Tag Archives: Rand Paul

BLM vs. Bundy: Bundy spews, while Reid calls militia “domestic terrorists”

Bundy militia vs BLMNearly two weeks after a tense standoff between armed BLM agents and a 1,000-strong coalition (of armed militia-men, cowboys on horseback, states’ rights advocates and gun rights activists) over the BLM’s roundup of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from federal rangeland, armed militia campers are still guarding Bundy’s ranch near the town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

67-year-old Bundy says he doesn’t recognize federal authority on the land his family settled and has used since the late 1870s, when Bunkerville was founded. His dispute with the BLM dates to 1993, when the government designated the  Gold Butte area as protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise and cut Bundy’s allotment of cows. Bundy quit paying grazing fees (the current fee is $1.35 per cow per month). The BLM canceled his grazing permit and ordered him to remove his cattle. Federal judges upheld the agency action.

(See “Bundy’s beef with BLM is about Federal vs. State ownership of land in Nevada” and “Leaders of 9 western states meet to take land back from federal govt”.)

In what Bundy advocates call the Battle of Bunkerville on April 12, 2014, the federal government eventually backed off, citing safety concerns. BLM agents were faced with military-style AR-15 and AK-47 weapons trained on them from a picket line of citizen soldiers on an Interstate 15 overpass, with dozens of women and children in the possible crossfire. BLM police released the confiscated 380 cattle, gave up the weeklong roundup, and lifted the closure of Bundy’s vast range half the size of the state of Delaware. The agency said it would resolve the matter “administratively and judicially.”

An armed man stands watch as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's base camp near Bunkerville, NevadaOn April 12, 2014, Eric Parker from central Idaho stood watch on a bridge with his weapon as protesters gather by the BLM’s base camp, where cattle seized from rancher Cliven Bundy were being held, near Bunkerville.

Left unresolved is the federal government’s claim that Bundy owes more than $1.1 million in fees and penalties for letting some 900 cows “trespass” for 20 years on federal rangeland.

According to his son Ammon, Cliven Bundy has since received several certified letters from the BLM, but hasn’t opened them. BLM spokesman Mitch Snow said the letters offer Bundy a chance to keep his cattle if he pays the $1.1 million in trespass fees, plus “reasonable expenses of the impoundment.” Agency officials have said the contract for the roundup was $900,000.

Jonathan Allen writes for Reuters, April 17, 2014, that the federal government’s decision to withdraw in the face of armed resistance has alarmed some who worry that it has set a dangerous precedent and emboldened militia groups.

Ryan Lenz, a writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center that is concerned only with “right wing” terrorism and racism but not the terrorism/racism of the left or of Muslims, fumes, “Do laws no longer apply when the radical right no longer agrees?”

Militia experts say that armed Americans using the threat of a gunfight to force federal officers to back down is virtually unparalleled in the modern era.

Alex Jones, whose Infowars website had helped popularize Bundy’s dispute, called it a watershed moment: “Americans showed up with guns and said, ‘No, you’re not,’ before confronting the armed BLM agents. And they said, ‘Shoot us.’ And they did not. That’s epic. And it’s going to happen more.”

The 5,000-strong Oklahoma Milita has pledged their support to Bundy and vows to take up arms against the BLM if needed.

Energized by their success, Bundy’s supporters are already talking about where else they can exercise armed defiance. They are searching for other Bundys, such as Tommy Henderson, a rancher on the Texas-Oklahoma border who is fighting BLM attempts to seize some of his land.

Cliven BundyCliven Bundy

As for Bundya Mormon, father of 14, and a registered Republican — he’s not just energized but displays every sign of hubris.

He’d taken to the stage fashioned from a flatbed trailer to tell reporters he wants sheriffs around the country to seize weapons from federal bureaucrats. Bundy’s given interviews and daily press conferences on matters ranging far from his dispute with the BLM, including one on April 19 in which he called black Americans “negroes” and wondered aloud whether blacks on welfare would be “better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Bundy’s rants already have alienated whatever supporters he had in Congress:

  • Nevada’s Republican senator Dean Heller had spoken out in defense of Bundy and called for a Congressional hearing on the BLM’s roundup. But now, his spokesman Chandler Smith said that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
  • Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul released a statement today, saying Bundy’s “remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”
  • Nevada state Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said, “I strongly disagree with Cliven Bundy’s comments about slavery.”

The BLM’s backing down is only a temporary tactical maneuver. As Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics puts it, “The likelihood of the Feds ever backing down is highly unlikely, The Federal Government is severely disconnected from the people and views anyone who stands up to them as a criminal and domestic terrorist.”

harry-reidIndeed, two days ago on April 22 on KSNV-TV, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) already called the militiamen who have converged in Bunkerville “domestic violent terrorist-wannabes.”

Reid then ominously predicted that “something is going to happen” that will stop Bundy from grazing his cattle on allegedly federal land:

“It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next. But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen.”

The Battle of Bunkerville may merely be a dress rehearsal for what lies ahead – a rising confrontation between the government and the American people.

H/t FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska, swampygirl and CSM

~Eowyn

Chris Christie secures title as Republican presidential frontrunner: poll

christie

NY Daily News: Republicans are closer than ever to having a frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rising to the top among the GOP contenders.

Christie shines through as the favorite with 24% support among Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents, according to a CNN/ORC International survey released Friday.

Support for the outspoken Republican, who was reelected in November to a second term as governor of the Garden State, jumped from 17% when the last CNN poll was released in September.

Whether or not he will run is the biggest question on the minds of Republicans hoping to take the White House in 2016, since the 51-year-old is touted as the closest thing to a savior the conservative movement will get.

Christie remains demure on his presidential ambitions, saying that only he hopes Washington is watching the success of his policies in New Jersey.

In the new CNN poll, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul came second with 13% support. His numbers were steady since the last survey result.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who was Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick in 2012, posted the third highest support at 11%. His popularity took a tumble from the September poll, when 16% named him as their favorite.

Texas Tea Party darling, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were also listed among the top five picks for the Republican presidential race.

Results reflect responses from a telephone survey of 843 American adults from November 18-20.

For the Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary “What difference does it make?” Clinton dominates as the preferred candidate, with an eye-popping 63% of Democrats saying they would vote Clinton.

hillary

Take our unscientific poll! Who would you prefer for the 2016 Republican candidate?

DCG

President Lucifer wrote the Obamacare regulation to cancel your insurance

Fuhrer Obama by Bill DaviesThe regulation to cancel your health insurance wasn’t in the original version of the unAffordable Care Act, better known and will forever be known as Obamacare.

It was Obama himself who wrote and added that regulation to the bill, which was approved by every Democrat in Congress.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) revealed this at a luncheon in Charleston, South Carolina on November 11, 2013.

Beginning at the 5:40 mark in the video below, Sen. Paul says:

I’m still learning about it [Obamacare law]. It’s 20,000 pages of regulations. The Bill was 2,000 pages and I didn’t realize this until this week, the whole idea of you losing or getting your insurance cancelled wasn’t in the original Obamacare. It was a regulation WRITTEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, three months later. So we had a vote, this is before I got up there. The Republicans had a vote to try to cancel that regulation so you couldn’t be cancelled, to grandfather everybody in. You know what the vote was? Straight party line. Every Democrat voted to keep the rule that cancels your insurance.

Today, the House of Representatives will be voting on a very important bill — HR 3350 to preserve your existing healthcare plans.

It’s important that we move on this now as the House will be voting on this in only a few hours.

Take Action: Tell Congress to support HR 3350!

H/t Patriot Action Network

~Eowyn

Obama’s Benghazigate gets stinkier: Dozens of CIA agents were on the ground during 9-11 attack

us-libya-ambassador-chris-stevens-nationalturk-0455No matter how much the POS airily dismisses his many scandals as “phony,” at least one scandal — Benghazigate — will not go away but is getting ever stinkier.

None other than CNN is reporting that on the night of September 11, 2012, when four Americans — U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — were killed during a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the CIA had dozens of operatives on the ground near the scene.

chris-stevens1Clockwise from top left: Amb. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods.

But the spy agency has engaged in an intimidation campaign of those agents to keep them quiet about the events of that night and why the CIA was in eastern Libya to begin with. The agents have been subjected to frequent polygraph examinations every month since January of this year, more frequent than the routine tests done every three to four years.

Former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer told CNN that “agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that. If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it’s called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they’re looking for something, or they’re on a fishing expedition. But it’s absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly.”

According to Fox News, at least 5 of those CIA spooks on the ground in Benghazi during the attack have been “told” to keep quiet:

One of CNN’s sources described the CIA’s attempts to silence its agents as “unprecedented”: “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

More than keeping those CIA agents silent, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) says the CIA is hiding them from the public, “changing [their] names, creating aliases,” and dispersing them around the U.S.

In other words, the Obama regime is engaged in a massive Benghazi-gate cover-up.

So why were “dozens” of CIA spooks in Benghazi that night?

Breitbart.com reports that Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee, says “We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they [CIA] were moving guns [to Syrian rebels]. So where are the guns?” Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night: “Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went.”

Wolf is currently attempting to create a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack by launching a discharge petition from committee. He needs 218 signatures to take the issue to a vote on the floor.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) first asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a congressional hearing about her knowledge of any gun running coming out of the CIA annex in January. Clinton claimed she did not know anything about the issue and referred Paul to the CIA for such questions. Clinton also callously dismissed the deaths of Amb. Stephens and the other three Americans as old news: “What does it matter?”

Additionally, members of Congress’s Super Eight, (consisting of both parties’ leaders in both chambers, along with House and Senate Select Intelligence committee chairs and ranking members) would have been required to have been briefed on such gun running activity. Five of the eight members have either said they knew nothing about any gunrunning that was happening in Benghazi or claimed the issue cannot be spoken about because it is classified.

See also:

H/t FOTM’s Tina.

~Eowyn

FBI director admits drones used for surveillance of Americans

A quadrocopter drone equipped with a camera stands on display at the Zeiss stand on the first day of the CeBIT 2012 technology trade fair on March 6, 2012 in Hanover, Germany. (credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

More than a year ago, FOTM first posted on the Obama regime’s admission (only because of a Freedom of Information Act request) that unmanned spy drones are deployed not just over war zones like Afghanistan, but also over the United States, and that the government was “considering” arming those drones. In fact, there are 63 active drone sites in 20 states scattered across America.

.

We were told at the time that those drones in the sky over our heads are really for border patrol and to combat terrorism.

Lies.

All lies.

Jordy Yager reports for The Hill that yesterday, June 19, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI uses drones for surveillance within the United States.

But never fear!

Mueller says the drones are used “infrequently” and only to watch “specific targets” “in isolated instances” in regards to “specific investigations” of “particularized cases,” which “is the principle of privacy limitations we have.”

Mueller said, “Our footprint is very small. We have very few and have limited use,” and that the FBI is in “the initial stages” of developing privacy guidelines for how the agency balances civil liberty concerns with security threats.

Mueller made the revelation amid a debate over National Security Agency programs used to collect U.S. phone records and overseas Internet data.

While Mueller told lawmakers that the FBI uses drones domestically only for surveillance purposes, members of Congress have had growing concerns over the use of armed drones.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made headlines in the lead-up to CIA Director John Brennan’s confirmation earlier this year when he delivered a 13-hour talking filibuster aimed at delaying the vote until the administration told him that it could not legally kill U.S. citizens on American soil using a drone strike, which Attorney General Eric Holder ultimately did.

The use of drones by the American military and the CIA to attack terrorists began under former President George W. Bush, but President Obama has increased the use of the armed, unmanned aerial vehicles dramatically — largely in the Middle East — to target individuals his administration suspects are carrying out acts of terrorism.

Obama laid out the administration’s policy and rationale for the increased use of drone strikes abroad in a speech last month, saying that the U.S. “does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists.”

In a letter to Congress the day before Obama’s speech, Holder said that four Americans suspected of terrorism had been killed abroad in “counterterrorism” operations since 2009. In all four instances, drones have been reported as being used. The most widely known case, which initially prompted congressional concern, came in 2011 when U.S. officials targeted and killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike. Al-Awlaki was known for inciting attacks against the United States, such as the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting, the thwarted “underwear” bombing of a U.S.-bound plane the same year and the failed Times Square bombing in 2010.

It was last year in a speech at Northwestern University that Holder first laid out the Obama regime’s justification for targeting U.S. citizens abroad  last year. He said that the regime’s definition of a person who posed an “imminent threat” consisted of three criteria:

  1. There was a limited open window for attacking the person;
  2. A grave possible harm that not attacking the target could have on U.S. civilians; and
  3. A strong likelihood that targeting the person would head off a future attack against the United States.

So when we wake up some morning to the news that someone in the United States had been killed by a drone strike, you’ll know that Pres. Lucifer’s “reasons” for the murder assassination.

Just my humble Public Service Announcement heads-up!

See also “FBI director not sure if Americans can be assassinated on U.S. soil,” March 13, 2012.

~Eowyn

John McCain is a POS

RINO Sen. John McCain was one of the sponsors of the National Defense Authorization Act that gives “authority” to the president and military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

So it really shouldn’t surprise us that he favors capitulation on raising our national debt ceiling — yet again — and is bawling about conservatives Republicans “pushing too far.”

McCainThe Associated Press reports, May 23, 2013:

Tactics for dealing with the government’s budget and debt became the latest quarrel In a string of them between McCain —sometimes joined by other traditionalist Republicans —and Tea Party champions such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida.

Those four won Senate seats by defying the party establishment, and are shaking up the tradition-bound Senate with no-compromise, no-apology stands on key issues like debt and deficits, government spending and the use of drones in the war on terrorism.

McCain himself has defied Republican orthodoxy at times. But he was the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, and he now is among those who say a minority party will accomplish little in the Senate if it can’t find ways to cut deals with the majority.

Cruz, who like Paul is weighing a 2016 presidential bid, renewed his taunts of the party establishment in a speech Thursday on the Senate floor. The more accommodating Republicans, he said, are in cahoots with Democrats to raise the government’s borrowing limit by disabling the GOP’s ability to mount a filibuster threat that could be used to extract spending cuts from Democrats and the White House

[…] Earlier in the day, Lee angered McCain with similar remarks. Lee said Republicans should block a House-Senate conference designed to resolve budget differences because it might ease the Democrats’ effort to raise the government’s borrowing limit. That rankled the sometimes cantankerous McCain, of Arizona. He said the Tea Partyers’ tactics could embolden Democrats who are threatening to change Senate rules that now allow the minority party — or even just one senator— to block various actions.

“That would be the most disastrous outcome that I could ever imagine,” McCain said.

For months, Democrats have complained about Republicans blocking or delaying confirmation of top White House nominees, including some federal judges. Democrats say the impasse over a budget conference is further evidence of a small group of senators in the minority abusing their powers to block actions that in the past would have gone forward after a few speeches.

Supporters of the Tea Party-backed lawmakers say the ongoing IRS and Benghazi controversies have vindicated their sharply partisan, uncompromising views. Republicans cite the controversies as examples of Democratic overreach and obfuscation.

This week’s budget quarrel follows a high-profile split between Tea Partyers and champions of a big defense program over drone attacks, and an intra-GOP disagreement over gun control tactics. It involves an obscure procedural battle and arcane rules governing the congressional budget process. Democrats want to set up an official House-Senate negotiating committee to iron out the gaping differences between the budget plans passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House.

Cruz, Lee and others say they fear House and Senate leaders will use the budget measure to engineer a scenario in which an increase in the government’s borrowing cap could pass the 100-member Senate by a simple majority instead of the 60 votes typically need to overpower the minority on an issue.

McCain and others, like Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., note that House Republicans can block any move by Democratic negotiators to engineer a filibuster-free debt limit increase.

“Isn’t it a little bizarre,” McCain said Wednesday. “Basically what we are saying here on this (Republican) side of the aisle is that we don’t trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who are in the majority, Republicans.”

“Let me be clear. I don’t trust the Republicans,” Cruz responded. “And I don’t trust the Democrats. I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans and the Democrats, because it is leadership in both parties that has gotten us in this mess.”

At a Tea Party rally last month in Texas, Cruz taunted fellow Republicans after the Senate rejected a call for background checks on virtually all prospective gun buyers.

Cruz and other Tea Partyers had threatened to filibuster the gun legislation and keep it from coming to the Senate floor for votes. Other Republicans said the smarter political move — which eventually prevailed — was to let the votes take place, and have a few Democrats join Republicans in rejecting the wider background checks. Cruz suggested that Republicans who favored proceeding with the votes were “a bunch of squishes.”

That earned Cruz a rebuke from the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page — gleefully retweeted by McCain. “Would it have been right for us to not even debate in light of the Newtown massacre?” McCain said.

[…] Democrats say the debt ceiling must be raised to pay for expenses already incurred by Congress. Failing to raise the ceiling, they say, would trigger a catastrophic default on U.S. obligations.

McCain scuffled with the tea party senators in March after Paul launched a filibuster to warn of the threat of unmanned drone attacks against U.S. citizens on American soil. McCain referred to newcomers like Paul and Cruz as “wacko birds” and said their fears of drone strikes against Americans were “ridiculous.”

“It has been suggested that we are ‘wacko birds,’” Cruz said Thursday. “I will suggest to my friend from Arizona there may be more wacko birds in the Senate than is suspected.”

The split between McCain, 76, and next-generation, 40-something potential 2016 candidates like Paul, Cruz and Rubio also illustrates the broader GOP drift toward the right. McCain has spent decades in the Senate, mixing a penchant for confrontation with a capacity for bipartisan relationships and legislation; the new generation is feistier and more wary of compromise.

H/t FOTM’s tina!

~Eowyn

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington – Watch Live

mr-smith-goes-to-washington-1

Remember Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is doing the same thing RIGHT NOW on the Senate floor.

Rand Paul

Sen. Paul is filibustering the POS regime’s appointment of John Brennan as CIA Director because the administration won’t disavow drone killing American citizens on US soil without due process. In fact, the POS’s attorney general Eric Holder three-times refused to answer the question whether it is constitutional for the the United States to use a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil, even if said citizen does not pose an “imminent [national security] threat”.

This is unconstitutional and Sen. Paul said he’s had a enough of unconstitutional actions by this regime and will talk until he can’t do it any more.

Sen. Paul is getting great support from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Will any other senators step in when Paul has to quit? Flood your senators’ phone lines with that question.

This is democracy in action, folks!

Sen. Paul and other supporting speakers are also using this occasion to give the American people an excellent crash course on the threats posed to our liberty by the Obama regime’s drones, as well as the fundamentals of the U.S. government as designed by our Founding Fathers — separation of powers into three co-equal branches, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (especially the Fourth Amendment), and the importance of due process.

Read more in the Washington Times.

Watch Senator Paul live on CSPAN here.

H/t my friend Robert K. Wilcox

~Eowyn