When did Americans become so vile and vicious toward each other?
I’ve said before that a portal to Hell was opened when Obama was elected president in 2008. Since that election, politics have become utterly venomous. More and more, Americans wish death for those who disagree with them.
Even after a tenured professor was fired for maintaining that the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting was a false flag, those who believe the official narrative are not satisfied, but send hate mail to the professor, wishing bodily harm and death to him and his children. (See “Hate mail sent to Prof. James Tracy for being a Sandy Hook skeptic”)
Now, a well-known TV personality openly calls for killing the militia protesters in Oregon.
In December, Ammon Bundy and armed militia members gathered in Burns, Oregon (about 280 miles southeast of Portland), to protest the jailing of local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. (Ammon is the son of Nevada rancher Clive Bundy who had an armed standoff with federal authorities in 2014 over grazing rights. That matter was settled peacefully, after the Bureau of Land Management backed off and left the scene.)
Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven, 46, are due to go to jail for 5 years for lighting fires on federal properties in 2001 and 2006 in order to scale back invasive plants and to protect their private lands from wildfires.
After a peaceful rally in Burns, Ammon Bundy and the militia took over a facility at the Mahleur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns.
Montel Williams is a former daytime TV talk-show host who now does infomercials.
John S. Roberts reports for Young Conservatives, Jan. 3, 2015, that in a series of Twitter messages on Jan. 2 and 3, Williams called for a “shoot to kill” treatment of Bundy and the militia. Here are his tweets:
It appears #OregonUnderAttack by a bunch of undereducated terrorist buffoons who follow #ClivenBundy shall we send them to meet #ISIS.
Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy.
Then let’s give them some – put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders.
And even after other Twitter posters reacted to Williams with outrage, he did not back off but justified his call for killing the protesters with this message at 10:34 PM, Jan. 2, 2015:
I said what I said re Oregon tonight bc these clowns are PURPOSELY endangering LE and threatening armed conflict (by implication) – NOT OK
The next morning, Williams redoubled what he tweeted the day before, with this message at 8:12 AM, Jan. 3, 2015:
I’m calling on Govt to end terrorist siege perpetrated by a bunch of hillbilly American Taliban #OregonUnderAttack
And a second message at 9:22 AM, Jan. 3, 2015:
Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy. #OregonUnderAttack.”
The social fabric of America is not just frayed, it is torn asunder. No country can continue like this for long. ~Eowyn
Add the name, Peter Schweizer, to the death watch list
Andrew Breitbart, Joan Rivers, Loretta Fuddy, Michael Hastings, Ron Johnson, Vince Foster…
President Lucifer and the Clintons have some things in common. People who become inconvenient to them have a tendency to die.
The author of a book hammering Hillary Clinton says he now has full-time security
by COLIN CAMPBELL
The author of a controversial new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that he has arranged full-time security for himself.
Asked during a Bloomberg interview if he received any death threats over his controversial book, “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer would only say he has “security.”
“I’ll just say we have security. And that security is not something that just came because we decided to have security. And we’ll just leave it at that,” he said.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4#ixzz3Yo5hqbko
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to the Clintons. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to Obama. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
Conclusion: Peter Schweizer needs to pray Psalm 91 daily.
The ‘Oath Keepers’ – Volunteers From Military, Law Enforcement – Ferguson MO – Fox & Friends
I was encouraged to see this segment of Fox & Friends this morning. To the critics I say, was anyone hurt or killed by an Oath Keeper in Ferguson? Of course not. Thieves and rioters are lazy. They will always choose weak and undefended targets. Let’s keep this in mind as we live through the next 2 years.
I really don’t have a dog in this hunt. I just knew something was not right. Sure enough the New York Times released an edited version of transcript, and Media Matters Uploaded the same edited Vid to You-Tube. Please read and watch. Then make up your mind. We have been played, and if you’re not pissed off…then I don’t know.
I am ticked Off, All the Cowards who ran for cover.
Beck, Hannity, All the Pols. Cowards all.
First, this is textbook; Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals rule #12
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.
When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.
And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.
And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.
Nearly 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.
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.”
On 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 penaltiesfor 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.
As for Bundy — a 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 19in 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.”
Indeed, two days ago on April 22 on KSNV-TV, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) already called the militiamenwho 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.
Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon, at the standoff against the BLM — the Battle of Bunkerville.
In his long-standing dispute with the federal government over grazing fees, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy consistently invokes states’ rights as his principle. From Bundy’s blog of April 21, 2012, stating his position:
…the State of Nevada owns the lands pursuant to their NRS 321.596 et al statutes (Nevada Public Lands Ownership Act) enacted by Nevada back in the late 1970′s. All the western public lands states adopted this law back when it was called the “Sagebrush Rebellion”. The main component of this law (Public Lands Ownership) has yet to be adjudicated by the courts or by the US Supreme Court. This matter came to the forefront once in the court process and the then Nevada Attorney General filed away this issue by stipulating that the feds owned the public lands in Nevada. The court basically said it had no other choice but to rule in favor of the Feds. (US vs. Nye County). Bundy is following Nevada Law and holds that the 18 year old adverse decision against him that the BLM et al is using does not apply to him because he is not grazing on federal property. The State of Nevada has an obligation to enforce its own law on this matter. Therefore Bundy is not in contempt of any court order since he is not operating on federal property.
Bundy paid grazing fees to the rightful Landlord (Clark County-NV) back in the ’90′s and then they returned that payment to Bundy. […] Bundy still has the county check and he never intended to steal anything and stands ready to pay the rightful Landlord today just like he did back in the ’90′s.
The federal government claims ownership of as much as 80% of the land in the State of Nevada. How did that happen?
Martin Armstrong explains on his global financial markets forecasting site, Armstrong Economics, April 19, 2014:
The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. […]
The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. […] Nevada’s entry would secure both the election [of Lincoln] and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.
The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. […]
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980.Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845.[…]
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada.The Supreme Court states:
“The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.”
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.
The United States of America was founded, not as a centralized state wherein all power is concentrated in the central government, but as a federation wherein political power is diffused by dividing it between a national (federal) government and the republic’s constituent state governments.
Our Founders conceived federalism as one of the institutional mechanisms to check and balance political power so as to prevent government from being so dictatorial as to become a threat to the People’s inherent rights and liberties.
This founding principle of federalism is codified in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But America has been drifting away from the founding vision, with the federal government amassing more and more power, and the presidency becoming increasingly imperial.
For the first time, political leaders of NINE western states have convened to talk about wresting control of state lands away from the federal government.
L to r: Montana House Speaker Mark Blasdel, Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder, Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke, Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart (photo by Scott Sommerdorf, Salt Lake Tribune)
Kristen Moulton reports for The Salt Lake Tribune that on April 18, 2014, more than 50 political leaders (state legislators and county commissioners) from 9 western states convened a daylong closed-door meeting in Salt Lake City, the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, to talk aboutwresting control of their oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the federal government.
The nine western states were Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The summit was organized by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory and Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also attended the meeting and addressed the group over lunch.
The summit, described by Ivory as “It’s simply time. The urgency is now,” had already been in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing.
Utah Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart said, “What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem.” She emphasized that the states’ intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress. “We are not interested in having control of every acre. There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government.”
Montana state Sen. Fielder said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts: “Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands. We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”
Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said, “It’s time the states in the West come of age. We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado.” As evidence, Bedke pointed to how Idaho’s state-managed forests and rangeland have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than lands managed by federal agencies.
Utah state Rep. Ivory said the issue is of interest to urban as well as rural lawmakers, in part because they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education. Moreover, the federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states. Utah gets 32% of its revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands. Ivory warns, “If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger.”
In 2013, Utah’s state legislature passed HB142, which was sponsored by Ivory and signed by Gov. Gary Herbert. HB142 demands the federal governmentmake good on its promises in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state, by relinquishing title to federal lands in Utah. A study is underway at the University of Utah to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control.
None of the other Western states has gone as far as Utah, demanding Congress turn over federal lands. But five have task forces or other analyses underway to get a handle on the costs and benefits.
In an interview with TPN’s Dylan Scott yesterday, April 16, 2014, Richard Mack, former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), said:
“One of our CSPOA members who was there earlier and got there before I did was phoning me and telling me that they were going to be killed. The federal snipers, several of them — I don’t know if you know this — but they were paid mercenaries. They’re contractors. They’re paid hit men.
He saw all the equipment and all the military weaponry that they had, and then he said, ‘Sheriff, they warned us that they were going to arrest us. Then they warned us that they were going to shoot us. I’m calling to tell you that they’re going to shoot us.’ He’s a 15-year law enforcement veteran that was telling me this. He said, ‘Please tell my wife that I love her, and I hope to see you later, but I don’t think so.’
I, at that time, went around the two lanes of traffic onto the side of the road, which is illegal to do, and I turned on my flashers. I buzzed it up there, and I got there right after that part finished, where my guy was that called me. The sheriff had just left, and he was the one that I think made a big difference.
All the people that were there watching, it was about 600, 700 people. My son and I stood there and watched in reverence at one of the most patriotic moments I’ve ever been a part of. There was about 500 people, all with tears running down their cheeks, watching these cowboys and cowgirls take these cattle back to their proper place.”
Here’s a statement from Bundy about all false reports and allegations:
Note: Since I posted the above video yesterday, it’s now been removed. So here’s another video of Bundy speaking to the press:
Meanwhile, FoxNews reports that BLM is being accused of leaving a trail of wreckage behind.
Fox News toured the damage — allegedly caused by the Bureau of Land Management — which included holes in water tanks and destroyed water lines and fences. According to Bundy family friends, the bureau’s hired “cowboys” also killed two prize bulls.
“They had total control of this land for one week, and look at the destruction they did in one week,” said Corey Houston, friend of rancher Cliven Bundy and his family. “So why would you trust somebody like that? And how does that show that they’re a better steward?”