Just In: Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+24 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
It's really starting to heat up for the BLM:


“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”


Note the phrase" limited powers granted to the federal government" above.

If the BLM were to have gone with local law enforcement to enforce a properly filed lien, then this situation would never have come to pass but the BLM did not even think to file a lien (see post Here) but chose instead to perform a military type action.

Too many non-law enforcement agencies have taken policing authority upon themselves which they were never intended to posses.

Just In: Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

For starters, Steve Stockman is a nut-job of the highest order. Similar in many ways to the vast majority of other Republican legislators sent to Washington from the great state of Texas.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of another state that has donated more generously to the pool of right-wing idiots currently occupying the U.S. House of Representatives.

Let's just take a look at this quote, paying special attention to the words I put in bold print;


“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”


Maximum, feasible reliance upon local law enforcement.

Now, let's take a look at this quote from the source article;


Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.


Now I have to ask; Considering the fact that state legislators and law enforcement personnel have chosen to stand with the militia members and the Bundy family, at what point has "maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement" been accomplished?

Does the statute say anywhere in it that the federal government must rely "solely" on local law enforcement? I think not.

IMO, the Bundy family should just pay their grazing fees or get the hell off federal land. As far as the right-wing militia groups go, well I don't know what to tell them other than the fact that hiding behind women is hardly a sign of bravery or patriotism.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
So Obama was president in 98? This started long before Obama became president.

Why the BLM Battle at Bundy Ranch Matters


In response to Bundy’s argument, officials from the National Park Service and BLM have pointed out that the removal of the cattle is based on two U.S. District Court orders from two different judges, the first of which was issued in 1998, yet Bundy has thus far failed to comply with the order. But the federal officials’ message has been lost amongst the claims of a police state and an overreaching federal government from Bundy’s supporters, which has included conservative media outlets.


The court gave the BLM the authority to remove the cattle not Obama.


+29 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

So it takes 200+ armed men and snipers, against one man and a few hundred cows with babies?

B.S.

This was an assault on him, his family, and they did damage to property that he constructed with his own money, for no reason but to damage it. They tore down fencing, damaged water storage containers, and shot two of his bulls because they were a "threat". These were allegedly cowboys paid almost 1 million dollars to go and rustle some cattle, and they were scared of a couple of bulls? Bullspit! They did the damage intentionally, and can now be held liable. Nothing in the court order said anything about removing, or damaging his property, nor, about killing animals.

In fact, backhoes were there, about to dig mass graves for the unmitigated slaughter of his cattle, and the only reason it stopped was the direct objection of the people and the PUBLICITY.

You shine light on things, it has a funny way of changing them, right before your eyes. Sunlight is both cleansing, and revealing, because it showed us the involvement of Reid, among many others. This story is just beginning, I promise you that.


edit on 18-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


+21 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Yes let's attack the messenger. It's apparent that those who side with the BLM also feel they're not required to follow the rules as they expect Mr. Bundy to do. It's clear the BLM did not follow the rules. What is also clear is Dirty Harry didn't say "hey those are residents and constituents in my state. They're being treated like terrorist and not citizens of the US.: Oh wait he does believe they're terrorists. My bad. Guess anyone getting in the way of him fleecing America are terrorists in his eyes.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
As much as I dislike Obama and his gang I can't blame anyone other then the freeloader Bundy.

This started in 93 not 2008.


+8 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22
Yeah well, it doesn't fit the "You didn't build that" and spread the wealth dogma.

Harry wants to spread the wealth with Obama so badly, along with everyone elses, so let's start with his. Oh wait, he's "excluded", right?

No, it's okay, because now, people are looking, digging, into what is really going on. The documents, the companies, the stealth corporations hiding out there that have other intent, and more sunlight will reach into the darkness.

That's the one thing they can't stop, and can no longer hide, now that connections have been discovered. Even the BLM whistleblower video has some great information, and guess who it all leads back to?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what they did, how they handled it, was illegal and highly immoral, but to most Dems, that's a plus for your resume'. For a Republican, it's grounds for removal from office, right?

edit on 18-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:


Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.


It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?

edit on 18-4-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: typos, stupid phone keyword


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal
a reply to: Bilk22
Yeah well, it doesn't fit the "You didn't build that" and spread the wealth dogma.

Harry wants to spread the wealth with Obama so badly, along with everyone elses, so let's start with his. Oh wait, he's "excluded", right?

No, it's okay, because now, people are looking, digging, into whatcis really going on. The documents, the companies, the stealth corporations hiding out there that have other intent, and morw aunlight will reach into the darkness.

That's the one thing they can't stop, and can no longer hide, now that connections have been discovered. Even the BLM whistkeblower video has some great information, and guess who it all leads back to?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what they did, how they handled it, was illegal and highly immoral, but to most Dems, that's a plus for your resume'. For a Republican, it's grounds for removal from office, right?

Reid used the BLM like his own personal mercs. That was clear as day. However, I fear nothing will come of any of this. They're too entrenched with too much influence, both financial and politically. They're all dirty and getting rich off the backs of the American public. It's systemic and it's ugly.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22
I agree, and have the same fears, but, I am comforted by the fact that this got a LOT of attention, from Representatives and Congress, right before an election season.

Trust me, this will stay in the headlines a while, right where Reid doesn't want it. However, that is also why he is now calling people "domestic terrorists", because he is trying to control the direction this takes. Thing is, his batty words are more transparent to see than ever before. He opened his mouth, and a veritable crapstorm is happening because of what he said. Obama is far too enmired in his own public defense, I don't think he will have the time, nor inclination, to come to Harry's rescue.

On the other hand, the sinking Dem ship is about to tip some more, and take on more water. The Relublicans now have an in for the elections, thanks to the Dems. If played properly, this could be a good situation for Republicans as more and more people distance themselves from Reid, Obama, and the Dem party.

Remember, from Dirty Harry's own mouth, "This is not over."

No, not by a long shot. Probably the only truth he has spoken in a LONG time.


edit on 18-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:


Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.


It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?



I saw a video where BLM employees were refusing to aim their guns, and many were apologetic for even having to be there. Some are likely to lose their jobs over their refusals and opinions, but most people would rather stand with who is right, even BLM employees themselves. That video spoke volumes to me.
edit on 18-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

This started in 93 not 2008.

So it begs the question ... why Now?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:


Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.


It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?


It doesn't matter who "they" think is wrong! It's not up to local law enforcement to determine who is at fault, that is for the courts to decide and regardless of their stance, it's law enforcement's job to enforce the court's ruling.

Or maybe you could be so kind as to show me where in the statute it states that it's up to local law enforcement to determine who is right and who is wrong.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Well I hope you're right, but even being a life long Republican, I hold no hope with them either. The leadership at the top of both parties are equally corrupt, equally hold the American people in contempt and are only in Washington to serve their personal interests. These life long stints in Congress need to go and term limits need to be instituted. It's the only way the people will get their government and governance back. No one is watching the store and these people who are supposed to represent us, use their position to enrich themselves under the guise they're doing things for us.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Your source article stopped a bit short, in its quotation of Title 43 USC SS 1733 Chapter 3

(2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

Also:

e) Uniformed desert ranger force in California Desert Conservation Area; establishment; enforcement of Federal laws and regulations
Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary from promptly establishing a uniformed desert ranger force in the California Desert Conservation Area established pursuant to section 1781 of this title for the purpose of enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands and resources managed by him in such area. The officers and members of such ranger force shall have the same responsibilities and authority as provided for in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of this section.


I'm not saying the BLM was not ham-fisted in their attempt to remove the Bundy cattle--they were. But the legal authority of BLM rangers is there in black and white.

edit on 4/18/2014 by Olivine because: add perspective



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish
Please state for the record that you believe absolutely zero bias exists in the courts.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

Yes, let's look at the excerpt you quoted:


Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM.


It seems to me that if the enforcers of law stand against the BLM, then who do you think they think is wrong?


It doesn't matter who "they" think is wrong! It's not up to local law enforcement to determine who is at fault, that is for the courts to decide and regardless of their stance, it's law enforcement's job to enforce the court's ruling.

Or maybe you could be so kind as to show me where in the statute it states that it's up to local law enforcement to determine who is right and who is wrong.



It's up to the states to determine if the federal government has overstepped it's bounds. Hopefully, one day soon, the states will decide enough is enough.
edit on 70758Fridayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Great question and I am still looking for an answer.

I believe in small government not larger but this could have been avoided if he would have paid his fees, but now the Feds are going to look for any excuse to screw him out of everything.

Out of sight out of mind.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
Yes let's attack the messenger. It's apparent that those who side with the BLM also feel they're not required to follow the rules as they expect Mr. Bundy to do. It's clear the BLM did not follow the rules. What is also clear is Dirty Harry didn't say "hey those are residents and constituents in my state. They're being treated like terrorist and not citizens of the US.: Oh wait he does believe they're terrorists. My bad. Guess anyone getting in the way of him fleecing America are terrorists in his eyes.


If you threaten force to achieve a political objective you are a terrorist by definition.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: thesaneone

This started in 93 not 2008.

So it begs the question ... why Now?


Several reasons.

The most recent 86 page BLM report published last month stating that the area in question had to be cleared of cattle (plus other things).

That was all because the Dry Lake solar project environmental impacts are being accommodated.

And then all the conflicts of interest between all the authorities involved.

The most recent court order from last October gave the final amended orders to clear the cattle off the BLM land.

The last BLM roundup two years ago also ended up being abandoned by the BLM in similar fashion like the other day.

Lots of boondoggles happened over the last few years.

Very complicated and complex.

You might want to check some the other recent threads for details.

There's a long list of information, most of it is verified.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join