Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Oath Keepers alert, patriots mobilizing, calling for "boots on the ground" at Bundy Ranch.

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Coalition of Western State Legislators, Sheriffs, and Veterans Stand Vigil in Support of Embattled Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy ‘To Prevent Another Ruby Ridge or Waco”.

Action Alert: Boots On The Ground Need Donations for food and water at Bundy Ranch Standoff.


Oath Keepers is calling for Boots On The Ground. Because this is a federal incursion we are calling for volunteers from all over America. Anyone who can, please get to Nevada ASAP.

Stewart Rhodes is on a jet right now ( Thursday morning, April 10, 2014) and will arrive there this afternoon.

Early reports indicate a ground-swell of Patriots is building already on-site.

This is a mobilization, with Sheriffs, Legislators, organization leaders, Patriots of all sorts, and especially Oath Keepers!, all showing up to stand united on the land.

...please tell everyone you know to be praying for a peaceful resolution to this situation and for the safety of the brave patriots headed there and on the ground there right now.

Oath Keepers is asking all who cannot make the trip to the Bundy Ranch in Nevada to assist this mobilization by donating for food and water for the “Boots On The Ground” who will stand to oppose the idiocy of the BLM/federal government.

It is necessary that current serving public servants step in-between the protesters and the BLM, to protect the rights of the people and to prevent violence against them by the militarized federal law enforcement...

Looks like Oath Keepers is taking this situation very seriously and as always, is asking and praying for a peaceful resolution.

What are we talking about here: past due lease payments, cattle, turtles...

At most, the government should have reacted with notices and a possible law suit.

Was it really necessary for the government to descend upon these ranchers with military weaponry and set up Bush era "free speech" zones?

Is it that difficult to understand that violence begets violence?

After decades of pre-emptive warfare, maybe thats all they know?

Or could it be that they are trying to provoke something?



edit on 10-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Haven't been following this all that closely, just reading the other thread here and there, but is this a chicken-egg thing? Who swarmed the place first and why? From what I gather, this rancher didn't pay and is trying an eminent domain move in reverse, so to speak. And yea, well Oath Keepers are saying it's to prevent another Waco or Ruby Ridge, but why do I get the very strong feeling it's more like to provoke? All their words won't mean a damn thing if a stray bullet flies or a pot bangs on either "side." Asking for trouble if you ask me. It'll be interesting to see how many show up and what does or doesn't happen. Keep us posted.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   


Looks like Oath Keepers is taking this situation very seriously and as always, is asking and praying for a peaceful resolution. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


It's about time the Oathbreakers did something other than talk about what they won't do. We'll see how sincere he is when the metal meets the meat.

I have no respect at all for any of them. The constitution has been violated repeatedly while these faketriots talk, talk, talk.

More likely Stewart Rhodes is flying out so he can get a sound bite on the 6 o'clock news so he can reel in a few more suckers to send him money.

If the SHTF all you will see of Stewart is the bottoms of his feet and his back as he runs.





posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


wow bump



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This explains a few things. Im interested to see how this plays out.

Is this currently a fluid situation?


+31 more 
posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Here's my take on this.

Bankers, corporations, government agencies break all sort of laws all the time. They get slapped on the wrist, some scapegoat goes to jail, a policy statement is made, a few others give speeches, and everything is settled.

But Joe Citizen allegedly does something against a government agency?

Send SWAT, deny free speech, remove all rights, and police-state tactics!

I'm seeing a disconnect here.
edit on 10-4-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Wait...they're allowing free speech while keeping the free speakers in a safe area should bullets fly...from either side. Isn't that the reasoning behind these free-speech zones? So that things don't get out of control an dangerous? Mob mentality and all that? I don't remember anymore, but it sounds like compromise to me. Isn't compromise a good thing anymore?
edit on 4/10/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Of course, there is often a "gentleman's agreement" with Feds and people who use the land ... until there isn't. Just ask the people who owned and operated a century-old oyster farm that was there before the Feds established a marine sanctuary on top of them. They had all kinds of agreements, too, until ... they didn't, and now a century old farm that pre-existed the sanctuary and continued to operate with a more or less gentleman's agreement with the government no longer exists because this administration decided they were no longer gentleman.

This is a similar situation, and the government is seizing the cattle.


+9 more 
posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


No offence Lucidity,
From your two post here I get the feeling that you believe people should bend a little, go with the flow so to speak.
How far do they have to bend before they break?
How long do they go with the flow til they are washed away?

Free zones are not set up to protect anyone but the Government. We are supposed to be free. What we see happing now is little by little that freedom being removed.
People bend, they go with the flow, then one day they wake up in a world where they can only use their freedoms in specific zones and wonder how they got to that point.
At some point we have to say enough is enough.
Quad



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I always love what you have to say my friend.

Maybe this is the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.

We do not know what will spark it but i agree with beezzer here. Corporations and big banks and big government have been screwing us all. Its the same up above you, only no one cares here. So it seems. The pivot of world wide change is in america, and so the dominos will fall. Lets just make sure we attack the right people. Cops are a paycheque away from joining the other side.
edit on 10/4/14 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Was there a trial? Did a court of law find this rancher guilty?

If not, isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven otherwise?

If there was a trial, why hasn't it been mentioned?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Further, is the feds are doing this over the desert tortoise ... well, they're the big ones for environmental studies. It seems to me the cattle have been using the land since the late 1800s alongside the tortoises. Where is the environmental study that shows a negative impact on the tortoise from the cattle? Seems the two have been getting along thus far. If the cattle had a major negative impact, the tortoise would have been long gone from the area, not still hanging around.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It went to court two times and two times he (Bundy) lost. US v Cliven Bundy (pdf) It is a good read.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

NiteNGale2
reply to post by beezzer
 


It went to court two times and two times he (Bundy) lost. US v Cliven Bundy (pdf) It is a good read.


Many thanks!

I guess he is guilty, according to the courts.

Instead of claiming his heard illegal, why don't call them undocumented?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I'm not sure what, but something just doesn't seem right about this situation. Quasi- military tactics? Free speech zones? A call to arms? With everything that has been going on lately THIS is what warrants all of this drama and buildup? Not Holder thumbing his nose at the elected representatives of the people of the United States of America? Not any number of true despotic measures advanced upon the people on a daily basis? This? Really?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
So let us try and make things clear. This is goverment land. The Rancher has been putting his cows on it under a lease agreement with Government for a long time. The Rancher has not payed any of the fees to lease that land since 1933. He does not claim the land just that he has the right to graze it for free. The Govemrent just sent letters and never did much beyond that. Until an endangered and protected desert tortiose was discovered to have moved into the area and the cows were wrecking its habitat. Now the Goverment got more forceful and told the rancher remove your cows from our land or we will. The rancher refused. Private contractors were hired to go in and move the cows. As a part of this they closed off the fedreal lands in the area with law enforcement. The rancher gets mad and calls his buddies to do something. Police and protestors have words. In the end they will work out some sort of deal to allow the cows on to other federal land away from the tortiose and most likely with forgiveness of past fees so long as they payed from now on. That is how these things normally work out. These idiot oathkeepers/militia people will do some grandstanding and take lots of pictures and delclare victory while being compeletly ignored by everybody involved. I know we want to make this a story about the evil government but, what it really comes down to is the government just letting the guy as he wanted for all this time and never doing anything about it until they had to.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NiteNGale2
 


There has been tension between the feds and the ranchers for several decades. Ranchers "buy" leases for grazing (which are extremely costly), pay monthly grazing fees. Not sure what the grazing fees are this year, they use to be $3.65 per cow unit per month. So if you have 100 head out on free range that $365 per month per year. Hell of a lot more money than campers and hunters provide. So this is not welfare ranching, just the tree huggers and feds failing to mention the income so they have more public support and sympathy.

Now this said lease can be taken away or reduced at the whim of the government. Ranchers have to be good stewards of our land or they loose money on their product. Ranchers build fences, trails, supply water and salt and mineral blocks which are beneficial to wild life. I see no camper or hiker providing the native wildlife has adequate water and feed, do you? Wildlife has increased because of local ranch practices. Remember Lewis and Clark -- they almost starved.

Ranchers need to have a herd size of roughly 500 in order to make ends meet most years. Keep in mind that said ranchers have to own a required amount of private land before they are eligible to bid on grazing permits. So, the rancher goes to the bank with his business outline and manages to get a loan for cattle, equipment, feed and vet supplies and when all of this is finally final, guess what?? The federal government drops his grazing limit from 500 to 75 and then can you guess what happens to the rancher? I have seen it happen multiple times and I firmly believe the BLM and Forest Service actually have a climax when they pull a business out from under a family. It makes them feel real good.

So back to the rancher in Nevada. About time.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Did the tortoise just move there or has it been there all along? Sometimes, it seems to me that these things are discovered all too conveniently.

It wouldn't surprise me at to discover that the tortoise has always been there, the cattle are not wrecking its habitat, but the government now finds it convenient to use the extra leverage to provide an excuse to go all totalitarian on the this man and his cows.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 

The turtle has been there all along. Yes, it co-exists with said cattle. The most dangerous thing for them is highway crossing. The same thing occurred in Arizona along the Mexican border with fears of some stupid toad. The Feds fenced off water tanks paid for by the ranchers and forced ranchers to take their stock off the land. Anyone remember the endangered cat scandal in the pacific northwest? DNA proved the hair the tree huggers used to "salt" the area came from a stuffed cat on display at a museum. Anyone paying attention to the biggest land grab by our federal government this past year? They went after marsh land -- loaded with underground resources. Same as the land grab in the Dakotas -- lots of natural gas.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I am so glad you opened up this line of discussion. I need to add that the most precious resources in this Nevada Rancher's area is WATER. Las Vegas, Phoenix, and California are scrambling to get enough for their golf courses and swimming pools.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent. Peace.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join