a megaphone to provide the alternative POV regarding Bundy being hero or villain.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 04:34:25 pm by DCPatriot »
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,820
  • Gender: Female
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #182 on: April 15, 2014, 04:58:18 pm »
3. George Washington condemned the Boston Tea Party.
 Although America’s foremost Revolutionary figure wrote in June 1774 that “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America,” he strongly voiced his disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct and believed the perpetrators should compensate the East India Company for the damages.

4. It was the British reaction to the Boston Tea Party, not the event itself, that rallied Americans.
 Many Americans shared Washington’s sentiment and viewed the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandalism by radicals rather than a heroic patriotic undertaking. There was less division among the colonists, however, about their opposition to the measures passed by the British government in 1774 to punish Boston. The legislation closed the port of Boston until damages were paid, annulled colonial self-government in Massachusetts and expanded the Quartering Act. Colonists referred to the measures as the “Intolerable Acts,” and they led to the formation of the first Continental Congress.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #183 on: April 15, 2014, 05:01:12 pm »
@ Oceander and Luis

This has moved into the realm of perception.  What is the image of the full weight of the American government, tanks, soldiers, guys with sunglassed and bullet proof vests against a ragtag group of ranchers and cowboys.  Place this against the backdrop of single mothers with obamaphones and obamacare.
Fine, not all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed but this, this is the stand.  Let the parlor pundits discuss fine points over brandy and cigars, hale fellows well met, while the dirty work is to be done.  This man is our Pavel Trofimovich Morozov, captures the imagination of the American West. 
As someone else mentioned, why are other ranchers standing behind this man?  Do they regret signing over their inheritance like Esau?
You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.  The only failure in this situation is the lack of other places to start similar situations around the West.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,820
  • Gender: Female
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #184 on: April 15, 2014, 05:43:12 pm »
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada. - See more at:

 http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.C3ol9kLA.q5jaxp5b.dpuf

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #185 on: April 15, 2014, 05:53:02 pm »
and the wheel goes round and round....... Wish Alan Dershowitz and/or Mark Levin would tell us their respective POVs.

Glenn Beck however, is quite a megaphone to provide the alternative POV regarding Bundy being hero or villain.

I'm a pragmatic sort of a guy. I seldom get caught up in the emotional aspect of an issue.

I see that the Constitution clearly gives the United States the power to manage that land as it sees fit, and I see that the ownership of the land is clearly defined.

I see people like Meghan Kelly and even Glenn Beck acknowledging the fact that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and I see that he's had his day(s) in Court and that he's lost there.

Our side of the political spectrum argues that the Constitution should be adhered to, and respected as the Supreme Law of the Land, until we get to a case like this, when we forego all reason and embrace emotions.

We all need to abide by one Constitution and we all need to abide by the decisions of our Courts, because otherwise we will never have a sustainable Constitution.     

So the first step in getting back to that Constitutional Republic we once were and the original intent of the Framers CANNOT BE the complete disregard of the Constitution, because once it becomes accepted practice that disregarding the Constitution is the proper way to protest unpalatable Constitutional actions by the government, disregarding every Constitution will become the norm, and no Constitution will ever be seen as legitimate.     
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 05:59:02 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,820
  • Gender: Female
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #186 on: April 15, 2014, 06:04:22 pm »
From my previous link: Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

Quote
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added). -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.C3ol9kLA.ZfTHGjUe.dpuf

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #187 on: April 15, 2014, 06:19:08 pm »
 
Quote
once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do.

Which the Nevada Constitution of 1864 does explicitly and Bundy has (unsuccessfully) argued does not carry weight of law.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 06:23:29 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #188 on: April 15, 2014, 06:51:45 pm »
I'm a pragmatic sort of a guy. I seldom get caught up in the emotional aspect of an issue.

I see that the Constitution clearly gives the United States the power to manage that land as it sees fit, and I see that the ownership of the land is clearly defined.

I see people like Meghan Kelly and even Glenn Beck acknowledging the fact that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and I see that he's had his day(s) in Court and that he's lost there.

Our side of the political spectrum argues that the Constitution should be adhered to, and respected as the Supreme Law of the Land, until we get to a case like this, when we forego all reason and embrace emotions.

We all need to abide by one Constitution and we all need to abide by the decisions of our Courts, because otherwise we will never have a sustainable Constitution.     

So the first step in getting back to that Constitutional Republic we once were and the original intent of the Framers CANNOT BE the complete disregard of the Constitution, because once it becomes accepted practice that disregarding the Constitution is the proper way to protest unpalatable Constitutional actions by the government, disregarding every Constitution will become the norm, and no Constitution will ever be seen as legitimate.   

Well argued.

There's ample room to question whether this battle is worth it. As a legal loser, whether it risks the cause itself.

Yet, one can't help but root for the lone rancher! That grizzled, iconic figure pitted against the machine of state. I wonder if he signed the movie rights yet?

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #189 on: April 15, 2014, 08:55:26 pm »
Ya know, these Constitutional and legal arguments are truly flying near the bizarre.  The other side had suspended the Constitution.  Torn it to shreds and wiped their mangy asses with it.  So you can fight and do what you need or you get ready to do this




[attachment deleted by admin]
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,820
  • Gender: Female
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #190 on: April 15, 2014, 09:02:51 pm »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #191 on: April 15, 2014, 09:25:50 pm »


Jefferson is one of the guys who had a hand in drafting the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #192 on: April 15, 2014, 09:29:20 pm »
Win at all costs.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #193 on: April 15, 2014, 09:29:23 pm »
Ya know, these Constitutional and legal arguments are truly flying near the bizarre.  The other side had suspended the Constitution.  Torn it to shreds and wiped their mangy asses with it.  So you can fight and do what you need or you get ready to do this

So, shouldn't the fight be about letting no one violate the Constitution instead of letting everyone violate it?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #194 on: April 15, 2014, 09:36:37 pm »
Win at all costs.

People want to make this into something that it isn't.

They want to turn this into a little guy versus an oppressive liberal government.

That's not what this is about.

This is an individual who will not recognize the validity of his State's Constitution, the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution, or the authority of the Courts.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #195 on: April 15, 2014, 09:48:07 pm »
So, shouldn't the fight be about letting no one violate the Constitution instead of letting everyone violate it?

In a world of puppet shows and ice cream sundaes, yeah.  The Left has the destruction of the U.S. Constitution as their primary goal.  Part of that strategy has been to ignore and destroy at their will and wont. 
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #196 on: April 15, 2014, 09:56:12 pm »
In a world of puppet shows and ice cream sundaes, yeah.  The Left has the destruction of the U.S. Constitution as their primary goal.  Part of that strategy has been to ignore and destroy at their will and wont.

So how is the left destroying the Constitution in the Bundy case? 
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #197 on: April 15, 2014, 10:01:19 pm »
Well, it appears the right has found its equivalent to MSNBC's Bridgegate and CNN's Malaysian airliner story.
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #198 on: April 15, 2014, 10:02:56 pm »
Well, it appears the right has found its equivalent to MSNBC's Bridgegate and CNN's Malaysian airliner story.

Pithy.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
« Reply #199 on: April 15, 2014, 10:07:09 pm »
So how is the left destroying the Constitution in the Bundy case?

Not yet visible although Harry Reid isn't too far away.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.