It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I know that your OP only contained the three letter acronym associated with this topic, in the segment quoted directly from the news article, and I appreciate your effort to ensure that your actual post was as clear as it was. However, can I just put my hand up here, and ask that people discontinue use of the acronyms, unless they are talking about intelligence agencies?

There are too many alphabetical abortions running around here as it is, and I think we need to stamp that crap out.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, no...how 'bout if I use a video to refute it though!



What's Really Going on in Oregon! Taking Back the Narrative ! KrisAnne Hall



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

IKR? Hehe, seriously though, I'm with you on that, TrueBrit. I try to avoid acronymizing as much as possible, because it annoys me too. It especially annoys me when it turns into a bunch of them that I don't know yet. Then I have to stop and decipher them just to figure out what the posters are trying to say just because some folks are too lazy to do a little typing.
The Bureau of Land Management, though. That's a handfull to type out every time...they're kinda like an intelligence agency. Lots of sneakiness and underhanded tactics, it would seem. Perhaps we could make an exception? I'm with you on in my opinion, as far as I know, if I remember correctly, I know, right?, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Did you just try to refute the Constitution with a Youtube video? Lol.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Did you know she was fired from her job in Florida. Well, she was "allowed to retire" ... do you know why?

Her asinine legal opinions.

She's repeating the same claptrap every Sovereign goofball does.

Care to actually address what I said on your own?
edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Did you know she was fired from her job in Florida. Well, she was "allowed to retire" ... do you know why?

Her asinine legal opinions.

She's repeating the same claptrap every Sovereign goofball does.

Care to actually address what I said on your own?

You are so intelligent, have a quick mind and I can tell you have studied many subjects. I always read what you have to say when I come across your posts even though I rarely agree with you, ha ha, but I can assure you I would be more willing to consider what you have to say if you left out words like, "asinine," "claptrap" and "goofball" in describing someone you dismiss, such as you used in the above reply.

That kind of language takes away from the integrity and meaning of your (and plenty of others') posts in my perspective. That goes for anywhere I see people commenting on the Internet.

It is glaringly obvious, and only a snail might miss it, you despise those who call themselves sovereign going by how you've repeatedly described them in various posts. That doesn't help me to understand who they are and how they differentiate themselves. I first came across the word sovereign being used by people years ago who were making a spiritual stand against the trappings and control mechanisms of this world and were feeling beleaguered by the systems we live under. I wasn't paying attention to any emerging sovereign movement which has apparently evolved into whatever it is now.

Thank you for listening.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I actually just linked a video that upholds and enumerates the constitution in much clearer and more articulate terms than I could, or care to at the moment. This side argument is Gryph's baby, not mine. I told him to trot it out here if he wanted to, but like I said in my initial response to him:

The fact that the constitution itself does not authorize and in fact specifically prohibits the federal government from owning vast tracts of land is more of a side issue to the BLM's dirty tactics in this article, and I would personally rather discuss the BLM's dirty tactics and corruption than the constitution's position on federal land ownership. The article does focus more on the BLM than the 'enclave clause', wouldn't you agree?

While the side argument is interesting, then, I'm not trying to get too sidetracked with it really.

The title of the thread is: Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory. Thought maybe I should remind you guys.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Did you know she was fired from her job in Florida. Well, she was "allowed to retire" ... do you know why?

Her asinine legal opinions.

She's repeating the same claptrap every Sovereign goofball does.

Care to actually address what I said on your own?

That's cute. What do they call that, when you attack the source instead of the content of the article? Ad homenim, is it? Whatever they call it, looks like you're doing that here.

Furthermore, there is no mention of filing UCC forms, trillion dollar leins, corporate soles or strawmen or any of that stuff. Nice try, but no. She's actually arguing the constitution in there. Argue against the content if you want to make your point, don't just go 'she's a sovreign!', and act like that settles it, as if it were even valid. None of that sort of philosophy is even presented in that video. What you're saying is not an honest portrayal of her arguments.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Attacking the source? LOL. So stating the facts about the "star" of your video is an attack? Okay. Ad hom is when I refute an argument by attacking the one arguing. Did I attack you? Or did I simply point out the facts about your apparent hero, to wit, that she actually lost her job as an attorney because of her extremist approach to the work?

Might reread.

LOL ... speaking of straw-men ... quote where I stated that Chris Anne/Krissann is a "Sovereign CItzen" ... QUOTE IT ... and when you can't you can apologize for such a blatantly untrue statement.

I'm not arguing against "her points" ... I stated the simple facts about the sources of her "arguments" in your video, and I stated simple facts about her dismissal from the last job she held as "a Constitutional attorney." Sorry to state the truth about your champion ... LOL.

Why don't YOU argue against my points made DIRECTLY from the Constitution itself?

Instead of posting a video of someone else's opinions why not argue for yourself?

Start there.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: noted



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
So very little has been covered in the general media that I wonder just how few Americans are viewing Burns through anything but the Orwellian Doublespeak that serves those in power. When a farmer has a well their family paid 100% of the cost of drilling on property constantly owned, maintained and Most Especially taxed every year over generations has a problem requiring they sink a new well for the house is blocked by the "Gubmint" because all the water now belongs to USI & the UN, they become "anti-government."

There are a few more labels I take issue with. Someday soon, you may be headed for the re-educations camps (Gulags) if: you are "reverent of individual liberty," and "suspicious of centralized federal authority" are possible "extreme right-wing" terrorists (which can be made to mean whatever they want, including self-defense), embrace "individual liberties" and honor "states’ rights," are arbitrarily determined by some faceless bureaucrat to exhibit characteristics, as potential "extremists" who are likely to be members of "hate groups" or use outdated, incendiary terms like "Founding Fathers" you might be an "extremist."

Under ordinary circumstances I would have turned that into an homage to the "You Might Be A Redneck" jokes, but there's nothing funny about this.

Take a look at this map and bear in mind that Red is land to be "Core Reserves & Corridors, Little to No Human Use", Yellow "Buffer Zones, Highly Regulated Use", the (nearly non-existent) Light Blue "Normal Use -- Zones of Cooperation", Orange "Border 21/1a Paz Sidebar Agreement of NAFTA 124 Mile Wide International Zone of Cooperation", Pink "Native American Reservations" (I'm assuming that's correct. If the land is being set aside for immigrants from India then I shouldn't have made the change) and Lavender "Military Reservations".

Does this look like the "Land of the Free" to you??




edit on 2 15 2016 by CornShucker because: fix syntax

edit on 2 15 2016 by CornShucker because: added dropped word

edit on 2 15 2016 by CornShucker because: added dropped word



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Did you know she was fired from her job in Florida. Well, she was "allowed to retire" ... do you know why?

Her asinine legal opinions.

She's repeating the same claptrap every Sovereign goofball does.

Care to actually address what I said on your own?

You are so intelligent, have a quick mind and I can tell you have studied many subjects. I always read what you have to say when I come across your posts even though I rarely agree with you, ha ha, but I can assure you I would be more willing to consider what you have to say if you left out words like, "asinine," "claptrap" and "goofball" in describing someone you dismiss, such as you used in the above reply.

That kind of language takes away from the integrity and meaning of your (and plenty of others') posts in my perspective. That goes for anywhere I see people commenting on the Internet.

It is glaringly obvious, and only a snail might miss it, you despise those who call themselves sovereign going by how you've repeatedly described them in various posts. That doesn't help me to understand who they are and how they differentiate themselves. I first came across the word sovereign being used by people years ago who were making a spiritual stand against the trappings and control mechanisms of this world and were feeling beleaguered by the systems we live under. I wasn't paying attention to any emerging sovereign movement which has apparently evolved into whatever it is now.

Thank you for listening.



So, in short, you'd like for me to use terms that you don't find politically offensive?

Tweetie, let's do this. You post as you choose, and I'll do the same. If you are offended by my word choice, or the fact that I speak my mind ... so be it. Either read or don't read, but don't quibble over my vocabulary choices. If you have a argument about a matter of fact, or my logic, share that ...

I don't "hate" Sovereign Citizens ... I don't even know any personally, but I certainly recognize the rhetoric and I can easily see the negative effects such is having on the lives of American citizens. And while we're critiquing verbiage, why would you make such an insinuation, that my contentions about the positions these people promote is merely some sort of emotional distaste? By doing so you reduce my philosophical and factual disagreements (which I have made clear on multiple occasions) with the absurd, ill-conceived, nonsensical, glaring ERRORS that these folks regularly pimp for in regard to our Constitution, System of Government and way of life.

You'll pardon me, I hope, if my opinion differs from yours in that regard.

Thank you for listening as well.



EDIT: I don't mean to be harsh to you, but this a subject I am passionate about. The Sovereign Movement's tenets, combines in far too many cases with the appealing ludicrous teachings of Cleon Skousen which results in too many of these basically good people particularity out West ... like Lavoy Finicum getting caught up in situations like the Malfeur Refuge Standoff. We saw the sad, tragic end of that scenario.

Finicum was SACRIFICED to this absurd movement by the Bundys. Cliven actually STATED that fact.

So, if I, even in mere philosophical diatribes on a conspiracy site, stand against these people like the Bundys and others who propagate this nonsense ... again, I hope you'll forgive me.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
It only takes a few seconds to find literally dozens of examples of the heavy-handed tactics going on out West. To try to say that they aren't all connected is, at best, speaking from an uninformed distance or, at worst, being willfully ignorant because it's "somebody else's" problem.

Everyone who hasn't already closed their mind on this issue should go read this article. What's not being broadcast is that the people in Burns are much more afraid of the armed men in black tactical gear with no patches or insignia that are still occupying the town and general area than they ever were of the citizens that tried to make a stand.

This is happening all over the Western US and things are never going back to what once was no matter who gets elected (if we actually get that far).

It took all of five seconds to find this. I've only quoted enough for you to see what these people are up against.:

Bureau of Land Management set to close 600 miles of Colorado roads
By Marjorie Haun, September 25, 2015


In an interview with Watchdog Arena, Jody Green, a member of Public Lands Access Association and long-time activist working to preserve access into federally-managed lands, said, “It’s ludicrous, what they’re doing. They’re not following state or federal law.” Mr. Green then cited Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 43. According to CRS 43-2-201, closures of roads or public highways by any governing body other than “a municipality or county” are illegal. That clause prohibits federal officers from closing any route.

According to Colorado law, only the county has the right to do what the BLM has done and is attempting to do in Mesa County.

But federal law may also prohibit the BLM’s road closures as well. Revised Statute (RS) 2477 was devised by the United States Congress in 1866 to govern roads, routes and rights-of-way in western states. RS 2477 placed all decisions regarding roads on public lands within the jurisdictions of counties and states. Although the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), repealed RS 2477, the language within the new act served to “grandfather” in RS 2477.


So, in plain language, they've been told, "The law only applies to YOU. We're gonna do whatever we want whenever we want and you can't do a d@mned thing about it!"



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: CornShucker

One example from Colorado cannot be spread across the entire West.

Ms. Haun is interpreting Colorado law in favor of her own agenda.

However, the People of Mesa County can certainly seek redress in the Courts. As other States, counties and individuals have.

And should, it won't be difficult to find the funds to do so I am certain given the political climate.

Petty bureaucrats overstepping the authority of their offices does not imply that the entire Federal government is doing the same.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, I actually just linked a video that upholds and enumerates the constitution in much clearer and more articulate terms than I could, or care to at the moment. This side argument is Gryph's baby, not mine. I told him to trot it out here if he wanted to, but like I said in my initial response to him:

The fact that the constitution itself does not authorize and in fact specifically prohibits the federal government from owning vast tracts of land is more of a side issue to the BLM's dirty tactics in this article, and I would personally rather discuss the BLM's dirty tactics and corruption than the constitution's position on federal land ownership. The article does focus more on the BLM than the 'enclave clause', wouldn't you agree?

While the side argument is interesting, then, I'm not trying to get too sidetracked with it really.

The title of the thread is: Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory. Thought maybe I should remind you guys.


What I just watched was you countering a direct quote from the Constitution with some dude on Youtube's interpretation of the Constitution. You can spin that anyway you want, but that is what happened.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Back on topic, here's another article by Mr. Jasper:
War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming
I thought this snippet related to BLM abuse of power and the double standard present within our federal system when it comes to addressing government corruption:

Senator Reid, Nevada’s senior senator, is very incensed when the American people, i.e., ordinary citizens, “violate the law” — as he puts it — but he says nothing about the more serious violations of the laws and the Constitution by public officials, such as himself or the BLM officials.

This is the same federal BLM that Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada last year ruled had been engaged in a decades-long criminal “conspiracy” against the Wayne Hage family, fellow ranchers and friends of the Bundys. Among other things, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.” In fact, the government’s actions were so malicious, said the judge, as to “shock the conscience of the Court.” Judge Jones granted an injunction against the agencies and referred area BLM and Forest Service managers to the Justice Department for prosecution.

Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No. Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.

Here's some more reporting of federal agencies running roughshod over the people while those responsible for upholding justice do absolutely nothing about it.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Here's another one about the BLM. Looks like some of them boys have been making a little money on the side selling wild horses off for slaughter, in a method that is not entirely legal.
It’s time to dismantle the BLM, a criminal enterprise

BLM employees and contractors have been the driving force behind the horse-to-slaughter program, which has been ongoing since the 1980s and possibly even prior. This has been demonstrated by the criminal prosecutions of horse theft and sales to slaughterhouses by such cases as have been filed in Texas, Wyoming, Oregan, and Utah. But none have been filed in Colorado, which has been the hotbed of agency corruption. See U.S. v. Hughes and U.S. v. Tomlinson.

BLM director Jim Baca, had a short-lived tenure of only nine months as head of the agency. Baca’s concern for the wild horses and their plight under the corrupt BLM led to his being fired by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in 1994. His termination was cheered by the Cattle Association and in particular by Mike Fusco, field coordinator of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. Fusco said, “One down and 99 to go,” as Babbitt, whose family was in cattle ranching and tied to slaughterhouses, would request and accept Jim Baca’s resignation and put to rest the investigations into BLM degradation of the American wild horse.

Jim Baca was intent to clean up the BLM, but the cattle barons would have none of it. They have always been in control of this agency. They have since the beginning wanted all wild horses sent to slaughter. That war continues today between the horse and the cattle interests.

and then

BLM managers getting wind of the investigation obstructed justice and the investigation. The Department of Interior went so far as to attempt to quash the investigation: they were able to limit the prosecution to low-level employees but protected the higher-ups at the BLM. Then they interfered with the Department of Justice to such an extent that the DOJ finally just gave up, and no one was even prosecuted.

Lawyers from the Department of Justice urged that no prosecution be carried out because of the extent of tolerance for the program within the BLM for this horse-to-slaughter program, which was widespread within the agency, including those in management.

The philosophy of the BLM is “Nobody gives a damn about these horses.”

Note to BLM: We do!

By the beginning of the 20th century, there were an estimated 2 million wild horses roaming the American range. Many were shot to make room for cattle and sheep grazing. Waterholes were poisoned, and horses were hunted, trapped, run over cliffs, and killed. By 1970, estimates were that less then 10,000 wild horses still remained free.

Congress was persuaded to pass the Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, brought about by a groundswell of humane organizations and individuals that cared for the plight of these animals and their torrent of mail to Congress.

This legislation was intended to end the sale of wild horses to slaughter, but it did not.

They don't hate all ranchers, then. Looks like they're perfectly willing to work with the bigger ones, as long as the price is right...

It also appears as though legislation passed to remedy the issue was largely ineffectual, apparently due to corruption within our federal system.
edit on 16-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: to fix my quote



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Regarding ex-Judge Robert C. Jones of the District of Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not only reversed the ruling, but stated quite clearly that Judge Jones was in the wrong in his "capricious" ruling in U.S. v. Hage:



The panel vacated in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment on the merits, and remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge, in an action brought by the United States for damages and injunctive relief alleging that E. Wayne Hage (now deceased) and Wayne N. Hage grazed cattle on federal lands without a permit or other authorization.

The panel held that the Hages violated applicable federal statutes and regulations, as well as the Nevada state law of trespass because between 2004 and 2008, the Hages’ cattle grazed frequently on lands owned by the United States and the Hages did not hold a grazing permit or other grazing authorization during that time. The panel also held that the district court erred in concluding that, because of their water rights, the Hages had an “easement of necessity” to access water sources. The panel held that the Hages’ counterclaim under the Administrative Procedure Act was barred by the statute of limitations.


And in an unusual turn, the Ninth Circuit panel made a rather personal assessment on Jone's faulty ruling ...



The panel held that the district judge was biased against the government agencies, and directed that on remand the
case be assigned to a different district judge.


And even further ...



A dispassionate observer would conclude that the district judge harbored animus toward the federal agencies. Unfortunately, the judge’s bias and prejudgment are a matter of public record. On the first day of the 21-day trial, the judge stated: “the Bureau of Land Management, you come in with the standard arrogant, arbitrary, capricious attitude that I recognize in many of these cases.” “[I]t’s my experience that the Forest Service and the BLM is very arbitrary and capricious.” “Your insistence upon a trespass violation, unwillful—your arbitrary determination of unwillfulness [sic:
willfulness] is undoubtedly going to fail in this court.”

At a pretrial motions hearing, the judge advised a thirdparty rancher that he could file a lawsuit against the government and that “[h]opefully you’ll get Judge Jones because I’m very receptive to Mr. Hage’s lawsuit.” Addressing Hage, the judge stated: “You have a court that’s very receptive and sympathetic to your claim.”



Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - US v. Estate of Hage
edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for the passionate reply.

Would you consider this website I happened across to be a reasonable representation of legal facts concerning federal public lands?

"Our American Public Lands"

I think I'm pretty confident at this point I would not want the states to take over the individual lands because they more than likely would be sold off for mineral development, etc.

A page from the website, "ClimateProgress," gives a lot of detail but I'm not sure what to make of the website right now. See the graph showing, 'Funding the Bundy Land Seizure Agenda," and it's quite shocking to me to see how many groups have formed to put effort into funding and influencing what happens to western lands.

Climate Progress

I'm still not comfortable with BLM's activities.

I like wildlife refuges. I'm a certified nature gal since childhood. I don't like micro-management of designated wildlife refuges. I've witnessed it.

I don't live in the west. I don't have an ancestral line that does. I don't know first hand what's it's been like out there with all of the pressure to force out cattle ranchers who've been grazing their cattle on what are/are now federal lands. It's easy to make judgments from afar but I am trying to understand without siding with one side or another.

It seems there is more and more pressure on lands to expand people's businesses which depend upon taking resources out of the ground.
edit on 16-2-2016 by tweetie because: correction



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

You know, I would like to say something publicly, if OP BadCabbie and the mods would indulge me.

I did come back on you fairly hard. I do use "expressive" language in posts that probably doesn't add a whit, per se, to the worth of the conversation. You were politely pointing that out to to me, and my response to you was at the least, non-proportionate.

The Constitution and our system of government IS a passionate subject for me. And I have a hard time not believing that I'm right. LOL.

Anyway ... with that said ... the website you linked to seems to be an extraordinary summation of the actual legal status of lands in the West! Very well done, great find! Particularly meaningful are the portions of the Acts creating each State and the clear references regarding the disposition of public/US owned properties.

Let me jump over to the "other side" of the fence for a minute. I'm a leftist. What that means, in the classical sense, is that I don't trust the government a micrometer. I watch it like a hawk. Power corrupts, particularly petty little bureaucrats who get their first taste of real power by getting a job in the Federal/State or Local Governments.

From my perspective, the city/town/municipality's "government" is the one that needs the most watching, because they have the greatest police power and most likely proximity to interfere with my life on a daily basis. Then the County, the State, then the Federal. I put the likelihood VERY LOW that the "Tyrant Obama" will ever give a hoot about me and mine.

However ...

I am the LAST PERSON who would say that we should roll over and take what the PETTY BUREAUCRATS try to do to us.

Fed, State, County, City, or Property Owners' Association. (I kid with the last, but if you ever want to see a true tyrant, look there).

There are two legitimate functions of government: to maintain the national/state/local infrastructure (Think Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS) and to protect citizens from undue molestation from a) other citizens b) other governments c) other entities (corporations, churches, et. al)

That's a gross simplification, but that's where I come from ... with one proviso: I believe that the US Constitution, as Amended, is one of the greatest political documents ever conceived. NO other system that I am aware of so perfectly balances the rights of the many against the rights of the few and the rights of an individual (apologies to Mr. Spock).

Therefore, when I see the Constitution being waved around like a clown prop in a rodeo ... I see red.

Sorry for the personal response.



edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling

edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling again

edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: And dang it, again



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornShucker

Does this look like the "Land of the Free" to you??




It does indeed!
I see a map of our great country, illustrating that the civilized citizens of this nation respect sound stewardship of our land; for ourselves, our progeny, and the wildlife we share it with.

All of that federal land is owned by you, and me, and all the other free citizens of United States.

The government just manages it for us.

Balancing the competing desires of every stakeholder group is difficult (recreation, logging, grazing, mining, cultural heritage, and wilderness for biodiversity). Considering how few groups are thrilled by the Feds stewardship, they must be doing a decent job.
edit on 2/16/2016 by Olivine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join