Uncategorized

Ron Paul: Nevada Standoff Symptom Of Increasing Authoritarianism

BATTLE EXPOSES GOVERNMENT’S OVERREACH, HYPOCRISY By Ron Paul || The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing “fees” against ranchers who…

BATTLE EXPOSES GOVERNMENT’S OVERREACH, HYPOCRISY

By Ron Paul || The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government’s use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in non-violent civil disobedience in support of the family.

The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.

In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.

Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.

By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.

It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.

A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in Washington D.C. support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.

History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state — and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.

ron paul

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.

Related posts

Uncategorized

Former South Carolina Senator Arrested

FITSNews
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

161 comments

CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 10:47 am

Ron is a man who is ahead of his time. Unfortunately, a seeming majority of our people are so far behind, they cannot grasp the truths that Ron speaks.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 11:07 am

But CIC, in this case what about the rule of law? Do you want our country to be ruled by armed militias?

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 11:10 am

So, is it better that we are ruled by armed SWAT teams, which kick in doors and hold citizens at gun point for non-violent offenses such as selling (or keeping for private use) raw milk, growing non-GMO foods, and the like? I think not. The time for push back is long past due. Threats of violence against non-violent citizens has reached an unacceptable level in this country.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 11:18 am

I’m sure there are instances where I would agree with you on overreach but this is not one of them.

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 10:55 am

A species that has lived for a millions of years versus one rancher who believes he doesn’t have to pay any fees to the taxpayers for using their land. I’ll stand with the tortoise and the taxpayers, thank you.

And by the way, the government will chew up this man’s estate once he dies. He has basically screwed his children out of any inheritance. The government was smart. They backed down from an armed confrontation and decided to wait until he kicks the bucket and then seize his probate assets. The armed militia rubes may understand their guns, but I doubt they even know how to begin fighting the government in probate court.

Reply
Hello George April 21, 2014 at 11:03 am

Good to know if it comes to a species war that you are on the side of tortoise’s instead of humans.

“We’re so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves”-Carlin

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 11:42 am

LOL. The tortoises were attacking humans? What are you on, my man? Take down the dose a little.

Reply
Hello George April 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm

I’m sorry you’re too dumb to understand.

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm

You’re the one talking about a species war. Is that like Sharknado? The way I see it, the real arrogance is thinking that one rancher’s desire to freeload is more important than a species that has been living on that land for millions of years. Have some perspective, man.

Hello George April 21, 2014 at 3:07 pm

My perspective is that people are more important than animals.

I know this is somewhat controversial today. If the tortoise’s go extinct, I don’t think it ends the planet, though I doubt they are going extinct because of 1 rancher that is responsible for feeding millions of people every year.

Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm

So if the rancher stops grazing in their habit, millions of people a year will starve to death?

Or are you saying humans have the right to be so lazy they can’t find a way to graze cattle without causing species to go extinct?

Hello George April 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm

1. No
2. Yes

I favor human rights over animal rights. Even if they means an end to the animal.

I know this is controversial.

Hello George April 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm

*that

Good Lord the Stupidity April 22, 2014 at 7:33 am

Georgie poo – did you really mean to say this one rancher feeds millions of people every year? You are joking right?

rebellozit April 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Actually the tortoises eat the ‘cow piles’ and it keeps them alive.A fact.
Kinda like libs eating the ‘cow piles’ muslim Obama and Harry Reid leave em.Keeps em alive.

Reply
Adam_Rodriguez April 22, 2014 at 3:44 pm

The BLM doesn’t care about the tortoise dude. They want money. Nothing more.

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm

So the fact that Harry Reid and his son stand to make millions off of leasing this land to a Chinese solar power company means nothing to you, right?

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm

Back it up with facts. How will they personally make money? Do they own shares in a solar company? Prove it. And even if they did, that’s the sort of inside dealing that South Carolina politicians do every day. Let’s clean up our own house first.

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm

I tired to post links to news stories, however, from some reason I cannot. Not sure if this site allows people to link to other media outlets.

That being said, go to Google and search “Harry Reid Nevada Chinese Solar”. It’s really easy to look stuff up on this internet thing.

Reply
Smirks April 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm

Snopes says you’re full of shit.

Reply
SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 10:42 am

Oh, that Liberal backed “fact finding” website says I’m full of shit? No surprise there.

Reply
euwe max April 22, 2014 at 11:06 am

None at all.

idcydm April 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm

“,,,fees to the taxpayers for using their land.”

LOL “their land” if only it where the taxpayers land.

Reply
Societal Observer April 21, 2014 at 11:05 am

This takes pandering to a new height, even for Ron effing Paul.

I own farm land that is leased to a tenant. He pays enough annually to pay property taxes and perhaps, sometimes enough more to buy a couple of bottles of cheap wine. He, too, can utilize that farmland as long as he wishes qualified only by 1) keeping the rent current, 2) abiding by laws and regulations of state and federal governments as to game laws, environmental laws, or other regulations and restrictions, and 3) as long as we have a working relationship based on mutual respect.

Not paying rent for 20 years would be a serious breach of contract. Polluting the wetlands by filling them with soil or draining them of water would disrupt wildlife and would be a serious breach of contract. Creating controversy for me and my family with a lack of stewardship would be a serious breach of contract. If any or all of the conditions existed he’d have to go away.

This deadbeat rancher is thumbing his nose at me and my tenant and the laws that govern our commercial contract. His supporters are worse; they are being led by a scofflaw that is even dumber than they.

Ron Paul is even worse. He knows better and is simply pandering for contributions, sales of books, and apperance fees and has a effing ego that makes Folks seem quaint.

The current level of derangement stems from a sense of Obamaphobia and a totally unparalled sense of oppression that exists among many in our society. It is troubling at the least and downright disturbing at worst.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 11:11 am

“This deadbeat rancher . . . .”
Oops – the armed militia and/or the RP Revolutionists on this site will be on the attack momentarily.
P.S. I agree with everything you posted.

Reply
euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:30 am

I think you’ll get a kick out of this….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JP0GBuX44U

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 11:25 am

So much better to pander to the interests of deadbeat Harry Reid and his sons, the ones who are really behind this act of aggression by BLM, eh?

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 11:39 am

How is Harry Reid a deadbeat?

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 11:58 am

In the same way you guys are trying to say the rancher is. He and his sons want to cut a lucrative deal with the Chinese on creating a solar industry on that land, land that supposedly belongs to “the people”.

Reply
Societal Observer April 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm

I wouldn’t be offended but I’d be extremely surprised if you did a bit of research as to your specious claim of the land you refer to. Snopes will make it a bit easier for you if you care to check.

CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Smirks April 21, 2014 at 8:03 pm

Oh, those liberals over at Snopes just don’t want you to get rich helping Nigerian princes and forwarding Bill Gates’ emails!

tomstickler April 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm
euwe max April 21, 2014 at 8:14 pm

is he not paying the fee?

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:29 am

trying to say the rancher is

——-

trying? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JP0GBuX44U

rebellozit April 21, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Ask the mob?

Reply
Smirks April 21, 2014 at 8:00 pm

Read the Snopes review of the Reid connection, absolutely false. He is a deadbeat and there is nothing more to it.

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 11:48 am

After I somehow got on Ron Paul’s email list, he sent me a solicitation that included a raffle to win a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, the same gun used in the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres. I actually support the 2nd Amendment protections as a hedge against real government tyranny, but stunts like giving away guns associated with killing children makes me think Ron Paul is just another clueless whacko.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Would you be equally offended if he had been giving away a swimming pool since children drown in those every year? How about an automobile?

Reply
euwe max April 21, 2014 at 8:13 pm

.. or anthrax spores… or ricin in an aerosol can?

Reply
Marcus Vera April 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm

… how about a movie ticket? or a Class A cigarette? Seriously, the problem with you is that you are too feminine; you have lost your masculine spirit and masculine character.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm

[burp][fart][ass scratch] Fuck you. [kicks dog]

PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 10:58 pm

Oh, you’re such a manly-man ;-)

euwe max April 23, 2014 at 9:57 am

I know, right? What was he *thinking*?

[smelling finger]

SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm

What if they were giving away rocks and other blunt objects? According to the FBI, in 2011 rocks and other blunt objects were responsible for more homicides than rifles.

The Liberal need to take firearms from law abiding citizens is fabricated by the Left and their Media outlets.

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm

If a politicians was giving away the exact make of hunting knife a psychopath had just used to kill a bunch of kids, I’d think that was a little twisted. Because it’s guns, it’s a turn-on to donors? Weirdos.

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm

You’ve missed the point. You are under the impression that the AR-15 is a killing machine based purely on what you have been told by the Liberal backed Mainstream Media. It is a fact that, in the USA, more people are murdered every year by blunt objects than with rifles. But, since a rifle looks scarier than a rock or a length of pipe, you find this twisted.

Thousands of men, women and children have been slaughtered in Africa by machete swinging savages; would you have the same stance if they raffled off a machete?

Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm

Ummm.. Aren’t guns, by definition, “killing machines?” Yeh, you may like to pop targets with them but they were designed to kill. Just saying.

And no, I don’t think swimming pools or automobiles were designed to be killing machines.

SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Not by definition, no:

gun

g?n/

noun

1. A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Duh, read your definition. WEAPON. End of story. Not a rock or a steak knife. Sheesh. Have your beliefs but leave the English language alone, thank you.

SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 3:43 pm

Swords were designed as weapons. Knives evolved from swords. Knives are weapons that kill more people in the US every year than rifles.

Why are rifles worse than knives?

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:32 am

Why are rifles worse than knives?
———–
I have, in my possession, a semi-automatic knife.. that can kill a person a quarter of a mile away, at night – and the victim would never see it coming. In closer quarters, it can kill up to 16 children in under 5 minutes.

I’m working on a fully automatic hammer and generic blunt object, but I’m in need of more funding.. and I do take pay pal.

SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 10:43 am

Wamp wamp. Same argument.

Why do effeminate men, a.k.a. Liberals, fear an inanimate that, when wrongly used, produces death more than another inanimate object, than when wrongly used, produces even more death?

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 11:02 am

Well, this effeminate male sees a semi-automatic rifle as more efficient in taking out a classroom of children before security can subdue the gunman than a rock… maybe you find people who don’t always resort to more force to solve a problem, effeminate.

SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 1:02 pm

There’s no sense continuing with you.

Good day.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Don’t go away mad.. just go away… and don’t let a blunt object hit you in the ass on the way out.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 11:56 am

Stick to the topic dude – you have a point. Using “effeminate men” just dilutes your point.

SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Fair enough. That was a bit unnecessary.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 11:46 am

So let me get this straight:
Killed by gun…. that’s bad.
Killed by blunt object… no problem
Therefore:
It doesn’t matter that most people are killed by blunt objects, what matters to you is those that are killed that can be appropriately designated as a “weapon” by the DICTIONARY?
It doesn’t matter than in real life people are killed by blunt objects, what matters to you is that in your IMAGINATION you can come up with scenarios where you go in with a ‘metal storm’ into a school… and how that would compare to a guy with a rock?

I don’t really know where I stand on this issue personally, but the fact that you have to skew your argument in order to debate it doesn’t bode well.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm

in your IMAGINATION you can come up with scenarios where you go in with a ‘metal storm’ into a school…
—————–
uh… I didn’t imagine it – it actually happened, dude.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Do elaborate please where a metal storm was actually used in a school? You may want to google ‘metal storm’ before replying back.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 4:09 pm

my bad – I thought you were talking about semi-automatic rifle fire. You may return to your previously scheduled propaganda film.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm

“my bad – I thought you were talking about semi-automatic rifle fire” – It’s okay, at least you admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 4:40 pm

I’m not familiar with gun nut argot.. have patience with me while I come up to speed.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 11:49 am

So let me get this straight:
Killed by gun…. that’s bad.
Killed by blunt object… no problem
Therefore:
It doesn’t matter that most people are killed by blunt objects, what matters to you is that those that are killed would be killed using something that can be designated as a “weapon” by the DICTIONARY?
It doesn’t matter than in real life people are killed by blunt objects, what matters to you is that in your IMAGINATION you can come up with scenarios where you go in with a ‘metal storm’ into a school… and how that would compare to a guy with a rock?

I don’t really know where I stand on this issue personally, but the fact that you have to skew your argument in order to debate it doesn’t bode well.

SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm

Yes guns are made to send projectiles through the air, and yes they are sometimes used (mostly in places like Southside Chicago, Detroit, Bronx, etc) as killing machines.

Yet you avoid addressing the fact that more people are killed by rocks and blunt objects than by rifles. Why are rifles the bad guy when they produce less carnage? Because you are told to believe they are the bad guy? Do some research.

Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm

LOL. Guns were designed to be weapons. End of story. Stop making false comparisons between weapons and everyday objects.

Like I said, I support the 2nd Amendment, but it’s twisted to provocatively use the same weapon used by recent mass murderers in your push for campaign donations.

SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 3:36 pm

I have a hard time believing you. I think you support the 2nd Amendment as long as everyone registers their firearms. And I’m not making false comparisons. I’m using factual evidence; you’re ignoring the question.

Knives evolved from swords. That is another example of a weapon that has been used to kill more people on a yearly basis than rifles. Do you have the same stance about raffling off sets of steak knives?

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:28 am

What if they were giving away rocks and other blunt objects? According to the FBI, in 2011 rocks and other blunt objects were responsible for more homicides than rifles.

———–
I have, in my possession, a semi-automatic rock.. that can kill a person a quarter of a mile away, at night – and the victim would never see it coming. In closer quarters, it can kill up to 16 children in under 5 minutes.

I’m working on a fully automatic hammer and generic blunt object, but I’m in need of more funding.. and I do take pay pal.

Reply
SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 10:41 am

I sense your sarcasm, however, it does not change the fact that more people are murdered by blunt objects than by rifles.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 11:05 am

mass shootings – Charles Whitman – Lee Harvey Oswald.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm

compare that with the number of people killed by either blunt objects, stabbings etc.. It is truly miniscule. It’s like being worried about the mouse when surrounded by hungry tigers.

I will give you one point though – Whitman and Oswald made for more dramatic murders that you can write books and make movies about. Which is why people don’t put it into context.

Look at the posters for action movies. 9 out of 10 have the “hero” holding a gun or rifle on it. I don’t think it would sell as well if the guy was holding a rock :)

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:48 pm

I will give you one point though – Whitman and Oswald made for more dramatic murders
——–
Might as well give me James Eagan Holmes and Adam Lanza while you’re being generous.

supersor April 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm

I notice that you don’t have any arguments.
FYI – snarky remarks do not constitute arguments.

euwe max April 22, 2014 at 4:10 pm

snarky remarks? I feel so ashamed! You may now kill me with a rock storm.

Adam_Rodriguez April 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm

You don’t get how online gun raffles work do you?

Reply
Smirks April 21, 2014 at 7:57 pm

Paul saw how the fucknut supporters of his turned on Glenn Beck when even his loopy ass backed away from this nonsense. Either that or he himself is one of those fucknuts.

Reply
Adam_Rodriguez April 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Actually your just a fool. And one who can’t critically think. How does one accrue 1 MILLION dollars for 20 years of use? That is extortion. They do not want to work out a payment plan for him to settle the back pay. They want his land. He is a rancher IN THE DESERT, not damn Harry Reid. 1 million dollars is insane.

In fact, you don’t even have having no common sense spreading your filth and decide to come to a place where people can critically think and call you out on your bullshit.

Reply
Societal Observer April 22, 2014 at 3:19 pm

Exhibit #1: Prima Facie evidence of an illiterate or ill-read fool: Adam_Rodriguez

Exhibit #2: Prima Facie evidence of a temperamental jerk: Adam_Rodriguez

Exhibit #3: Prima Facie evidence of a mathematical moron: Adam_Rodriguez

Using 1998 figures for Nevada grazing right fees in Clark County ($21/head/cow unit) and using his herd size of 900 head that computes to $18,900 per year. $18,900 per year for 21 years is $396,900 in fees alone. Again, fines not withstanding. He was fined $200/head/day by the Court when it ruled against him in 1998. Having negotiated with the Feds in numerous dealings I can assure you a compromise could have been reached had it been pursued.

In fact, Bubba, Bundy is laying claim to 600,000 acres of range rights.

You do the math, Bubba. Perhaps you have more math skills than I think.

Reply
Adam_Rodriguez April 22, 2014 at 3:43 pm

I can do the math. In fact, I am not surprised such is the situation (though you haven’t sited a source) in which the court has made the situation worse. I can also understand that there comes a time when a person is pushed to simply say “Nope.” He has come to that point.

The feds SHOULD continue to compromise instead of acting like the gestapo. His only choice is to either fight, or become homeless. In such an event, to hell with the feds if I was in such a situation.

Reply
Inciteful April 21, 2014 at 11:09 am

Let’s see. The feds send 200 agents armed wih sniper rifles, drones and helicopters to collect a $200,00 bill.(That’s the new number) Al Aharpten owes $1.9M to the feds (in taxes), and Obama hugs him at a party. I guess we know who the enemy is.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

Sharpton and his organizations are challenging the amounts that the Feds say they owe and are in negotiations with the IRS to settle – all standard operating procedures – they are complying with all laws to resolve the matters. An important distinction to make is that Sharpton does not have thousands of armed persons standing behind him and refusing to comply with the Feds. I doubt seriously that Sharpton is the only person to owe back taxes that has ever been hugged by a President at a party – but it may be more to your point that he is Black and the President is Black – I’ll let you clarify that if you’d like. As far as your “I guess we know who the enemy is” I am not sure who the “we” you are speaking for is but you might want to stick to “I” instead of “we” – as I do not know who the enemy is as implied in your post.

Reply
Inciteful April 21, 2014 at 12:02 pm

You’ve obviously never served in the military or otherwise been involved in firearms. The percieved “enemy” is the group haveing guns pointed at ’em. That would be the ranchers. And not surprising YOU bring up color. It’s often used to camoflage reality, which is a stresser only to those in touch with it.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm

You have no earthly idea what I have or have not been involved in – no clue whatsoever. Sharpton and his organizations ARE complying with the IRS and do NOT have thousands of persons with guns defying the government. So “perceived enemy” is the one having guns pointed at them – the ranchers and the government correct – they both have guns pointed at them? Why even bring up President Obama and Reverend Sharpton at all – seems a curious choice to me. I clearly stated in my post when I brought up race that “I’ll let you clarify that if you’d like” – so please clarify it if you’d like. Why bring up a totally different and totally unrelated circumstance and then declare “I guess we know who the enemy is”? Makes no sense to me that’s all.

Reply
Inciteful April 21, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Why need I clarify something you brought up (i.e. race)? Are you “race baiting” (like Al, whom you defend) ’cause you can’t effectively argue your point rationally? Just because you “clearly state something” doesn’t mean WHAT you state is rational. Clarity of stupidity is still clearly stupid.

rebellozit April 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Careful.SCBlues informed us last night that he apparently spends his day watching TVLand- reruns of Gunsmoke and Bonanza.He thinks the standoff was on the Ponderosa even mentioning Joe and Hoss by name.Serious.
Called Ben Cartwright a bigot for having a chinese cook and Matt Dillon a racist for not having a black deputy.Demanded Festus be fired!
p.s….ANY discusion with this clown disolves into a diatribe about race…

Inciteful April 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm

Thanks for the warning. He does indeed seem to circle back to race with homeing pigeon regularity.

euwe max April 21, 2014 at 5:07 pm

It *is* South Carolina, you know… it’s not like racists are all concentrated in Washington DC or anything.

SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm

YOU compared this situation with this Nevada rancher with President Obama hugging Al Sharpton (who owes back-taxes to the IRS and is challenging the amount they say he owes and following the rule of law and there are no guns involved) and then you declare “I guess we know who the enemy is”. Please explain why the two situations are in any way related. You cannot because they are not. And now you’ve gone over to other threads claiming that I always bring up race and that I called Tim Scott dumb – blatantly lying. Is that what you have to resort to?

notasmidgen April 21, 2014 at 8:59 pm

Tim Scott? I recall you using the ‘N’ word or some such inference on Scott. Am I correct?A racist, homophobic ,Jew hater? That you? Is that all you have to resort to?

SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 10:18 pm

Yep – that is me. Busted again! What can I say?

Bible Thumper April 21, 2014 at 11:55 pm

TSKS! TSKS! Some of my best friends are are black Jewish gays. I even have liberal friends. No libertarians! Never.

euwe max April 21, 2014 at 8:17 pm

You have no earthly idea what I have or have not been involved in

——-
Do any of them involve black fishnet stockings, silk garter belts, and stiletto heels? … I mean, now that we’re on the subject. ;)

SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 5:50 pm

So you cannot provide any rational basis for your comparison of the situation involving this Nevada Landowner with President Obama hugging Al Sharpton at a party. I didn’t think so.

Reply
rebellozit April 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Obama is black? How can that be-his mother was white?
Sharpton is black?How can that be-just saw him tryin toooo buy that ‘WHITE’ powder on television?

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 10:20 pm

Hmmm . . . I believe you might be referring to that other black person, Marion Barry, former DC mayor – but they all look alike so no problem, huh?

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm

Republican SC Senatorial candidate Lee Bright owes tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes and money to creditors. Not sure how many times he has been hugged recently nor by whom but just wondering is he “the enemy” as well?

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm

“…is he “the enemy” as well?”

Yes. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s not Rep v. Dem; it’s Them v. Us and They hold the power. One way or another, We will be bent. And it’s not because no one wants to fight back, it’s because the majority of Americans don’t care enough to fight back; they’ve got too much to lose in their minds. It’s sad.

Reply
crrazy April 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm

what about the millions spent advertising welfare benefits in Mexico City for non- US citizens???

Reply
Native Ink April 21, 2014 at 9:18 pm

LOL. You really believed that happened? Is there no story so outlandish a right-winger won’t fall for it?

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 11:55 am

Actually, the feds did not go there to collect a debt. They were there to remove trespassing cows from federal property.

Reply
idiotwind April 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm

history shows that ron paul is on the idiot side of just about every issue he has ever spoken of.

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm

Really? Name some.

Even if one doesn’t support Ron Paul, his predictions of events like 9/11, the Housing Bubble Burst and the increase of Free Will abuses by the FedGov is pretty evident. Perhaps you need to do some research instead of believing everything you are told to believe by the Mainstream Media.

Reply
JCDavis April 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm

So does that mean you believe these Americans who have sworn an oath to the Constitution are terrorists and should be killed?

Reply
badebt April 21, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Instead of enslaving our posterity to insane levels of debt….let’s have the government sale a portion of its extensive land holdings to pay down the interest on our debt…our children deserve better…

Reply
Bible Thumper April 21, 2014 at 11:07 pm

Better yet. We should exchange land for US treasuries held by China.

Reply
JCDavis April 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm

I’m glad to see armed Americans standing up to the federal government. Because our government obeys only one law in the end, and that is jungle law.

Reply
MyDaddyIsRich April 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Another Deadbeat TeaBagger. There would be no Nevada without federal government largesse.

Reply
SomeDude April 21, 2014 at 3:05 pm

There would be no Nevada without federal government largesse…said no Native American, ever.

Reply
idcydm April 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm

My question, why do the Feds own so much of the Western United States? It should be controlled by the states not the federal government.

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 11:50 am

Most of these lands were either ceded to the United States or traded or sold by treaty arrangements with foreign govts that formerly claimed those territories, all of which occurred prior to Nevada’s statehood. The federal govt’s authority to own and control territories is derived from Article IV of the Constitution.

Reply
idcydm April 22, 2014 at 7:03 pm

Really, the states bordering the Mississippi River were part of the Louisiana Purchase and none were state but you don’t see the Feds much of them, so my question still stands.

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 11:36 pm

Actually, the federal govt controls vast tracts in the various states within the former Louisiana Purchase territories. When the US acquired the claim to the territory from France by treaty, there were many pre-existing homesteads and other land claims held by private, non-state ownership in those areas; such landowners who were subject to French taxes and legal authority became subject to taxes and other laws of the American govt after purchase treaty.

Subsequently, the federal govt sold many tracts to private holders and also ceded some of the lands to native tribal groups. Some the land was given away for free to homesteaders, and some land was ceded to state govts.

Reply
idcydm April 23, 2014 at 7:01 am

“Actually, the federal govt controls vast tracts in the various states within the former Louisiana Purchase territories.”

Really but not along the Mississippi River.

You’ve given a great history lesson that I already know but have ignored my question. Why do the Feds still control vast tracts of land in the Western United States?

PostSurgeOperative April 23, 2014 at 10:19 am

I don’t see how your question wasn’t answered. Federal ownership of western lands pre-dates the formation of many states. Settlement was heaviest in the eastern states and expanded westward. The west was least heavily settled, mostly because it was less arable land, but also because these areas were so remote. There is also a history of conservation to preserve those lands as wilderness, following the period of western expansion.

I don’t understand your assumption that federal ownership of land is somehow improper or that it should be curtailed. I get that it’s your opinion, but you’ve offered no reasoning to support your apparently strongly-held belief. Why shouldn’t the federal govt own land? Why should the states control all of those areas?

idcydm April 23, 2014 at 4:25 pm

$17.5 trillion in debt is the big one, second there are land disputes going on all over that, IMO, should be handled at the state level. The BLM like the EPA, IRS, just to name three, are bureaucracies that have the interest of the bureaucracy foremost in their motives not the people.

PostSurgeOperative April 23, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Lol, according to you, BLM, EPA, and IRS are motivated by self-interest, yet somehow states should be be trusted to decide what happens to federal lands because…Liberty?

idcydm April 23, 2014 at 4:55 pm

That’s right the land should be ceded to the states.

PostSurgeOperative April 23, 2014 at 4:58 pm

Why?

idcydm April 23, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Why, they did it in the Midwest or should I say the Great Plains. Do you think the economic windfall would be happening in North Dakota if the Feds owned the land?

PostSurgeOperative April 23, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Actually, many federal lands are open for exploration for minerals, oil, etc. In fact, a lot of the fracking on the Bakken formation is on leased federal lands.

idcydm April 23, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Like you said “many” but not all and I’m not including places like Yellowstone and Yosemite to name a couple. I think the federal politics involved when federal land is trying to be used commercially always falls back to the ideology of the party in the White House. The BLM, EPA, IRS, to name three, are part of the executive branch and the rules are constantly changing. Just look at the XL Pipeline, you may or may not agree with it but you can’t say it’s not political.

PostSurgeOperative April 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm

The Bakken shale formation isn’t under Yellowstone or Yosemite. Nevertheless, the federal govt does allow limited oil drilling in many other geologically- and ecologically-sensitive national parks areas.

idcydm April 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm

You know Post, I bet we agree more than we disagree. I understand the drilling and I don’t always agree with it, just like I don’t want solar or wind farms in national parks. That aside, I don’t like the federal political aspects involved when federal land is used commercially. That is why I say ceded it to the states, it’s easier to deal with local politics than federal politics.

I live on 2 1/4 acres and the only trees cleared were right around the house. There are many towering pines that could fall on my house and I like it that way. I love looking out into my own personal pine forest. I just hope the BLM or state never tells me I have to cut down some of the tree because they are to close to my house.

BTW I have friends that think I’m crazy for not cutting those pines down.

Rocky April 21, 2014 at 4:58 pm

History also shows that armed rebellion is at times put down with the assistance of Federal assets – as in the case of Columbia SC and other cities south of the Maryland border during that little disagreement about livestock back in 1861 – 1865 – it was later decided that certain livestock had rights – particularly if they were human beings of a darker skin color.
I think it’s true that the Feds will basically just take the guys ranch in probate court, force the sheriff out there to remove the surviving inbreds from the property and simply expand the park, but they should also be reviewing all photos of those who were pointing loaded weapons at Federal law enforcement officers and quietly arrest them for endangering the life of a Federal officer. Maybe a little jail time would do them goons some good. Maybe even some felony convictions so they can’t craddle their little AR-15s anymore.

Reply
SCBlues April 21, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Wonder if all the folks supporting this rancher will also support the ranchers and farmers in Nebraska and South Dakota who oppose the Keystone Pipeline?
And always intriguing to me to see the ones going ballistic over government overreach of a landowner who then support the government controlling women’s healthcare decisions – talk about overreach . . .

Reply
euwe max April 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm

They used to control both what went in to your vagina, mouth and asshole – now that they have been insulted by the Supreme Court as hideous miscreants, they struck back by trying to control what comes out of them.

Reply
Smirks April 21, 2014 at 7:50 pm

B-but, the government can’t EVER change its mind about rules regarding the land it owns! Only the free market can change the rules whenever it wants!

Fuck these psychopaths and the fucktatds that support them. If you don’t like being subject to the Feds’ whims then buy your own fucking land. This clown has been through court for years and lost miserably each time. Pay up or get the fuck out.

The epitome of a moocher, someone who doesn’t pay his fair share when everyone else does, and the extreme right can’t hide its boner to defend this jackass who gets armed nuts to help him flout the law that the courts are trying to uphold.

Reply
idcydm April 21, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Those “psychopaths” and “fucktatads” weren’t there until the Feds showed up with their “psychopaths” and “fucktatads”. Two wrongs don’t make a right, luckily we didn’t have another Waco.

Reply
euwe max April 22, 2014 at 12:59 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JP0GBuX44U

I’m as opposed to government overreach as the next guy, but I don’t think simply asserting its existence is overreach.

Reply
idcydm April 22, 2014 at 7:19 am

Your idea of simple assertion is different than mine.

BTW do you ever sleep?

Reply
euwe max April 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm

I don’t believe sleep even exists.

Wow, just wow April 22, 2014 at 7:28 am

Idiotic – Ron, I agree with you on plenty of stuff, but your bait and switch tactic on this one does not work. The Bundy’s are totally in the wrong on this, and their stand off with the federal agents. Decrying on ther substantive issues with the government in the same article will not make the Bundy’s right. I am afraid if Waco/Branchdividians stand off were today, much of the party that I used to call the GOP would be in huge support of Koresch. I still don’t see how anybody supported that guy. The feds show up with a valid warrant, and you start shooting rather than let them in? And this is considerred “okay” only in Texas, and with the new far, far far, right wing of the GOP. Can we boot these guys from the party?

Reply
SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 10:46 am

So, despite the fact the family had been using the land for 100+ years and despite the fact the FedGov changed the rules to their benefit, you are not OK with a person standing up for what’s right?

What will happen when the FedGov changes the rules and says that you have to let them use your backyard for whatever reason they see fit?

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 11:43 am

Actually, the Constitution of the United States does give the feds the authority to convert your land to public use. I’m not at all surprised a Ron Paul-supporting lolbertarian would be ignorant of this fact.

Reply
SomeDude April 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm

And you are OK with that?

What’s it like being brainwashed by your superiors?

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 1:13 pm

The Constitution quite clearly authorizes federal power of eminent domain. If you have a problem with that, you are certainly welcome to join efforts to amend the Constitution, as authorized in Article V.

JC April 22, 2014 at 6:15 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with your points about the rule of law. The fundamental concept of libertarian thought is, in my opinion, best described by John Stuart Mill’s “non-aggression principle.” I agree with Dr. Paul that the Feds’ reaction was overkill, but the reaction of the Bundy supporters was perhaps even more ridiculous. Should we genuinely believe that a man’s cattle, or said cattle’s grazing rights, warrant armed conflict, which would presumably result in the deaths of HUMAN BEINGS? The desire of many Bundy supporters to engage in a domestic conflict, absent an imminent threat to their own lives, is fundamentally at odds with the non-aggression principle. I admire Dr. Paul’s sincerity. I generally abhor what the U.S. Government has become and what it stands for. I sympathize with the Bundy’s, in as much as I believe that Federal lands, just like private lands, should be subject to adverse possession. However, a free society cannot exist where the rule of law is absent, as a mob is often more dangerous to an individual’s liberty than a tyrant.

PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Thanks for the well-considered reply.

Subjecting state and federal lands to adverse possession would only invite more conflicts like the one with the Bundy’s, and would necessitate massively greater resourced state and federal govt agencies, just to maintain control over state and federal territories and ward off claim-jumpers.

Nevertheless, adverse possession does not apply in this case for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Bundy doesn’t claim the property as his own.

PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 1:30 pm

I suppose if the federal Dept. of Transportation wanted to put a highway through my back forty, I might feel annoyed at the imposition. However, the feds would have to pay me a fair market value for the land, so it’s not as though they would be stealing it from me. Moreover, if I disagree with them, I have a constitutional right to challenge their decisions by petitioning the courts for redress of my grievance.

Mr. Bundy availed himself of his constitutional right to challenge the govt, and the courts ruled against him repeatedly. He’s certainly welcome to campaign for a constitutional amendment, but he doesn’t have the right to defy court orders or commit treason against the United States, as he has done.

USAFVetDan April 22, 2014 at 8:17 am

To most of the commenters here, I have but one thing to say: IDIOTS! You equate private land ownership to the federal seizure of 80% of an entire state and thus wipe your asses on the 9th and 10th Amendments. You focus on Ron Paul giving away one legal civilian version of an M-16 but ignore that our government’s BLM army toting a far more lethal version just turned them on its own people. You’re ignorant of the real reason behind this issue… Harry Reid and his son’s solar energy deal with the Chinese who need this land to line their pockets – turtles be damned! I could go on and on but I’d be sewing pearls to swine. You all deserve the authoritarian, despotic government your collective apathy has allowed to grow like a cancer. Go to Hell… every damned one of you!

Reply
Citizen Cred April 22, 2014 at 8:48 am

You take yourself much too seriously, Mr. Vet. Service is admirable but it doesn’t give you the corner on patriotism nor citizenship.

It sure doesn’t give you the corner on facts, either, To wit: your comment on Reid and son. You have a good run at ignorance, however.

Reply
USAFVetDan April 22, 2014 at 11:49 am

The facts speak for themselves. Ignorance, on the other hand, is a product of the main stream media on which you obviously rely.

Reply
euwe max April 23, 2014 at 10:07 am

Ignorance is in the mouth of the asserter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JP0GBuX44U

Reply
USAFVetDan April 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm

So a clip of a comedy / satire show does what, exactly?

euwe max April 23, 2014 at 12:23 pm

The funny part is the question – how can Bundy be a patriot when he doesn’t believe in the United States?

PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 11:34 am

You are misinformed. The federal lands in NV were acquired by the federal govt through treaty concessions and purchase agreements from foreign govts predating NV’s formation as a state. Article IV of the COTUS clearly gives the federal govt authority over such territories.

Reply
Citizen Cred April 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Not only does COTUS give as you say, the Nevada Enablement Act specifically acknowledges that the Federal lands in the former Nevada Territory remain the property of the Fed. Gov’t. That is a deliberate and specific concession that supercedes the normal Statehood acceptance language that would have otherwise routinely given the lands to the State of Nevada.

It was no co-incidence, nor error. It was a direct and specific part of the Act. The requested exception was precipitated by the State, not the Feds.

Reply
PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 1:56 pm

I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

Reply
Citizen Cred April 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Note the language in the last paragraph below.

From the Nevada State Constitution:

Whereas,

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.-Therefore, Be it Resolved,

That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.] In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:

First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

PostSurgeOperative April 22, 2014 at 2:57 pm

That’s hilarious! It proves that Mr. Bundy’s states’ rights arguments are bogus. Dr. Paul has never looked like a bigger idiot than he does now, siding with these lunatic scumbag traitors.

euwe max April 23, 2014 at 10:06 am Reply
USAFVetDan April 23, 2014 at 7:59 am Reply
Citizen Cred April 23, 2014 at 8:51 am

My God, man. You accuse me below of being ignorant resulting from MSM bias and 24 hours later you point your finger at another using a right wing rag that most people wouldn’t use for toilet paper?

You’ve gone from ignorant to blissfully incompetent. You didn’t work on the flightline did you?

Reply
USAFVetDan April 23, 2014 at 11:01 am

Making a baseless ad hominem attack on the source does not refute the information, nor do personal insults… that’s all you got? In this great land of the free and home of the brave, what compels someone like yourself to rabidly defend an authoritarian police state? Do you not think that you too might one day be ground up in its self serving cogs?

Citizen Cred April 23, 2014 at 12:47 pm

I want you to read again very closely your initial post in which you called everyone IDIOTS and suggested we all go to hell. Then read again the post I’m responding to above.

Then, go eff yourself.

USAFVetDan April 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm

You want me to expound on my assertion that the corporate elite controlled media spews propaganda which serves the same corporate elite’s best interests? Seriously? I’m not going to teach you Oligarchy 101.

Randall_S April 22, 2014 at 11:37 am

Anyone curious why the Pauls are so close to Ed Snowden, and what this all has to do with Russia and Ukraine? Maybe the all-American candidates really aren’t so…
http://nyyrc.com/blog/2014/04/if-you-were-ed-snowden-what-would-you-do/

Reply
RHood2 April 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm

This is all about the right’s ability to idealize and idolize idiots. This guy says he doesn’t recognize the federal government, but respects only the Nevada State constitution. Yet he rides around with an American flag and the Nevada State Constitution recognizes the US Constitution.
He’s a moron.
And a thief. So let’s make him a hero.

Reply
Jerry G Dobbins April 23, 2014 at 12:30 am

If the armed civilians aiming weapons at federal authorities were non-white, Mr. Paul and his minions (to include the entire Republican party) would be calling for the feds to violently intervene and stop this “rebellion” in the name of God and freedom of course

Reply
euwe max April 23, 2014 at 10:03 am

Come celebrate TOTAL FREEDOM at BUNDYFEST, just across the street from the Cliven Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, Nevada! 240 bands, 24 hours a day, for a SOLID ROCKIN’ MONTH!!!!

*NO PERMITS REQUIRED
*CAMP ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE
*FULL NUDITY NOT A PROBLEM
*GAY-FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE
*PENIS ERECTION CONTEST: Erect the largest penis in the open desert, win valuable prize! (tbd)

BACKGROUND: For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada. But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!

Why should Burning Man end on September 1st? Swing down to Vegas for a few days for some R&R, a few good buffets, and then HEAD ON UP TO BUNDYFEST! All 50,000+ Burning Man participants are invited to attend — and as many more as can make the trip from anywhere in the world! 100,000? 250,000? THE SKY IS THE LIMIT AT BUNDYFEST! The desert surrounding Bundy’s ranch is LIMITLESS!

https://www.facebook.com/events/688187351242203/

Reply

Leave a Comment