Monday, January 4, 2016


Links to Headlines at Lucianne.com


A bit late to think of this.

 

Looks like Paula Jones is the first one out.



Obvious job killer became law while we slept.



Brace yourself for some truly weird behavior.

 

The day the laughter stopped.

 

It might be a really smart idea not to, as they say, 
mess with Texas.

 

This could get ugly fast.



Is being a woman enough?


Question for the Day:

What Do You Believe Regarding 
BUNDY v. the FEDS in OREGON?

134 comments:

  1. That Hillary Campaign logo will forever suggest to me either, Hell or Hospital...

    Armed groups taking over a federal facility is never right. They are criminals.

    Having said that, this is part of an ongoing dispute, and the Federal Government takes actions on purpose to piss people off and goad them into actions such as this.

    There there's the larger question: Why does the federal government own land in Oregon? Does anyone think the federal government cares more about that land that Oregonians? Does anyone think the Federal Government can take better care of it than Oregon's government can?

    The lefty loonies are going wild over this, with hilarious comparisons and false analogies. Let the circus continue...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The left ... [is] going wild over this, with hilarious comparisons and false analogies. Let the circus continue..."

      YEP!

      I heard a lot of that on C-Span earlier today. ––– Loud, belligerent-sounding blacks insisting it's all about "racism." They want to believe that if the protestors were black, they'd have all been shot to death by now. So in their twisted frame of reference, the continued survival of the protestors means the Feds are respecting their "White Privilege."

      Talk about lunacy!

      On the other hand irate, quasi-hysterical whites were projecting great fear that the Obama Administration would repeat what Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton Administration did to David Koresh and his followers in WACO, and simply massacre the protestors.

      Remember too what that woman did to little six-year-old Elian Gonzales, and his American relatives who housed him, wanted to adopt and protect him after his mother drowned at sea desperately trying to give her little boy a chance to live in freedom.

      I forget who was in power when the jack-booted thugs from the Federal Government shot an infant-in-arms to death and killed its mother along with others at Ruby Ridge.

      It may have happened during a Republican administration, so the issue is not Democrats v. Republicans it is the metastatic growth overarching, overweening, increasingly draconian assumption of absolute power by the Central Government in the District of Columbia.

      I can't agree that armed resistance to ever-expanding tyranny on the part of Authority is "always wrong." It may be foolhardy from a pragmatic standpoint, ___ and very possibly suicidal ___, but we ought to remember that the United States of America would never have come into existence were it not for "armed insurrection" and downright criminal activity against those viewed as oppressors on the part of a small, zealous, incredibly brave minority who willingly risked –– and ultimately lost –– most of what they had in order to promote, protect and defend what-they-believed-to-be SACRED PRINCIPLES.

      I learned just this morning that the Federal Government OWNS more than HALF the LAND that comprises the State of Oregon.

      I don't know how that happened, but even if it occurred though "peaceful negotiations," I can't believe such a move does not violate the spirit of our Constitution.

      Also, I would like to know more about the reasoning behind the Bundy Groups' position. As you suggested above, this sad affair may very well have been deliberately provoked by the Obama administration in order to generate "a good excuse" for implementing an ever more extreme, draconian, anti-freedom, anti-individalost agenda.

      Delete
    2. People in the Obama Administration did indeed deliberately provoke this situation.

      To go back to the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada...

      The federal government owns almost all of Nevada, and what that does is allow the crapulent and corrupt Hairy Reed to rule the state as his personal fiefdom.

      Instead of being free men, ranchers are relegated to tenant farmers beholden to Uncle Sam, since they must rely on BLM land.

      This gives Hairy Reed the power to reward and punish. He kept nibbling away at Bundy's land, while selling off access to Silicon Valley green goblins for their solar farms.

      It is government at its most corrupt and tyrannical.

      Delete
    3. Having said that... The remedy is the western states band together and sue the federal government to get their land back.

      Delete
    4. If that us true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then what Bundy & CO. are doing is proper Civil Disobedience in service to a Righteous Cause.

      It really IS odd how our friends on the left seem ALWAYS to stand up for and take the part of TYRANTS and WOULD-BE TYRANTS against the rights, needs and best interest of INDIVIDUALS.

      Those on the left decidedly favor OPPRESSION enforced through THREAT of VIOLENCE and DEATH. They see Government Despotism as the people's BEST FRIEND.

      WHTY? Do they not understand that POWER, ITSELF, is ALWAYS subject to abuse, and is therefore, the Mortal Enemy of All Mankind?

      Do they not realize that they, themselves, are also individuals?

      Delete
    5. The proper way to address this is for the western states to sue the federal government to get their land back.

      Delete
    6. SF,
      Yes, that is the proper way.

      The problem is the time factor, I think. These rangers are going under - even on their generational land.

      Delete
    7. @AOW: " even on their generational land"

      Great point that I forgot to include. In many cases, this is land confiscated by the US government that had been in the family for generations.

      The government then promised to let them continue operations on the seized property. So it ain't only the Indians lied to and cheated by Uncle Sam.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. "If a piece of the continent washes away, Europe is the less ..."

      "... In so much as yet have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have also done it to me ..."

      John Donne and Jesus Christ –– forever relevant –– forever ineffably wise.

      Delete
  3. If the "occupants" in Oregon were black or native American, they would already been M.O.V.E.'d.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have some updated talking points?

      The ones you are using have gone rancid.

      Delete
    2. Remember Alcatraz... The Occupation of Alcatraz was an occupation of Alcatraz Island by 89 American Indians who called themselves Indians of All Tribes (IOAT). The Alcatraz Occupation lasted for nineteen months, from November 20, 1969, to June 11, 1971, and was forcibly ended by the U.S. government.

      Delete
    3. ...only 18.95 months to go, ducky.

      Delete
    4. Thersites: Excellent point!

      btw, can anyone cite a recent example of armed federales attacking and burning alive blacks or Indians the way they did those Koreshites?

      Delete
    5. ...but those things happen when you make a retired USA general your city manager.

      Delete
    6. Yes, the MOVE presence and the subsequent violence it provoked was terrible thing for the city of Philadelphia, and was handled badly.

      Instead of KILLING the members of MOVE and destroying 65 houses in the process. The authorities should have rendered the miscreants unconscious by some sort of powerful-but-non-lethal gas, bound, gagged, then put on waiting aircraft to be "relocated" to a sub-Saharan hellhole, and never permitted to return to the USA under ANY conditions.

      Delete
    7. Wasn't Philly's city government overwhelmingly Democrat when that happened

      Delete
    8. YES. Both Democratic AND Black –– just like Baltimore today. I believe a black man named Willson Good was mayor at the time.

      Wishy washy Gerald Ford was in the White House. Today, Gerald Ford would be properly called what he was –– A RINO. In other words Republican who was no help whatsoever in improving the health, strength and economic prospects of the nation.

      Delete
    9. Freethinke and silverfiddle, please make yourselves aware of one Mr. Frank Rizzo.

      Yeah, a real progressive.

      Delete
    10. Frank Rizzo, Democrat

      Thank you for the opportunity to further clarify.

      Delete
    11. Rizzo switched parties.

      His heart was on the right.

      Delete
  4. Other Arab nations are following Saudi Arabia and breaking diplomatic ties.

    Is this really anything more than confirmation of the long standing tension brought on by the civil war in Yemen (amongst other issues)?

    My question would be, "Do we have any leverage in the region?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Two successive US presidents have bumbled, stumbled and botched it all up. We have now surpassed the Muslim ME's own abilities to cause murder, mayhem and Biblical-scale humanitarian crises.

      I say we get out and enjoy a full-scale war between the Saudi Terrorist Regime and the Tehran Turds in Turbans, cheering on both sides to lose.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't it THREE and now FOUR successive administrations who've made a toxic has of the Middle East?

      George H.W. Bush - failed to finished what he started with the first Gulf War

      Bill Clinton - failed to get rid of Osama bin Laden when he had plenty of opportunity to do so

      George W. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld - for trying to fight yet another "limited," "no-win" war.

      Barack Obama-Hillary-Kerry - for perpetuating and compounding the mistakes of these past administrations while systematically eroding our prestige, and destroying our hegemony abroad.

      Republicans are every bit as much to blame as Democrats, but the latter always seem to want to do everything possible to make bad situations worse.

      Delete
    3. George H.W. Bush did a smart thing in not taking down Saddam. Saddam was the great firewall protecting the greater ME from Iran. As such, Bush the Elder prevented societal chaos (that his son then went and sowed with wild abandon).

      Clinton was remiss, but he did not cause the chaos W and O did. Clinton's big failing was allowing the Saudis and their radicalized jihadi wahhabists into the Balkans.

      Old veterans and CIA types will tell you Carter was the true disaster. His failure to manage the Iranian power transition and wholehearted embrace of Ayatollah Khomeini is the root our the present evil we are living through.

      Delete
    4. BS, sf. The Iraq War to take out Saddam was basked into the "treaty" signed to end the Gulf War. As soon as Saddam started to jerk the WMD inpectors around, the UN HAD to do something, as all the so-called "UN partners" (especially the French) were buying oil/ circumventing the Guld War peace treaty.

      Delete
    5. erratum - 'baked' for 'basked' above.

      Delete
    6. There you go... Our feckless European "allies" went wobbly, so we rushed in and "did something."

      Surveying the flames, rubble, rapes, mass exodus to Europe and Christian genocide, I'd say sometimes doing nothing is preferable.

      Delete
  5. Gad!

    Check what's going on with the Dow Jones Average today!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trading was suspended on the Chinese exchange.

      Fasten your set belt, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

      Bubbles have a common quality, they burst.

      Delete
    2. SF, wasn't it China that supposedly "disappointed expectations" to become the next industrial engine to drive the world? It almost seems like a rerun of the 1980's when Japan was supposed to be that great bogeyman to supplant the USA in that regard.

      We should all get on our knees and than David Rockefeller, I suppose, for tagging along with Kissinger and Nixon to China and seeing the opportunity to modernize its economy from the doldrums of communism with some good old fashioned American "banking", that enabled companies to effortlessly exploit the cheap communist slave labour for their very own mega profits.

      Maybe the house of cards of global central banking is now to be seen beached without its proper bathing attire for all to see, who care to look.

      Delete
    3. AOW, one of the biggest scans to hit the stock markets, at least that I'm aware of, is KALBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS.

      That nifty little California company soared like Phoenix from the ashes and in the space of a few weeks crashed to 45 cents and when it was rumored to be ceasing operations. And after that worst of news found a market "angel" who decided to take over the company and the stock hit new highs of $40+ within a few days.

      Unfortunately this supposed angel turned out to be the guy that bought another company and immediately raised the price of its main drug 5000%. All did not end well for him or the companies since he was picked up and charged by the Feds and this company is again filing for bankruptcy. I had some first hand experience with that one ...

      The stock market looks more like a minefield now, be careful where you step.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for stopping by, Waylon. Your examples and illustrations underscore my running theme that says the abandonment of strict obedience to First Principles (o.e. Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Serenity Prayer, etc.) is bound to produce malformed, shrivelled, vile-tasting, malodorous, POISONOUS fruit.

      "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and [everything you truly need] will be added unto you."

      That probably sounds "Corny" and "Naive" to most today –– so far have we moved away from the Bedrock Truth of Being –– but a return to respect for Truth (God) would, indeed, right the terrible wrongs we have visited upon ourselves through the glorification of unbridled selfishness and a perverse admiration for those who excel in the fine art of Corruption.

      Delete
    5. SilverFiddle, even if we believe it to be justified, I don't think it's at all helpful to adopt a DEFEATIST stance.

      I prefer the approach of John Paul Jones, Captain of the Bonhomme Richard who reportedly said, when his ship was shot out from under him, "I have not yet begun to fight."

      Failure to keep Hope alive, and to boost morale, –– especially in the face of insuperable odds ––, is certain to result in our utter defeat, humiliation, and disintegration.

      Delete
    6. It won't be a defeat, just a major shock and then a transition to something else.

      Sooner or later, ya gotta pay the piper.

      Those who enjoy simple pursuits like reading, playing music and enjoying the company of family and friends will be just fine.

      Delete
    7. Your definition of "defeat," and mine seem to be greatly different. ;-)

      Delete
    8. What goes up must come down. It takes economic growth well above 3% annually to keep the debt balloon from exploding.

      Consider also we have the longest running Democratic republic (president-congress system, vice the more common parliamentary system). It is showing signs of great strain. People on the left and right and registering alarm that our government is morphing into an elected dictatorship, where the president takes action or issues a decree, and then congress ratifies it.

      Now add in the great economic shift that has left millions of low-skilled Americans behind, and observe how unaccountable billionaire plutocrats patrol the world, suborning sovereign government and sucking the last drop of wealth out of whole societies, even as the world goes through an epochal shift in populations marked by mass migration.

      The world is changing, as it always has. We are witnessing an incredible shift. There is no "taking it back," or "going back." Time only goes forward. It's an new reality, and we will have to come to terms with it and shape what we can.

      I don't call that defeatist. It is being a realist. Hope lies in facing the future and shaping what you can of it.

      Delete
    9. "Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last, but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."

      ~ Franklin (1706-1790)

      Even so, Truth (God) is immortal, immutable and forever dependable, but only if we turn to it with respect, humility, gratitude and faith that attempting to "follow the gleam" WILL eventually bring us out of whatever wilderness we find ourselves in at any given moment.

      Revival of belief in and dependence on God is what we need, of course. Unfortunately "progressives" have pitted themselves against Eternal Truth, Love and Principle by steadfastly scorning the very idea of is existence. That and ceaselessly denigrating those who still believe that Something far greater, more powerful, wiser and infinitely more humane exists outside the realm of human consciousness have landed us into one helluva mess.

      Delete
    10. The constitution is dead. It means whatever the panjandrums in DC tell us it means.

      Delete
    11. The Constitution isn't "dead". It works perfectly fine. The problem is that "corporations" aren't "people". We need to stop enabling them through "loop-holes" to become "immortals" (Struldbrugs) and subject them to "human-like" restrictions (limited life spans and LTD. corporate charters).

      Delete
    12. In other words, the Constitution has been "circumvented" by "legal entities" that need to become subjected to similar human-like restrictions.

      Delete
  6. Hallé Commette-Taille said

    The hysterics on the far right excuse the unlawful takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge because, according to their presidential hopefuls, news sites, and bloggers, the federal government has no right to own these lands in sovereign states, and the states should be sole owner and decision makers of what is to be done with the land within their borders. An idealistic, but unrealistic notion, since whomever is in charge of a state's government would be able to sell to the highest bidder the precious natural resources of said state (see below).

    The hysterics on the far right think that states' rights mob rule is always in the best interests of any given situation, so we can see why they'd be on the side of the outlaws in this situation. This has nothing to do with "states rights," and everything to do with preserving our country's precious natural wildlife and resources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "since whomever is in charge of a state's government would be able to sell to the highest bidder the precious natural resources of said state"

      Harry Reid's already done that, fool.

      Delete
    2. Dear, Norm,

      It would help a great deal in promoting the interests of civil discourse and fruitful debate, if we stopped referring to opponents as "fools," "morons," "libtards," or any other terms of opprobrium.

      Just because "they do it too," is not a good excuse for indulging in the practice.

      Delete
  7. Lorenzo di Sinestra said<

    ... Why haven't the authorities done anything about this armed take-over of federally owned, you ask? Because the radical right has, with it's usual lack of facts, has taken up the cause and branded these terrorists as 'patriots'. I guess, to them, stealing from the general public and threatening law enforcement officers is 'patriotic. Who knew?

    Can you imagine what these same low-information righties would be screaming if these were Latino or black activists? They'd be calling for blood, and we all know it.

    So the 'law and order' types who continually whine on about 'personal responsibility' have decided that people who break the law, break contracts and who blame their lack of responsibility (99% of ranchers, miners, etc pay their grazing fees and don't burn down public lands) on the 'big bad government' - the same government, btw, who allowed and encouraged the parents and grandparents of these ranchers to exist and thrive, but are somehow now being 'oppressed' by being expected to live by the contracts they made with the Bureau of Land Management.

    No these are not patriots. They are terrorists. No better or worse than any other armed group who seizes public property. They should be dealt with in the same terms and we should stop coddling them just because they are white males who no doubt donate to the local GOP congress critter.

    After my usual round of radical rightie news and blog reading, it astonishes me that they are actually still going on about Waco and Ruby Ridge and desperately trying to make some comparison! Could these people get any more idiotic? ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the same government, btw, who allowed and encouraged the parents and grandparents of these ranchers to exist and thrive"

      The execrable creature posting this marxist manure reveals her hive mindset. to wit: Government "allows" its subject to "exist and thrive."

      Music to a dictatorship's ears!

      Delete
    2. I'll say the same thing to you, Lady Clatterly, as I did to "Norm" up there:

      It would help a great deal in promoting the interests of civil discourse and fruitful debate, if we stopped referring to opponents as "fools," "morons," "libtards," "lefturds," or any other terms of opprobrium.

      Just because "they do it too," is not a good excuse for indulging in the practice.


      The worst part of it is that you deflect attention from the (often very good) good points you try to make.

      Delete
  8. Lorenzo di Sinestra said

    ... I guess the rightwing extremists approved of the pedophile and child rapist David Koresh and were upset that the ATF attempted to serve a perfectly legal arrest warrant issued by a judge for Mr. Koresh, who barricaded himself in his compound, shot and shot at officers and then burned down his compound killing women and children in the process.

    I lived not far from Waco during that time. Try to tell me that the feds started the fire and I'll call you a liar and a moron and I'll be correct.

    Not really much of a different scene in Ruby Ridge. An extremist with a warrant for his arrest barricades himself in his home and puts the lives of his family at risk I guess these moronic righties would tell law enforcement just to give up if they face any resistance, at all.

    So, my dear readers, you can call these thugs 'patriots' all you like but doing so only makes a mockery of actual patriots who served, lived and died for the nation - and yes, wingnuts - the nation includes the government which we vote in. Don't like it? Feel free to find somewhere you'll like better.

    Meanwhile, stop being un American and bashing our nation by siding with common domestic terrorists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The left has always been in love with fascist government actions. Assassinating the wives and children of righwingers and burning up religious kooks makes their nipples hard.

      Delete
    2. Instead of using names like "fascist" or "communist,"etc., why don't we use descriptive phrases, and say, "Certain elements have long advocated the application of life-threatening force to ensure the implementation of political positions they favor?"

      I, personally, am trying to get away from the Left/Right paradigm, because it's mutually destructive and not truly relevant to the situation in which we regrettably find ourselves.

      The underlying issue of all that plagues us is the ABUSE or MISUSE of POLITICAL POWER. It does not matter whether it's from the Left (Marxism) or from the Right (Fascism) or from a depraved, all-powerful pseuso-religious organization (Mediaeval Catholicism, Cromwell's Protestant-oriented Persecution of Roman Catholics, today's resurgence of murderously aggressive Islamic Fundamentalism –– or the insidious machinations of proponents of poisonous, power-mad philosophies) –– the Lust to Achieve DICTATORIAL POWER and CONTROL is at the root of ALL of it, and it's ALL equally horrible.

      Delete
    3. Superbly stated FreeThinke. As always the devil is found in the details methinks.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. Some historical background

    NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS, PUBLIC LANDS and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (Part One)


    Since 1872 the United States National Park System has grown from a single, public reservation called Yellowstone National Park to embrace over 450 natural, historical, recreational, and cultural areas throughout the United States, its territories, and island possessions. These areas include a diverse varieties of areas —National Parks, National Monuments, National Memorials, National Military Parks, National Historic Sites, National Parkways, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, National Scenic Riverways, National Scenic Trails, and others.[1] ...

    The national park idea has been credited to the artist George Catlin. In 1832 he traveled the northern Great Plains of the United States, where he became concerned about the destruction of the Indian civilization, wildlife, and wilderness as eastern settlements spread westward. He wrote, “by some great protecting policy of government... in a magnificent park... a nation’s park, containing man and beast, in all the wild[ness] and freshness of their nature’s beauty!” [2]

    Catlin’s vision had no immediate effect. In the east, romantic portrayals of nature by James Fenimore Cooper and Henry David Thoreau and painters Thomas Cole and Frederick Edwin Church began to compete with prevailing view of wilderness as a challenge to overcome. Slowly unspoiled nature and spectacular natural areas of the West became better known, the idea of saving such places became of interest.

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some historical background

    NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS, PUBLIC LANDS and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (Part Two)



    In California, several state leaders sought to protect Yosemite Valley. In 1864, Sen. John Conness of California sponsored an act to transfer the valley and nearby Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the state so they might “be used and preserved for the benefit of mankind”. President Abraham Lincoln signed this act of Congress on June 30, 1864. California was granted the valley and the grove on condition that They would “be held for public use, resort, and recreation...inalienable for all time.”[2]

    The Yellowstone country was first "officially" explored by David E. Folsom, Henry D. Washburn, and Ferdinand Hayden in 1869-71. ... An early ally in promoting a public reservation was the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. They were seeking major destinations for their route through Montana.[2] In an effort to reduce ... misuse of the park, the U.S. Army established a fort in the area in 1881 and began park protection, establishing a pattern that would be continued by later park rangers.

    In 1875, Mackinac National Park was created on a resort island in Lake Huron in Michigan, the second national park. As at Yellowstone, the army garrison at Fort Mackinac were in charge of supervising and improving the park. The fort and the national park were turned over to state control in 1895.

    U.S. cavalry units took up a position in California-controlled Yosemite Park in 1891 and took over some management duties. In 1906 the park was completely taken into federal control.

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some historical background

    NATIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS, PUBLIC LANDS and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (Part Three)


    NATIONAL MONUMENT LINEI, 1906-1916

    While early emphasis had been on the creation of National Parks, there was another movement seeking to preserve the cliff dwellings, pueblo ruins, and early missions throughout the west and southwest. Often local ranchers would try to protect these ruins from plunder, but pot-hunters vandalized many sites. The effort began in Boston and spread to Washington, New York, Denver, and Santa Fe, during the 1880s and 1890s. Rep. John Fletcher Lacey of Iowa and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, created the Antiquities Act of 1906.[1]


    Devils Tower's westwall is a 600 ft (180 m) vertical climb

    The Antiquities Act of 1906 was designed to protect antiquities and objects of scientific interest on the public domain. It authorized the President, "to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" that existed on public lands in the United States. The Act declared these sites to be National Monuments. It prohibited the excavation or removal of objects on Federal land unless a permit had been issued by the appropriate department.[1] Between 1906 and 1933 three Federal agencies, the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and War, initiated and administered separate groups of National Monuments.

    President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act on June 8, 1906. As early as 1889 Congress authorized the President to reserve the land on which the well known Casa Grande Ruin was located. In 1904, Dr. Edgar Lee Hewett made a review of all the Indian ruins on Federal lands in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. He recommended many sites for protection. Based on Hewett’s report and many individual request and reports from throughout the west, between 1906 and 1916 the Interior Department recommended and Presidents Roosevelt], William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson proclaimed twenty National Monuments[1]

    On September 24, 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed Devils Tower as the first National Monument. Devils Tower is a Wyoming landmark, a 600-foot (180 m) high tower of rock, visible for nearly 100 miles (160 km). It has been a guidepost and a religious site. In December of that year, three more National Monuments were created. ...


    ~ WIKIPEDIA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blue Bull said

      Thanks for the info, Freethinke, but I'm not sure it has much to do with the BLM or the Clive Bundy issue, but it's interesting and I do thank you for it.

      Delete
    2. It has to do with the establishment of a governmental prerogative to appropriate vast tracts of land for uses the government deems right, good and proper.



      I happen to agree with most Americans that establishing our system of national parks and monuments was an ENLIGHTENED use of government power, because it produced splendid results –– a rare case in which the ends justify the means.

      HOWEVER, deadly serious problems arise when government effectively GRANTS ITSELF dictatorial powers WITHOUT the full knowledge and consent of the governed.
      

Like most things in life it's a paradox and a dilemma –– in other words NOT a clearcut Black and White issue.

      That means the conflict produced may never be fully resolved, because no point of view is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong. –––– That's why we still try maintain a DEMOCRACY instead of a KINGDOM, a THEOCRACY, or a DICTATORSHIP.

      I suggest further study of the background of Rancher Bundy's situation in Nevada. I believe it to be far more complex than those who would treat it as a political football want to know or admit.


      How we go about finding the truth makes an interesting, deadly serious challenge. I am morally certain we won't get "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" from any branch of the media, –– and certainly not from partisans on either side of the aisle.


      Delete
    3. From today's post at Western Hero:

      The question is why should the federal government own 0.3 percent of the land in Connecticut and 36% of Colorado? New York 0.7% compared to Nevada at 81%?

      Oregon, the state in question is at 53% federal ownership.


      Does that not smack of tyranny?

      Delete
    4. AOW needs a basic history lesson before spouting her usual drivel.....

      Delete
    5. PLEASE let us avoid using insults, angry accusations and name-calling –– at least at THIS blog. If you have bona fide information to prove others to be wrong, please share that information, and give us your source. PLEASE! It's the only way we could ever hope to find common ground and reach a workable consensus.

      Delete
  12. A clueless and brainless Progrogress moron aka David Miller Asked "

    "A plain and simple question, and one conservatives will not answer.

    So let me give you some help... Yes, they did.

    Tell me why they should not be charged with breaking and entering and then be tried?"

    I ask this Moron, then why not do the same for your Mexicsn friends who break our laws by coming here Illeagly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laura, I'll say the same thing to you as i said to Lady Clatterly, and "Norm" up there:

      It would help a great deal in promoting the interests of civil discourse and fruitful debate, if we stopped referring to opponents as "fools," "morons," "libtards," "lefturds," "sons of bitches," "assholes," "fuckwads," "baggers," "T-publicans," or any other terms of opprobrium.

      Just because "they do it too," is not a good excuse for indulging in the practice.


      The worst part of it is that you and others who address opponents in this way, deflect attention from the (often very good) good points you try to make.

      PLEASE let us try to avoid the use of insults, pointed accusations, and inflammatory rhetoric in future –– at least at MY blog.

      Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Free, you'd be hard pressed to find a single comment of mine where I used anything close to the language of which speak.

      Laura, you forgot the question that was attached to my comment at another blog... Did the militia violate the law?

      And it is one many conservatives will not answer, and which you proved in your response, choosing to attack and deflect, rather than answer.

      As for people coming here illegally, without documentation, or overstaying legal VISAS, that too is a crime, although it is a misdemeanor.

      That is a far cry from the legal definition of Breaking and Entering.

      Delete
    3. Dave, what impels you to defend yourself against accusations not made?

      We don't scold people for "thought crimes" here, only for violating our clearly stated standards of good conduct.


      We may not like what you have to say, but we will support your right to say it, unless it ignores or fails to respect our standards.

      By the way, it might pay you to dust off Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous essay on Civil Disobedience.

      Those in power have a nasty habit of "criminalizing" behavior –– and even attitudes –– that appear to challenge or threaten their grip on (usually despotic) power.

      Our Declaration of Independence was a clear –– even flamboyant –– violation of the law of its time. I doubt if any here would want to say it was wrong for The Founders to write and sign that historic document.

      Only the Decalogue and the Gospels are sacred. Manmade Law is merely a reflection of the likes, dislikes, and deep prejudices of those in power in any given society at a given time. As such it is very properly subject to endless challenges, revisions and excisions.

      Regrettably, once power becomes entrenched, it invariably becomes corrupt, thus forcing the need for sweeping changes to be made –– often by threat and implementation of lethal force.

      Delete
    4. Free, I was just making a point... one that even as I avoid the language you decry, others hurl my way with regularity.

      As for the use of force you mention, you would be hard pressed to support that with a Gospelcentric viewpoint. Few if any first century believers, those who knew Jesus personally, and others who lived as contemporaries, believed in the use of force.

      For that, they were executed, martyred, tortured and mocked. All for God.

      I doubt it was a viable way to order a governing society, but the Christian believers of that time felt it was the most "Christian" response they could have.

      That view of course changed over time, but the facts bear out a pacifist church that abhorred violence and lethal force, at least in the early days.

      Delete
  13. QUOTED DIRECTLY from WESTERN HERO TODAY:

    Nuff Said?

    A simple and glaring visual representaion of what the militia stand-off at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is all about.

    The question is why should the federal government own 0.3 percent of the land in Connecticut and 36% of Colorado? New York 0.7% compared to Nevada at 81%?

    Oregon, the state in question is at 53% federal ownership.

    A MAP ILLUSTRATING FINTANN'S POINT eloquently is available at Western Hero. I suggest you visit there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is all the fuss about? Where would we be without the federal government? Do those yahoos out in the west really want it to be an ungovernable wasteland of Marlboro Men, roaming the range, cigarette dangling from mustachioed lips, raping Native American women, shooting up saloons and burning down forests?

      Come to the East Coast and experience some culture.

      Delete
    2. You sound like a grotesque caricature of what you are pretending to be, Neil. You sound downright silly in fact. Sorry, but I just can't buy your act.

      ;-)

      Delete
    3. Who slaughtered the buffalo, FreeThinke?

      Seriously, this is outrageous! We're arguing over whether these domestic terrorists are domestic terrorists?

      Their uncivilized behavior is why we need government all the more.

      Delete
    4. OH PUHLEEZE! Just GO AWAY!

      Your Vaudeville Act is a flop.

      Delete
  14. Blue Bull said

    PART ONE


    To understand how radical the right has become on this issue, we must first look at some history. The BLM Bureau of Land Management was created in 1844 (although it was called the General Land Office at the time and went through a few twists and turns to reach it's present form).

    It's primary goal was to help with the settlement of the west, from Ohio west to the Pacific and later up into Alaska. The territories would ask the GLO to cede lands for ranches, towns, mines, etc. Of course, getting cattle to market would be impossible back then without the use of public lands on which to move herds to market. Also, cattle need large areas of land for grazing, especially in the semi-arid parts of the West. Ranchers would need thousands of acres to provide for the numbers of cattle being raised and few could afford to buy that much land from other ranchers who had been ceded lands.

    To help the ranchers, the GLO set up a separate office known as the US Grazing Service which provided for grazing rights to be offered to ranchers at absurdly low rates. This allowed for large ranches to feed a growing nation, and the public lands allowed not only herds of cattle (and sheep in some areas) to be taken to market, but also the railroads to venture into the West and granted easements to the railroads making the projects possible. Also, the BLM helped prevent over-grazing –– a problem many ranchers faced early in the settlement of the West.

    Along the way, the Antiquities Act, the Mining Act and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all were tacked onto the GLO as was the National Park system. Yellowstone was carved out of these public lands, as were dozens of other state and national parks throughout the Midwest and West.

    In 1946, the BLM was established and was the result of the merging of the GLO and the US Grazing Service. More than half a million jobs annually depend on the public land system. Ranchers, miners, the Park Service and Indian Affairs all depend on the service. It adds 112 Billion to the economy every year and most ranchers have no problems with the system.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Blue Bull said

    PART TWO


    And now we come to the “Bundy Bunch.”
    Cliven Bundy, a very wealthy rancher, has for years failed to live up the contract he signed and owes more than one-million dollars in back grazing fees.

    This is money he is stealing from the rest of us. Try not paying your taxes or a lien, and see if you get the same “hands off'' treatment Bundy has gotten.
     
    So now we come to the offspring of this rich rancher. They have decided, –– uninvited by the two defendants ––, to take up the cause of father and son ranchers in eastern Oregon who were convicted of arson on public lands adjacent to their property.

    Again, they were convicted by a court of burning OUR land and are due today to surrender to the authorities.

    Somehow, the Bundys and other radicals with similar views who have flocked to their defense have decided among themselves that taking over a bird sanctuary will bring attention to the 'plight' of the ranchers.

    Meanwhile, the ranchers are quoted as saying they want no part of the Bundy Bunch and that they speak for themselves only. 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BLue Balls said: 'It adds 112 Billion to the economy every year and most ranchers have no problems with the system.'

      Wrong dummy. The farmers, rancher and mining operations contribute 112 billion to our economy. Government bureaucracies contribute NOTHING. Because they create NOTHING.

      Typical Obamunist.

      Delete
    2. Bundy's stealing from you?

      How many nights did you stay up birthing calves?

      How many times have you almost been frostbitten taking care of the land and the livestock?

      How many years did you sweat out that loan as you watched feed prices go up thanks to government green energy handouts, even as the price of been went down?

      Bundy and other don't owe candy asses like you one dime.

      What the federal government is doing is called rent seeking. Stick a straw into productive people and suck out all they can.

      Millions of acres are in private hands of farmers, rancher, wildlife refuges and nature lovers, and they get along just fine and are productive.

      The federal government owning this ranch land contributes NOTHING. Tits on a boar.

      Delete
  16. Information You DeserveJanuary 5, 2016 at 9:17 AM

    Has Bundy attacked any civilians? I son't think sp!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As fas as I know, Clive Bundy and his Group have not fired a shot at anyone, but they ARE armed and have appeared to THREATEN officials who try to interfere with them.

      Whether you endorse and support this action, or disapprove of it totally depends on "whose ox is being gored."

      Delete
    2. It doesn't matter. Rough-talking men who've never had a manicure carrying scary black super automatic assault combat machine guns are a danger to us all!

      Delete
    3. Government is there to lead us and take care of us. Those men are breaking the law because they are mad at President Obama, like a child gets mad at his parents. The child is too immature to see the wisdom of the parents' actions.

      Cliver Bundy didn't build that land. President Obama's government did. We own that land. All of us, and we are allowing those farmers to use it. They make millions from using our land, so they owe us. That's part of the bargain. Government allows us to live and gives us rights, and we owe our government its due because of its benevolence. That is how it has always been, regardless of Ronald Reagan's John Wayne rhetoric.

      Delete
    4. You're not as funny as you think you are, Neil. You are much more PHONY than FUNNY. Please CUT the COMEDY.

      Delete
  17. Evelyn Jolly ManginaJanuary 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't pay attention to what I and others have said, Evelyn. I may partially agree with you, but I FORBID the use of name-calling at THIS blog.

      Here is your post again -- EDITED to conform to the standards at THIS blog:

      Delete
    2. Evelyn Jolly Mangina said

      "Mr. Blue Bull needs to loosen his collar a bit, and start to think a little more clearly.

      "This is what Democratic Socialism does. A city dweller, who's never so much as camped out in his back yard, blithers on about how he "owns" land out in Oregon.

      "The People's Land." Chairman Mao would be so proud.

      "The People" don't spend hard-earned money and their own blood, sweat and tears maintaining that land. The ranchers do. And their families were there on that land before the federal government came in and confiscated it from them.

      Arson is a crime, as is armed occupation, but progressives like Mr. Blue Bull appear to have have no clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. history of land management.

      Delete
    3. Evelyn Jolly ManginaJanuary 5, 2016 at 9:43 AM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Okay, Evelyn, that's the way I'd like you to post in future. Your ideas are still clear, but the insults and sheer nastiness have been removed.

      NOW, let me tell you something: I happen to know Mr. Blue Bull very well. We are friends, even though we strenuously disagree on most political issues.

      Your ASSUMPTIONS about him are so wrong they are downright comical. I won't betray his confidence by giving out too much information, but he is ANYTHING-BUT "a limp-wristed City Dweller, who has never even camped out in his own back yard."

      In fact he's a big tough guy who was born and raised in a rural part of the Great Plains, has served in the military, traveled widely, and has had a more varied experience filled with interesting contrasts than anyone else I know.


      He has as much right to his opinions as you do to yours.

      The Attack, Insult, Accuse, Mock, Scorn, Deride and Abuse approach to debate is not only STUPID, it's WORTHLESS.

      I won't have snotty, belligerence and open contempt here anymore.

      Delete
    5. Evelyn Jolly ManginaJanuary 5, 2016 at 10:01 AM

      Then how did he turn into such a pusillanimous progressive?

      Delete
    6. He is no such thing. He just sees things from a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, that's all.

      All of us are NEVER going to think alike, so we HAVE to stop beating each other up for expressing dissent or disagreement.

      Delete
  18. Lisa E. The Smart Lisa.January 5, 2016 at 9:23 AM

    I actually feel sorry for the Bundys, in reality the (self created by their own refusal to pay their taxes) debt burden they are in, must be horrifically stressful and physically taxing on the family. They stand to lose everything, that is always a sad terrifying reality. It boggles my mind, with all the right wing nut jobs outcry of support - why they haven't together raised a fund to pay his taxes off and allow this man and his family the freedom to think sensibly. His extremism may partly be due to he having nothing to lose and the opportunistic political blood suckers that are jumping on the bandwagon without regard to what really ends up happening to this family.


    The President and his staff have said it time and again: their biggest disappointment was their inability to further restrict the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. Now with the end of his presidency looming, it looks like President Obama might be preparing to go “full retard” on gun control laws. The new proposal would specifically impact those who receive Social Security disability benefits, banning them from even owning guns if they fit a list of conditions that President Obama and his administration deem “dangerous.”

    Damn, if they aren't careful Obama will take away their guns!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Self praise stinks.

      Walther von der Vogelweide

      Delete
  19. FORMAL NOTICE:

    From Now On We WILL NOT TOLERATE Insults, Accusations and Name-Calling. PERIOD!


    We welcome different views, but they must be politely phrased. Asking questions tends to promote friendlier, more fruitful conversation than delivering "broadsides" or issuing "ultimata."

    My ambition is to do what I can to foster CONVERSATION. If we are ever to get anywhere worth going, we must learn to talk WITH and not AT each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael HornblowerJanuary 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  20. Lisa and BlueBull have the right idea. If those ranchers and the Bundy's had obeyed government, they would not be in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of COURSE! When the Bully Boys ride into town, just keep your head down, try to stay out of sight, let 'em shoot up the saloon, ride roughshod over everyone in sight, rape a few wives and daughters who tickle their fancy, –– offer 'em YOUR DAUGHTER'S MAIDENHEAD if they come your way –– LET 'EM rob the local bank, kill the sheriff, and burn down a barn or two.

      None of it matters as long as they leave YOU alone, ain't that right?

      Delete
    2. The bully boys are those uncouth men who burned down that bird sanctuary!

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure that what you averred is factual. Please provide a source. It is my understanding Mr. BUNDY & CO. were OCCUPYING a federally-owned facility in much the same spirit of protest as Occupy Wall Street occupied a public park in Manhattan.

      The difference, I suspect, is that the Bundy Bunch, as someone called them, have not smeared the place with feces, soaked it in urine, and left mountains of trash the way the OWS crowd did in Zucotti Park.

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

  22. Why shouldn’t we talk about those Progressives?
    Those un-American morons on the Left do not believe in free speech. The political correctness cops simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.
    And by the way, I really prefer to call them commies!

    I don't know how to thank you enough Free Thinke, for helping me and allowing me to spread the truth!

    And I would really appreciate it, if you do not delete this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no objections to talking about "them" –– whatever you want to call 'them," as long as you do it politely and thoughtfully, but I strenuously object to witless name-calling, crude insults, foul language, and sheer, unbridled nastiness.

      Not only is all that completely unnecessary it's also childish and counter-productive to worthwhile debate.

      I refuse to host a Junior High-style Food Fight here.

      Delete
  23. I cannot comprehend the mindset of the previous commenters. Do they want anarchy? Government is our leader, our father and mother. Where would we be without government?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's get it clear.January 5, 2016 at 10:35 AM

      These people are not taking about. "Government", their talking about THIS Government!

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Conservatives spend a lot of time saying "We are a country of laws" and that "people just need to follow the law and respect the police."

    I am waiting for them to say that in this case. I am also waiting for someone to explain the difference between a lawbreaker being a thug, and a lawbreaker being a patriot. While they are at it, perhaps we could get a definition of a "Domestic Terrorist."

    Finally, before any of the ill informed chime in that is a result of the policies of the Obama Admin, let's set the record straight. The current BLM policies about which the Tax Evading Bundy Clan is protesting date to the Admins of Nixon, Ford and Carter. Aggressive water plans that impacted the area date from the Reagan and Bush the Elder Admins. The ranchers are charged under a law from the Clinton Admin. The offenses took place during the Bush II Admin. The case was adjudicated by the Obama Admin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, do we all hafta answer you in one big in-tune chorus? Who the hell are you to barge in here and demand we all sit down and answer your demanding questions?

      You'll get what I give ya, so sit down, shut up, and maybe you'll learn something.

      A thug is a choom-smoking gorilla who brazenly steals cigarillos from a store and then cuffs around the little hindustani shopkeeper as he lumbers out the door.

      A lawbreaking patriot is one who stands up to government tyranny. That Bundy fella goes way back with Harry Reed (Emperor-Nevada). Reed used his power to steal from Bundy. Real men only take so much of that shit, but people like you will never understand that.

      The federal government takes family land away then leases it back. How fair is that? Then, when progressives take over government, they fuck with those white cracker rightwing ranchers by making spotted owls and common smelt "endangered species." God forbid some college girl on an EPA grant finds a rare three-balled wombat on your property. YOu're DONE! Get those cattle offa there! Park your farm machinery! They don't give a shit how many hundeds of thousands you got sunk into the operation. You're done. Go on welfare or cook meth like the rest of the government teat-fed subjects.

      Domestic terrorists are the drug-dealing gangs, islamist pigs who shoot up Christmas parties, environmental terrorists and jackboot thugs who raid businesses, family farms and the homes of political enemies like the Democraps did up there in Wisconsin.

      We've been all over the history. Blue Bull laid it out nicely, even if he embroidered it with progressive propaganda.

      You sit on government land, and there are a thousand ways those bureaucratic weasels will bedevil you. Make no mistake, Miller, the DC bureaucrats hate gas and oil, hate cattle, and they hate us and our way of life. The federal government needs to sell off that land and get out of it. They've outlived their usefulness, which should be branded on the ass of every politician and DC bureaucrat.

      You straight now, Cochise?

      Delete
    2. Hey Dave, like somebody up the thread said, why ain't you upset over the millions of lawbreakers crossing our borders and squatting here, taking jobs, welfare, getting drunk and killing people in car crashes, bankrupting our schools.

      And you're worried over a few people peacefully protesting on public land?

      Wake up, pinhead.

      Delete
    3. I can't censor every rude reply, or we'd have almost no comments, but I wish people on BOTH sides would express their thoughts without self-indulgent belligerence and childish name-calling.

      Tex appears to be right, because I happen to agree with the basic thrust of his sentiments, but Blue Bull tells us all that land has ALWAYS been owned by the Federal Government. That means that NO ONE has ever enjoyed PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of ANY of it.

      I'd like to find VERIFICATION for that.

      I wish Finntann, the Greatest Master of Authentic Data who ever lived were here. He'd straighten us out in a trice.

      Now consider this: Didn't "we" STEAL the LAND from the Native Americans in the first place?

      I suppose the fact of the Louisiana Purchase supports the idea that "all that land out west" really does belong to Washington, DC, because our government paid Napoleon a paltry sum for it early on.

      I suppose that means that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT after all?

      I hope not, but it seems so.

      After all how could anyone either sell or buy something that was never his to begin with?

      Delete
    4. Dave must think he's channelling Bertolt Brecht...

      “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?” ― Bertolt Brecht

      Delete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Didn't we have enough of those Scums input White House?
    When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:
    She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
    She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
    After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
    Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
    Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
    After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
    What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?
    Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.
    But

    ReplyDelete
  28. That was a pretty good history ( start) of the Douchbags aka the Clintons

    ReplyDelete
  29. And may he take the whole Republican party down with him. Given the snot-nosed, petulant, infantile, tantrum-throwing character of the Republican opposition to Obama these seven years, Trump is just what they deserve. He's their id set free, the logical end-point of their trajectory as a party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Hellary Rotten Clinton--Wall Street's Choice!--is the symbol of the DemonCrap party:

      An aging, bloated, gas-filled dirigible with gun turrets and slapped over with corporate logos.

      Let's look at Hellary's record...

      Pawed through boxes of FBI files and filed away all the dirt on the Clinton Crime Syndicate enemies.

      Acted as The Heinrich Himmler in Hubby Bill's one-man War on Women, happily smearing women who had been raped and sexually victimized by her folksy, chuckling ride to the top.

      Committed international arson in Libya, making it a new terrorist haven and the Mediterranean Gateway for the Million Muslim March to Europe.

      Crafted Obama's "Foreign policy success" in Yemen, which is now wracked by civil war.

      Handed Putin a "Reset Button" that he quickly converted to a detonator.

      Raised millions for the international criminal organization known as the Clinton Foundation. As secretary of state, she sold access and handed our favors, including US uranium, in exchange for *ahem* speaking fees paid to Pedo-Rapist Bill, when we wasn't winging his way to Pedo Island on the Lolita Express.

      Hillary Clinton makes Richard Nixon look like a naive altar boy.

      Delete
    2. IMHO's Cut & Paste "history" of HRC immediately above covered most that quite adequately if not as colorfully, Silver.

      Delete
    3. "Cut and Paste?" How dare you level such an outrageous charge at me, sir?

      That was off the top of my head, although I have stated much of that before

      Delete
    4. OK, I see what you're talking about. Mine is more concise and much more easily readable.

      Delete
    5. Better not to go off half-cocked. ;-)

      Look before you leap, and all that.

      ALSO, always give the benefit of the doubt, ESPECIALLY to old and trusted friends.

      Cheers for the New Year in spite of it's rocky start.

      Delete
    6. I wasn't upset. I should have put a little winky face after my mock outrage..

      Delete
  30. FreeThinke,

    Given your broad historical definition of "ownership" the federal government would be considered to the first owner of the land going back to a time before deeds and titles were legally quantified.

    Here is something I posted in Finn's post today. There are two sides to every story.

    Oregon Protests: Civil Disobedience

    So, lets swipe the Bundy brigades aside and stipulate that it is a crime to take over federal property by force of arms.

    Like others in this thread have said, and I seen it myself and heard it from many, when the government wants you to stop using your property in the manner you are using it, or if they want to seize your property, they will go balls-out lawfare on your ass until you surrender or they rack up enough charges to put you away.

    Go google "three felonies a day."

    No one in this country is safe. If they want you, all they have to do is stake you out. The average citizen commits three felonies every day.

    So, again, throwing aside all the loose talk about terrorism (its not--Look it up) on one side, and "federal guvment got no right..." talk on the other, what we have is a federal government using its coercive power to brass knuckle people, doing it all behind a gossamer veil of legality, etc...

    Like somebody here said, people will only take so much crap before they explode. We saw it with people in Ferguson tired of the oppressive government riding their backs and peppering them with constant fines and harassment.

    Government at all levels is out of control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to stipulate that the government does this to people who are obeying the law, not lawbreakers.

      The government will flood your land, or divert water needed for livestock. When closing a road to your property would be a violation of agreement, they simply refuse to maintain it, and then prosecute you when you repair it yourself and unwittingly break one or several of the confusing and myriad environmental regulations.

      It's like the mafia.

      And if naive government-worshiping progressives don't think there are politicians and petty bureaucrats with their own narrow agendas abusing the power of government, they should be stricken from the voting rolls, removed from any positions of responsibility and be kept away from flame and sharp objects.

      Delete
    2. "...when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the “rising Malheur lakes.” Eventually, the lakes flooded “homes, corrals, barns, and graze-land.” Ranchers who were “broke and destroyed” then “begged” the government to buy their “useless ranches.”

      This happened during the 1980's. Uh-Oh ... is there some tarnish on that shining beacon on the hill now?

      Delete
    3. It doesn't seem to matter your political affiliation or who ever was your favorite politician over the years the main thrust has been enlargement and further intrusion of the state into lives of the individual citizen ... whichever party gets elected. The only difference between the politics of the parties after you strip the rhetoric is only one of degree, since they both are heading hellbent toward the absolute state system of tyranny.

      Delete
    4. Waylon, Yes indeed. I am not bashing Reagan, he was one of our greatest presidents of all time, but he was not a god, for pete's sake.

      Also, no matter who is in power, the little bureaucratic termites and cockroaches continue their nefarious work undetected, sapping our rotting foundations...

      This is not a left-right thing. It is a liberty-tyranny thing. President Reagan was on the side of the Angels, God bless him.

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. No it's not. It's diaper-pissing communist propaganda written by big city liberals who've never spent a day in the wilderness.

      And their assessment of zuccotti park is loony. The OWS monkeys turned that place into a unine-soaked shitheap.

      Go share that crap with your fellow lefties and stop stinking up this thread.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Please tell us, good sir, why you consider such a perspective interesting.

      There. Does that get me past the freakin censors?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  32. Odd how some supposedly rational folks swallow down the "official party line" that the issue is vigilantism spewed incessantly by the megaphones of the media. Seems there is another issue involved: The decision by the Federal Government to arbitrarily increase the court imposed sentences in 2013 on the Hammonds, Dwight(73) and his son Steven(46) — which they had already served. The new increased sentence would be for an additional five years. Sounds more like vindictive subjective justice than vigilantism.

    "The initial, and regarded by many as overreaching, federal prosecution resulted in a federal court judge Michael Hogan assigning a 3-month sentence and 1-year sentence for Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr (73) and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond (46) respectively.

    Even federal Judge Hogan stated the prosecution under “terrorism statutes” itself was an overreach and he refused to assign ridiculously high sentences for behavior that almost every rancher has conducted for generations.

    Those sentences were fulfilled by the father an son duo in 2013 with Steven Hammond exiting prison in January 2014. However, it was a decision by the U.S Attorney for the State of Oregon, Amanda Marshall, who called for an appeal to the original sentencing:“Amanda Marshall: Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year.

    Marshall called Hogan’s punishments “unlawful.” The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge’s order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.”

    A review of Amanda Marshall reveals some rather disturbing facts.

    First, she was an Obama appointee. A very left-wing activist appointee who took office October 7th 2011. Marshall had no experience at all as a federal prosecutor before being given the job as a U.S. Attorney for Oregon."

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.