Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[tvbcof]

Fundementalist Latter Day Saints apperently have a thing they call 'Bleeding the Beast' meaning that they take as much welfare as they can.

Cloward + Piven = Cliven

<image of Glenn Beck pointing at Cloward and Piven>

I'd never heard of these two academics or their strategy.  Not paid much attention to Glen Beck either.  Thx for pointing it out.

I did find it interesting that Beck, although (purportedly) a Mormon and inclined in the direction of such 'patriotic' causes as the Bundy affair was spun, was never really on-board.  I did indeed wonder if he had some sort of a tip-off that going to bat for Bundy wasn't going to end well for him politically.  (A memo that Hannity never got. hehe.)

I personally have been kind of 'paranoid' that the politics under Obama seem to be almost shoving welfare support down the throats of people and expanding the welfare rolls significantly.  It almost seems like there's been a marketing campaign of sorts around it.

A hypothesis that I entertain is that the structure which is being engineered is to have fairly fine-grained control over a fairly broad group of bottom-feeders.  For instance, adjustment of a dial (like the foodstamp debit card monthly allotment) could produce an effect of, say, causing more crime as the riots at Walmart happen and the tweakers to increase their foraging among the unguarded property of the middle-class.  This, in turn, would create support among the tax-paying classes for higher amount of social control (law enforcement, domestic surveillance, etc.)

 - edit: minor syntax

[tvbcof]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Martin you are losing your sanity
From:    AnonyMint
Date:    Sat, May 3, 2014 6:20 am
To:      armstrongeconomics@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

I've never seen you write such complete nonsense before.

Have my emails caused you to have a mental breakdown?

Dude, don't delude yourself into thinking that anyone has time for your loony-tunes word-salad.  Doing so will simply further exacerbate your own mental imbalances.

...
At least the Oathkeepers in the USA are armed and fully prepared to finish
what they start.

All fifteen of them!

From what I can tell, they are 'fully prepared' as long as they can take some R&R every few days and get a hot shower.

 - edit: more fitting word.

[Wilikon]

Bunkerville residents sound off about BLM, police, media




An emotional crowd gathered for a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Bunkerville.

Residents and council members praised militia members gathered there in support of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy, but had nothing but vitriol for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie and the local and national media.

“The day the militia [came] was the day I felt safe again in Nevada,” one meeting attendee said.

The meeting was standing-room only. City council members had harsh criticism for the media’s take on the standoff between Bundy and the BLM.

“I heard things said down there. And then when it came out on the air it was a completely different animal,” Bunkerville Councilman Duane Magoon said.

“Tell the whole truth. Don’t spin things to get your ratings,” another council member added.

One council member criticized Gillespie, saying he’s been AWOL in Bunkerville.

“I’m really disappointed in our sheriff for not being out here to protect the citizens who are out here,” he said.

One after another, Bunkerville residents criticized the BLM, calling it an example of overreaching government.

“It’s insane and a way overreach of their power. They should be held accountable,” a meeting attendee said.

“I called Metro, and their exact words to me were, ‘It’s the BLM and Cliven Bundy’s problem,’ – and I should take it up with one of those two. There are my children and my community, and if Metro doesn’t have the guts to come out and protect us – what are you here for? What are we paying you guys for?” another attendee said.

Despite reports of intimidation by armed militia, those gathered for the town hall had nothing but praise for them.

“I want to tell every one of them militia, thank you. Because not one of our government officials, not one of our sheriffs or Metro would have saved us that day. They didn’t save us that day,” an attendee said.

Meanwhile, Bundy and his supporters plan to file criminal reports against the BLM on Friday morning at the office of the Clark County Sheriff’s Department.

Bundy’s complaints include assault, rangers blocking access to public land and rangers impersonating police officers, among several others.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/25409893/bunkerville-residents-sound-off-about-blm-police-media?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=10116724

[tvbcof]

Bunkerville is reported to have a high population of Fundementalist Latter-Day Saints, and from what I read somewhere the hotel is owned by them and Warren Jeffs (thankfully put away for life+20) performed a lot of arranged marriages there.  The community reportedly finds outside attention quite unwelcome, and if there is any truth to the FLDS assurtions, one can easily see why that would be.

I find almost all conspiracy theories no matter how whacky or way out there they may be to be delightful.  Here's a fun one.  And a very disturbing one if there is anything at all to it.

[tvbcof]

I guess this is a pic of the Bundy clan.  It is removed from the article where Google first found it:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/default/files/field/media/web1_bundy_040914JL_06_5.jpg



One can see that that poor little girl has the same 'Quasimodo syndrome' that afflicts Cliven's son Ryan.  Not sure if the apperent mother is a relative of Ryan's, his wife, or both, but it's a pretty unusual defect and statistically to find it in a small group by random chance is not very likely.

The kid laying on the ground may have an extremely unusual condition known as fumarase deficiency which is almost unheard of outside of Mormon enclaves.

Maybe those militia guys can infuse a little badly needed genetic diversity into the environment there in Bunkerville and have the decency to wait until the women-folk are of childbearing age.  The militia guys are hardly most people's conception of quality sperm-bank material, but something is better than nothing I guess.

[Wilikon]

Westerners fear Obama preparing monuments land grab

Washington » Just south of Canyonlands National Park, the redrock wonders merge into a scrubland oasis with a peak that juts 11,000 feet into the sky. Mesas and buttes provide panoramic views and canyons, and ancient cliff dwellings offer a unique retreat.

It’s a region that holds sacred and historic value to the Navajo Nation, which has pitched Congress on creating the Diné Bikéyah National Conservation Area to protect the 1.9 million acres in San Juan County from development. But as with most things involving Congress, inaction has been the order of the day.

Even as supporters of a conservation area remain hopeful, they’re ready for Plan B: Asking President Barack Obama for a national monument.

Willie Grayeyes, and other members of the nonprofit Utah Diné Bikéyah, traveled recently to Washington to lobby Interior Department officials to designate the region north of the San Juan River and just outside the Navajo Reservation as a monument.

"The Utah delegates are only fumbling the ball. They aren’t really tackling it," Grayeyes said. A monument is a logical fallback to congressional designation, under which many of the current uses could continue.

Obama already has named a handful of monuments across the country — using his unilateral power under the 1906 Antiquities Act — and has promised more.

"I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations," he said in his State of the Union address earlier this year.

That commitment has some in the West fearing more intrusion by the federal government into their backyard, undermining locally driven efforts to decide the future of public lands. That fear isn’t without precedent.

"It makes me worried that [the president will] just ignore the wishes of the people of Utah and just do what he wants to — like Clinton did," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a recent Salt Lake Tribune interview. "Sometimes he does act unilaterally."

Two months before his 1996 re-election, President Bill Clinton stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and declared 1.8 million acres of public land in Utah as the new Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. With a swipe of a pen, he canceled a proposed coal mine in what Hatch described then as the "mother of all land grabs."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57892050-90/bishop-congress-lands-local.html.csp
 

[Bit_Happy]

Westerners fear Obama preparing monuments land grab

Washington » Just south of Canyonlands National Park, the redrock wonders merge into a scrubland oasis with a peak that juts 11,000 feet into the sky. Mesas and buttes provide panoramic views and canyons, and ancient cliff dwellings offer a unique retreat.

It’s a region that holds sacred and historic value to the Navajo Nation, which has pitched Congress on creating the Diné Bikéyah National Conservation Area to protect the 1.9 million acres in San Juan County from development. But as with most things involving Congress, inaction has been the order of the day.

Even as supporters of a conservation area remain hopeful, they’re ready for Plan B: Asking President Barack Obama for a national monument.

Willie Grayeyes, and other members of the nonprofit Utah Diné Bikéyah, traveled recently to Washington to lobby Interior Department officials to designate the region north of the San Juan River and just outside the Navajo Reservation as a monument.

"The Utah delegates are only fumbling the ball. They aren’t really tackling it," Grayeyes said. A monument is a logical fallback to congressional designation, under which many of the current uses could continue.

Obama already has named a handful of monuments across the country — using his unilateral power under the 1906 Antiquities Act — and has promised more.

"I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations," he said in his State of the Union address earlier this year.

That commitment has some in the West fearing more intrusion by the federal government into their backyard, undermining locally driven efforts to decide the future of public lands. That fear isn’t without precedent.

"It makes me worried that [the president will] just ignore the wishes of the people of Utah and just do what he wants to — like Clinton did," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a recent Salt Lake Tribune interview. "Sometimes he does act unilaterally."

Two months before his 1996 re-election, President Bill Clinton stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and declared 1.8 million acres of public land in Utah as the new Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. With a swipe of a pen, he canceled a proposed coal mine in what Hatch described then as the "mother of all land grabs."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57892050-90/bishop-congress-lands-local.html.csp
 

Another land grab so soon?
Less than 2 days ago I was still hearing (on my radio) about the big one in Texas.
They have enough Federal land already.

[solarion]

Another land grab so soon?
Less than 2 days ago I was still hearing (on my radio) about the big one in Texas.
They have enough Federal land already.

Agenda 21 is a monumental undertaking

[AnonyMint]

Dude, don't delude yourself into thinking that anyone has time for your loony-tunes word-salad.  Doing so will simply further exacerbate your own mental imbalances.

Remember upthread you don't even know the difference between the definition of 'functioning' and 'operative'.

 

Communists always play the "you need a psychiatrist card" when they've lost the debate on the merits.

I wonder how much more queenie drivel we need to endure in this thread.

One can see that that poor little girl has the same 'Quasimodo syndrome' that afflicts Cliven's son Ryan...

I am tempted to flag that post to moderator as being off-topic drivel and very insulting.

Communists always change the discussion away from the merits to some vendettas.

Inbreeding takes care of itself. I am not interested in legislating away the free will of people to destroy themselves. Communists on the other hand, think everything can be controlled by the State.

[tvbcof]

Dude, don't delude yourself into thinking that anyone has time for your loony-tunes word-salad.  Doing so will simply further exacerbate your own mental imbalances.

Remember upthread you don't even know the difference between the definition of functioning and operative.

 

Communists always play the "you need to a psychiatrist card" when they've lost the debate on the merits.

I wonder how much more queenie drivel we need to endure in this thread.

I though you were going to 'opt-out' and go pump yourself or something.  Any day now.

One can see that that poor little girl has the same 'Quasimodo syndrome' that afflicts Cliven's son Ryan...

I am tempted to flag that post to moderator as being off-topic drivel and very insulting.

Go for it.  Most of the mods don't read the this sub-forum, but they seem to enjoy a good laugh now and then.

Inbreeding takes care of itself. I am not interested in legislating away the free will of people to destroy themselves.

It takes time and some pregnancies slip through the cracks which may explain why you are blessing us with your presence.

BTW, you said you spent some time in Texas but left.  At this point I gotta wonder if it might have been here.

[practicaldreamer]

Whereas Communism turns the world into a black death.

Communists always play the "you need a psychiatrist card" when they've lost the debate on the merits.
Communists always change the discussion away from the merits to some vendettas
Communists on the other hand, think everything can be controlled by the State.

Europeans are for the most part a clueless bunch of Communist fucks.

Opt-out and let the Communists do the megadeath ritual.

Communism turns the world into a black death.

You Marxists are not Americans.

Upthread we have Communists who vehemently express their hatred of diversity of expression and life.

You continue to put forth strawman arguments to support your Communist philosophy.

You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.

..you've demonstrated that Communists have no logic
... all you are doing is employing FUD to try to make your Communist case.
 You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.

You fucking jealous Communists never want any one to be sovereign

You Communist twist the argument to suit your aims in order to destroy local sovereignty.

Thanks for admitting you are a Communist.

You continue to search for anything that can support your Communist position.

You Communists always ignore historical evidence.

Tbvcof even seems to have a point about this, but I don't think he is genuine about winning in any case and seems he leans Communist.

You are going to be shocked and learn something about real men, versus Communist pussies like yourself.

McCarthyism

"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[1] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against communists, as well as a fear campaign spreading paranoia of their influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
 

[solarion]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not surrounded by communists. In the US people think they're free, but they do not own their homes(they have warranty deeds), their children are sent to federally controlled education facilities, and they have no representation in government.

Everything is designed to give the illusion of freedom and choice, but when you get right down to it, there's very little of either.

[tvbcof]

Now that I'm somewhat interested, I looked into things even more last night.

What, exactly, is Bundy's ranch is somewhat obscured.  I didn't look real hard, but I think it's pretty clear that it is the large place downriver from where 170 hooks back to I-15.  Nice spread!  Swimming pool, tennis court, private lake with an island, etc.  A true oasis in the desert!  The junkyard to the northeast seems to be where the ag work happens, and it looks like that is as close as militia clown-central is allowed to the heart of Bundy's estate which itself seems to have professional security outside of the gate.

   Bundy's Melon patch (?)

Bundy's progeny maintain blogs to document their success at enlarging the herd.  The several of them that I ran across almost by accident are:

  http://bundychompings.blogspot.com/ daughter-in-law, Ryans wife
  http://joshandbay.blogspot.com/ daughter

There are various photos of Cliven himself and his spread scattered among other typical family pics.  And fun little stories about how the Devil backed up the family's sewer and such-like.

I was interested to find out of Bundy was a fundy Mormon.  There are arguments both ways, but at this point I find the strongest argument to be that he and his fam are not.  I estimate that they are typical Mormons and like typical Mormons having boat-loads of kids is an important part of their existence.  That does NOT in and of itself make them polygamists or whatever.

In an interview with Ryan, he relayed a story about when he was a kid, Cliven purchased 1000 head of cattle from Mexico.  Since he was planning to run them on some of the worst land in the world (which was not even his in the first place) he, unsurprisingly, lost his ass and couldn't even afford to send his kids to school with lunch.  Ryan claims that Cliven dumped Ryan's mom because she wanted 'welfare' for her kids to eat.  I suspect that it might have something to do with the fact that the old heifer was throwing freaks and Cliven decided to get a new one, but of course it's hard to know.

Cliven's fortunes seem to have changed when he switched from accepting welfare in the form of highly subsidized land and started to just trespass and steal resources outright.  It is often said that all the other ranchers were run out by the evil government.  It s seems highly possible that other ranchers who were not comfortable stealing found it hard to compete with the Bundy clan and the Bundys themselves are a big part of the problem.

Ryan's argument is that the 'fees' charged by the BLM are not fees for the actual vegetation and water, but are rather 'ranch management' fees and the family does not need the Govt to tell him how to run a ranch so they didn't 'sign a contract'.  This is obviously absurd.  True, Bundy seems to have learned that running 1000 cattle on the BLM land makes them starve and cost him money and he lowered his head-count somewhat.  The fact is, though, that it's the BLM's land and THEY get to decide what the head-count per area unit is.  Again, that's what happens when one owns something.  Sad day for Bundy.

Some people have produced info that appears to implicate Reid in various land dealings in the immediate area.  Notwithstanding that a lot of this kind of 'conspiracy theory' stuff from the likes of Breightbart are complete rubbish, it would not surprise me in the least.  It looks to me like this might be a dick measuring contest between a couple of rich old Mormon guys who are _both_ effectively puppets of Koch brothers and their own interests.  That anyone should personally sacrifice anything for either of them demonstrates what idiots some people are.

 - edit: Koch, maps link, + minor

[pungopete468]

tvbcof - Your opinions are poisonous. You've stated enough of your perspective that any sane or logical person would take offense at your intentions. This is a summary of what I've read from you above:

 - You're a gun owner yet you disagree with the Second Amendment. You claim to support "your Second Amendment rights" but you disagree completely with its fundamental purpose and with any civil intervention.
 
- You've acknowledged that you'll be willing to relinquish your "right" once the government tells you to, you've also shown that you will blame the "militia" when that day comes.

 - You claim that certain government officials are directly responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, yet you support the idea of government issued terrorism perpetrated against its own people.

 - You've asserted that the money of which Bundy refused to pay for grazing fees come at the expense of you and "the tax payer"; you're as wrong as can be here. These aren't taxes, they're "fees" and they aren't even close to being the same thing.

 - You seem intelligent enough to put pieces together yet very sinister. Your reactions toward these conclusions you draw is indicative of sociopathy. You obviously prefer pain and suffering over peaceful cohabitation. You probably don't understand why you feel this way but you would likely feel "at peace" in the event of nuclear war.

 - You speak ill of entitlements and yet assert that an injustice has occurred which adversely affects you. You're no party to any injustice here and your assertion that he pay these fees because "it hurts you and the other tax payers" is your own feeling of entitlement over what he spends his money on. His choice to pay the fees doesn't affect you at all. You can't look at this situation objectively because you feel entitled (or at least you convey the sentiments of entitlement in your word choices).

Just a quote for posterity... This is sickening.

Prior to the Bundy incident, I would have been basically in support of the effort to have various federal agencies (IRS, BLM, etc) shed their rapidly developing militarized enforcement wings.  The reason for this is the same reason I don't want to have the NSA doing bulk surveillance.  There are inherent risks which very likely will be realized at some point.  When an organization (or a person) has some capability there is a natural need to used it from time to time even in cases where it is uncalled for.  Worse than that, though, it really is a framework that Snowden describes as 'turnkey tyrrany.'  It provides an option for solving certain big problems in a certain way, and it is a place that I don't want to go.  At the very least, it is an inefficient use of resources.

Alas, the Bundy affair has made it clear that there really is a need to have a militarized force capable of non-trivial military operations.  I'm even less inclined to use the actual military for such operations than I would be to have various federal and state agencies have the capability.

The most rational approach seems to be to have one unified, centralized, and militarized unit, and to have a great deal of visibility into all aspects of their operation.

One aspect of such a structure is that there would be mobility issues.  That is a feature and not a bug as I see it.  Any actions they might take should be very deliberate.

Another aspect of such a structure is that they would not have some of the tactical advantages of surprise and covertness.  That is also a feature and not a bug.  The entire public should have visibility into every aspect of their operations.  Yes, it makes the unit less effective tactically, but it's a price worth paying to achieve very critical public support.

If I were the pres, I would say something like this:

We have an extra-ordinary and threatening situation at Bundy's ranch.  For this reason it is as of this time considered a special zone where certain normal rights are suspended.

Everyone who is currently within this special zone is ordered to leave immediately.  Those leaving will be evaluated to determine if they have participated in activities which are in violation of any specific laws.  Failure to comply with this order is a violation of blah, blah, blah, and the penalties will include blah, blah, blah.

On May 2nd at 0200, we will commence operations to secure the entire area.  These operations will be concluded by 0600 hours of the same day.  Survivors will be subject to punitive measures as described above.

All events will be documented with audio and video, and all of the documentation will be provided to the media.

Observers from a variety of adversarial organizations will be invited to take part of this operation to facilitate documentation and provide oversight.

My honest opinion is that you need help... You should try meditation, art, music, something that utilizes your right brain. Your views are sacred to you but they are wrong for the rest of the world because they will only lead to pain and death. If you can resolve your subconscious desire for destruction then I think you'll change your views. You seem like a smart person but your goals should be redefined...

To expand on another point:

The Oath Keepers is just a name; the idea for which the Oath Keepers have pledged their lives isn't. You can smear the reputation of a group but you can't stop the beliefs supported within the group. When the gauntlet comes down, the Oath Keepers will be there. There'll be no safe place for tyrants...

It's like you said above; it's not guns that change outcomes. It's the strong desire for change that affects outcomes. You can't stop innovation; removing the guns from an Oath Keeper is like bailing out the titanic with a bucket. Oath Keepers are everywhere and have tolerated the usurpation of individual and State's rights in hopes of nonviolent change.

You can stretch a rubber band to a point, but once you exceed the stress limit of a rubber band there is no more tolerance for stress... What was acceptable yesterday will no longer be acceptable. The little injustices become intolerable and the result is war on tyranny... Your consent or agreement means nothing at that point. What we have here at the Bundy Ranch is evidence that the metaphorical "rubber band" is stretched to the point where it is now showing its cracks...

[Bit_Happy]

......

To expand on another point:

The Oath Keepers is just a name; the idea for which the Oath Keepers have pledged their lives isn't. You can smear the reputation of a group but you can't stop the beliefs supported within the group. When the gauntlet comes down, the Oath Keepers will be there. There'll be no safe place for tyrants...

It's like you said above; it's not guns that change outcomes. It's the strong desire for change that affects outcomes. You can't stop innovation; removing the guns from an Oath Keeper is like bailing out the titanic with a bucket. Oath Keepers are everywhere and have tolerated the usurpation of individual and State's rights in hopes of nonviolent change.

You can stretch a rubber band to a point, but once you exceed the stress limit of a rubber band there is no more tolerance for stress... What was acceptable yesterday will no longer be acceptable. The little injustices become intolerable and the result is war on tyranny... Your consent or agreement means nothing at that point. What we have here at the Bundy Ranch is evidence that the metaphorical "rubber band" is stretched to the point where it is now showing its cracks...

Bravo.


I'm still hoping for a peaceful future, but we might not be heading in that direction.

[tvbcof]

tvbcof - Your opinions are poisonous. You've stated enough of your perspective that any sane or logical person would take offense at your intentions. This is a summary of what I've read from you above:

 - You're a gun owner yet you disagree with the Second Amendment. You claim to support "your Second Amendment rights" but you disagree completely with its fundamental purpose and with any civil intervention.

I consider the 2nd to be not some forum post typo, but a clear indication of the author's posture that private citizens should have a means of violent resistance to provide strategic pressures offsetting the power that the Federal government may amass if they abuse it sufficiently.  And I believe that the 2nd remains valid to this day on that basis.

If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead.  It's a stupid argument.

- You've acknowledged that you'll be willing to relinquish your "right" once the government tells you to, you've also shown that you will blame the "militia" when that day comes.

None of us knows what we would do in any given hypothetical situation.  If you know for sure what you would do, then you are probably wrong about it.

I am confident that I would indeed give up my constitutional 2nd amendment rights in some circumstances.  The most likely of these would be that if the 2nd is being abused by lunatics like the militia clowns and is causing unacceptable troubles for the nation at large.

I guess I don't have some psychological need to stroke my ego by being some sort of internet tough-guy or armchair warrior.  To each his own though.

- You claim that certain government officials are directly responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, yet you support the idea of government issued terrorism perpetrated against its own people.

I support the government's specific efforts in areas where I think they are doing the right thing, and I believe that most of the things they do are perfectly fine.  'Terrorizing' the population is not one of these, and I speak against it all the time.  This to call attention to it which is a the most logical first step in making the problem get better.

If you try to do likewise and inform people of the problems you see and your arguments fail then that should tell you something.  If it tells you that you are right and great and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should take a step back and analyze the situation.  Among those who marched ahead anyway one can count the Islamic fundimentalists under Zawahiri and countless others like them through history.  Also people like Kaczynski and Stack.

- You've asserted that the money of which Bundy refused to pay for grazing fees come at the expense of you and "the tax payer"; you're as wrong as can be here. These aren't taxes, they're "fees" and they aren't even close to being the same thing.

This is just a setup for further word-salad bullshit.  It's financial support of the government's (and thus the people's) efforts.   Fact is that ranchers who use public lands for private gain don't even come close to paying the costs of management and thus are highly subsidized.  I don't even mind that that much since I think that maintaining a not insignificant portion of the vast public land holding for ranching and grazing is an appropriate use.

- You seem intelligent enough to put pieces together yet very sinister. Your reactions toward these conclusions you draw is indicative of sociopathy. You obviously prefer pain and suffering over peaceful cohabitation. You probably don't understand why you feel this way but you would likely feel "at peace" in the event of nuclear war.

Oh, OK.  Someone who is wetting themselves for a bloody confrontation between citizens and the government on BLM range land is all about 'peaceful cohabitation'.  Whatever.

- You speak ill of entitlements and yet assert that an injustice has occurred which adversely affects you. You're no party to any injustice here and your assertion that he pay these fees because "it hurts you and the other tax payers" is your own feeling of entitlement over what he spends his money on. His choice to pay the fees doesn't affect you at all. You can't look at this situation objectively because you feel entitled (or at least you convey the sentiments of entitlement in your word choices).

I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land.  Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.

Since I am part owner of public lands, I've got an entitlement to it.  But since I am part owner, I don't get to use a disproportionate amount of it for private gain.  Nor does Bundy who has no more entitlement to it than I.

I believe are country will be stronger and more unified and just all around better if we do have some amount of social support to act as a safety net and backstop.  From an economies-of-scale perspective it is efficient to implement a lot of things in this way.  It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need.  Cliven Bundy is a very wealthy man asking for and receiving an enduring handout from the public.  I'm not at all in favor of this kind of support (though I would tolerate it on a modest scale and don't really mind some subsidy of open range leasing simply because I feel that land use diversity is a healthy thing.)

Just a quote for posterity... This is sickening.

Prior to the Bundy incident, ...
...

Thanks for preserving that.  I am particularly proud of it and stand by every word of it.

My honest opinion is that you need help...

My honest opinion is that you need help.  So I guess we are even.

BTW, don't rule out the possibility that you are being led around by the nose by the 'Oathkeepers' or just about any other such group.

[tvbcof]

Going back to one of Ryan Bundy's youtube Q&A's, I think we can get a picture of what happened here:

In the late 80's or early 90's when Ryan was a kid, Cliven had a great idea to buy 1000 cattle from Mexico.  He pulled it off, but it was a poor decision from a ranch management standpoint.  It's not clear what went wrong, but it can be inferred that that density of cattle overgrazed.   Probably the Devil made a drought and other mischief, and God was busy with some other project and wasn't Johnny-on-the-spot to help our poor hero out, but to a competent rancher that is the kind of thing that needs to be planned for.

Next the BLM stopped by and saw their destroyed land and said 'What the fuck is the matter with you, you ignorant melon farmer?  150 head is what we want grazing on the land we are allotting to you for the next lease.   And by the way, where's the check you owe us?'

Now Cliven is to broke to buy his kids food and his cattle are starving so he gets a shitty price for them.  He's fuming and frustrated, but a great idea hits him.  Why not just steal the resources and twist things around so it's morally OK in his own mind using a potent mixture of religion-based dynastic entitlement logic and sovereign-citizen word-salad nonsense!

This actually worked great for many years.  Firstly, of course, he was saving a ton on range fees.  Secondly, he could overgraze with impunity since why should he worry about the land since it isn't his?

Better yet, he was a lot more competitive than other ranchers who did pay fees so one-by-one they exited the industry leaving even more resources for him to exploit.

At the end of the day (or the end of the 20 years) he is, unsurprisingly, doing pretty well.  In his (and many other people's) mind it is not possible for a rich white guy to be a deadbeat welfare bum and a cheat.  That sad fact, however, is that that is exactly what he is.

 - edit:  The story continues...

Meanwhile, the Koch bros are thinking that it would be nice if they could put the mineral rights and other stuff belonging to the American people into their own pocket if it was not for the maddening reality that there was not 100% private ownership of land in the U.S.  The project of buying the politicians and the media is mostly complete, and now it's time for some payback on that investment.

The govt has all kinds of surveillance systems in place and population management constructs developed rapidly since the Occupy movement and would love a chance to field-test them (and an excuse to get more.)

Time to prop up the extinct militia movement!  This can solve everyone's problem...even if practically the whole thing needs to be a fabrication.

A little planning and set-up and what do we have?  The Bundy psyop!

[pungopete468]

I consider the 2nd to be not some forum post typo, but a clear indication of the author's posture that private citizens should have a means of violent resistance to provide strategic pressures offsetting the power that the Federal government may amass if they abuse it sufficiently.  And I believe that the 2nd remains valid to this day on that basis.

If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead.  It's a stupid argument.

My argument here is based on my own interpretation of your previous posts and nothing more. I'm not arguing for the validity of the Second Amendment; I'm insinuating that you're being hypocritical and unfair in your generalizations.

None of us knows what we would do in any given hypothetical situation.  If you know for sure what you would do, then you are probably wrong about it.

I am confident that I would indeed give up my constitutional 2nd amendment rights in some circumstances.  The most likely of these would be that if the 2nd is being abused by lunatics like the militia clowns and is causing unacceptable troubles for the nation at large.

I guess I don't have some psychological need to stroke my ego by being some sort of internet tough-guy or armchair warrior.  To each his own though.

I disagree, some of us know exactly what we would do. Some of us already put our lives on the line every single day. There are millions of people who know precisely what they would do in such a situation; people who actually possess the resolve to follow through with whatever they've decided. Many would falter but many more would not.

Rights are things that aren't negotiable. Rights are protections, people should never give up those protections; especially in dangerous times. You may give up your rights for they belong to you. My rights belong to none-other than me and I will keep them. Rights are entitlements.

I support the government's specific efforts in areas where I think they are doing the right thing, and I believe that most of the things they do are perfectly fine.  'Terrorizing' the population is not one of these, and I speak against it all the time.  This to call attention to it which is a the most logical first step in making the problem get better.

If you try to do likewise and inform people of the problems you see and your arguments fail then that should tell you something.  If it tells you that you are right and great and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should take a step back and analyze the situation.  Among those who marched ahead anyway one can count the Islamic fundimentalists under Zawahiri and countless others like them through history.  Also people like Kaczynski and Stack.

When a government attacks its own people it becomes illegitimate. The people have a right to a representative government. I'm not quite clear on your stance here because you seem to support the actions you believe were taken by the head of our government. I take it you disagree with the government killing innocent people just to create the illusion of "an enemy" for the people to focus on but you don't see anything wrong with it because it's a small part of a bigger picture?

I disagree. The government has no right to murder innocent people regardless of the agenda. If it were revealed that anybody in our government were responsible for this behavior then they deserve death. This is the highest form of treason against the people. When the government becomes illegitimate it becomes the burden and responsibility of the governed to reform or abolish it.

This is just a setup for further word-salad bullshit.  It's financial support of the government's (and thus the people's) efforts.   Fact is that ranchers who use public lands for private gain don't even come close to paying the costs of management and thus are highly subsidized.  I don't even mind that that much since I think that maintaining a not insignificant portion of the vast public land holding for ranching and grazing is an appropriate use.

It's not "word-salad bullshit" as you called it. It's not the same thing... It's not financial support of the government either; the government agencies are paid by Congress. The fee was not to "support the government" as the government is "non-profit". That's where the difference comes in. Neither the BLM nor any other government agency can assess taxes as it would be unconstitutional, illegal, and unlawful. They can assess "fees" for specific purposes. When the BLM stopped applying the fees towards the specific purpose for which they were collected they no longer had the authority to charge those fees.

It's not word-salad; it's a breach of contract.

Oh, OK.  Someone who is wetting themselves for a bloody confrontation between citizens and the government on BLM range land is all about 'peaceful cohabitation'.  Whatever.

You're the one who wants bloody confrontation. You've stated twice above that the government should clear them out... I've not once called for hostility. I've called for equilibrium through balance of power. The militia is necessary to have any chance of preventing bloodshed. This is a confrontation in which the government must stand down. There has been no criminal offense to cause this; only a civil claim by the government for unpaid "grazing fees". The government has no more rights than you or I with how civil matters are resolved. Just because somebody owes you money doesn't give you the right to go in and kill them; nor does it the government.

The government attempted intimidation; it didn't work. To escalate this further would be criminal on behalf of the government.

I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land.  Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.

Since I am part owner of public lands, I've got an entitlement to it.  But since I am part owner, I don't get to use a disproportionate amount of it for private gain.  Nor does Bundy who has no more entitlement to it than I.

I believe are country will be stronger and more unified and just all around better if we do have some amount of social support to act as a safety net and backstop.  From an economies-of-scale perspective it is efficient to implement a lot of things in this way.  It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need.  Cliven Bundy is a very wealthy man asking for and receiving an enduring handout from the public.  I'm not at all in favor of this kind of support (though I would tolerate it on a modest scale and don't really mind some subsidy of open range leasing simply because I feel that land use diversity is a healthy thing.)

Unless you live in Nevada then you are zero percent owner. Federal land is owned exclusively by the Federal Government; you have no right to enter a Federal facility, Military base, or District without consent of the Federal Government. I understand that 84% of the land in Nevada is "owned" by the Federal Government and the Nevada State Constitution provides for it; however, the State of Nevada has the right and a very good reason to assume possession of this land. The State of Nevada is entitled to all of the land within her borders...

This is a conflict between "what should be" and "what is" because the State of Nevada has rights to the land in which it hasn't acknowledged... If I were to choose not to acknowledge my own right to free speech, that wouldn't nullify the existence of that right.

Even where a State has acknowledged the land as "Federal Land" doesn't suppress the rights of that State within the United States of America. The land is State Land for as long as it is a "part of Nevada".

My honest opinion is that you need help.  So I guess we are even.

BTW, don't rule out the possibility that you are being led around by the nose by the 'Oathkeepers' or just about any other such group.

I wish I could understand your perspective. I just don't see where you're coming from...

I'm not being led around anywhere by anybody. I've simply made a choice between what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong and I base my beliefs on logic. In a world where everybody is born with free-will there is a necessity of government. The only governmental structure thus far which preserves free-will is that if a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people must be represented honestly and effectively. When Congress relinquished the control of our money supply they severed an artery between the representatives and the represented...

[tvbcof]

I wish I could understand your perspective. I just don't see where you're coming from...

Most of our issues come down to some interpretations of law which sound very much reminiscent of the 'sovereign citizens' arguments that I and other's have heard for a long time now.  When you assert them as fact then you can anticipate being at loggerheads with a lot of people.  These arguments don't get far in court in part because no attorney will even try them and most judges are just irritated at the waste of time.  The absurdity of most of the arguments is matched only by the blatantly self-serving nature of the final thesis.  In short, towards me and a LOT of other people these constructs are a dog which won't hunt.

[AnonyMint]

lost his ass and couldn't even afford to send his kids to school with lunch.  Ryan claims that Cliven dumped Ryan's mom because she wanted 'welfare' for her kids to eat.  I suspect that it might have something to do with the fact that the old heifer was throwing freaks and Cliven decided to get a new one, but of course it's hard to know.

Cliven's fortunes seem to have changed when he switched from accepting welfare in the form of highly subsidized land and started to just trespass and steal resources outright.

Communists maintain dossiers on everyone's personal life.

Should we write a some similar drivel about your hardships and learning experiences. I'm rather proud of him that he refused welfare.

Luckily Communists do a good job of killing themselves.

- You're a gun owner yet you disagree with the Second Amendment. You claim to support "your Second Amendment rights" but you disagree completely with its fundamental purpose and with any civil intervention.
 
- You've acknowledged that you'll be willing to relinquish your "right" once the government tells you to, you've also shown that you will blame the "militia" when that day comes.

 - You claim that certain government officials are directly responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, yet you support the idea of government issued terrorism perpetrated against its own people.

Lol. As I said, operative brain but it isn't functioning (normally).

- You seem intelligent enough to put pieces together yet very sinister. Your reactions toward these conclusions you draw is indicative of sociopathy.

Communists are sociopaths.

They sugar coat it with a veneer (or delude themselves about the true nature of their belief system) that could seem rational at first glance. But dig and you will find the interior is rotten.

Bravo.

...

I'm still hoping for a peaceful future, but we might not be heading in that direction.

+1