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

a reply to: Flatfish

And what a pathetic bunch of "patriots" they are too! Hiding behind women and all. More like a bunch of cowards if you ask me. I wonder how their strategy of putting their women out front would have gone over at the Alamo?

Are you not telling the truth on purpose or are you ignorant to the facts?

FACT, No one used women and children as shields!!! Richard Mack made the suggestion!

Pathetic!

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

It doesn't matter what bias may or may not exist in the courts.

Really?

Really??

So if bias exists and cannot be overcome through the "regular channels," what other options are there?

You could try electing different judges or those who appoint them, but that would mean that you would have to garner a majority of voters who agree with your ideology and seeing how it's fueled by pure ignorance and fear, I doubt that will ever happen.

Ok, let's say we do this. What about this little applicable fact:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. "

emphases mine

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study


Do you need me to explain the defnition and impact of an oligarchy?

Point being, no matter what the public will is, those in charge do what they want.

originally posted by: Flatfish

It doesn't matter what bias may or may not exist in the courts.

If they feel they have received a bum ruling, they can appeal it to a higher court. Nowhere does it say that local law enforcement are to serve as judges or juries, deciding the issues for themselves. It's their job to enforce the courts rulings, whether they like them or not. Anything less IMO, is just grounds for their dismissal as law enforcement officers.

Mob rule has no place here in America.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Yes Certainly the will of the PEOPLE, has no place here...

ETA:

The only point I agree with you with, is Any Law Enforcement involved in this, should be on the Unemployment line.

Decleration of independnce

originally posted by: xuenchen
Do you know if they are threatening to sue over the Dry Lake project ? (at least partly)

It looks like a large coalition of environmental groups, including the Nature Conservancy, Audubon, the Sierra Club, the Wildlife Conservancy, and others signed on to support the Solar Energy Zone back in 2012.
source
Earlier in 2012, it was reported that 3 environmental groups were not on board, and sued the BLM over it. source
I can't find any more info on that, but I'm guessing their lawsuit didn't go far.


I think you already have this info, but just in case, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the BLM to get moving on Bundy, after they called off the 2012 roundup:

In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy’s cattle at the last minute.

sour ce

Their efforts, I think, are more specific to the Gold Butte area, because for nearly a decade they have been pushing for it to be included as a National Conservation Area.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I couldn't agree more with the study, America is currently controlled by a few oligarchs and the way they've managed to accomplish that feat is by replacing the voice of the actual human voter with the influence of money. In other words, they've determined that money equals free speech and in doing so they have minimized, if not completely muted, the voice of the common voter.

The problem is that those who are screaming the loudest are the very same ones who orchestrated the takeover to begin with and you right-wingers have supported them all the way. Just take a look at the backdrop behind these politicians and explain to me how you can support them knowing full well that they are actually the "long arm" of the oligarchs.







Personally, I don't know haw anyone could possibly even consider giving their support to anyone who is supported by the likes of "Citizens United" or "Americans for Prosperity." It just blows me away to think that anyone could be ignorant enough to throw their support behind a "Citizens United" candidate, yet the Republicans won't have it any other way.

If I didn't know better and seeing how you continue to support them, I'd say that you deserve no better than to be under the rule of oligarchs. You know the old saying; "Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it!"

How many times to you have to get hit over the head before you turn around to see who is hitting you? (Harry Truman)

a reply to: thesaneone

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the execution of a court order.. We are a nation of laws and I believe everyone here is aware of that.

The problem people have (myself including) are the methods in which the court order was carried out along with inappropriate and dare I say overkill on the part of law enforcement..

Not to mention the damage to personal property. I don't care about what you think about the Bundy family... The fact remains that personal property was destroyed and the family (as well as protestors) was assaulted. Plus the backhoes.. I personally believe they were intended to be used on the bodies of destroyed cattle...

Considering the resale value of beef cows I would call the idea of destroying his herd as wasteful and downright irresponsible. If anything they could have been liquidated to pay for the fees, fines and damages accrued by Bundy.

The BLM has a history of destroying animals (even protected/endangered species) for no good reason...

a reply to: Flatfish

...you right-wingers...

So because I am against a federal bureaucracy engaging in militarized operations (why didn't they file a lien?) against a man for unpaid fees, I am a "right-winger?"

What if I told you that I don't think abortion or a certain herb should be banned?

Does that make me a lefty?

I belong to neither party, and think that both need to go. I am about at the point where I think the ENTIRE system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up in such a way as to disencourage the kind of corruption that politicians of all flavors typify; most especially Reid in this particular case.

Trust me, I've no love for any of the fools you pictured.

a reply to: Flatfish

Sooooo you would call yourself a "Left-Winger" then? Or do you prefer "Democrat"?

Either way... you're just as responsible as the rest of us.. Please dismount the high horse pls.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

...you right-wingers...

So because I am against a federal bureaucracy engaging in militarized operations (why didn't they file a lien?) against a man for unpaid fees, I am a "right-winger?"

For starters, I think the government has pretty much filed and won every kind of legal action necessary to prove that Cliven Bundy has refused to pay the grazing fees for having his cattle on federal land and IMO, it's too soon to be filing any liens.

Now, let me ask you this; What happens when you refuse to pay the rental fee on a storage unit full of your stuff? Ever seen "Storage Wars?" They auction it off to the highest bidder, that's what! IMO, Cliven Bundy basically abandoned his herd, no different than someone who abandon their stuff in the unpaid storage unit.

As far as I'm concerned, we should round up any of his cattle that are on federal land, auction them off to the highest bidder and then we could file a lien against his ranch for any remaining unpaid debt.

With respect to whether or not you qualify as a right-winger, I have to admit that I really don't know you personally and I could be totally wrong about that assumption.

On the other hand and for your information, I view anyone who positions themselves with the "I'm no longer Republican," "I'm not Libertarian even though I love Ron Paul," "throw them all out," "the government is the enemy" crowd as "right-winger." If the shoe fits...

With respect to myself, you can call me Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist or even left-winger if it makes you happy because I really don't care. I openly admit to supporting certain aspects of each and every one of those categories and I'm proud of it.

originally posted by: DaMod
a reply to: Flatfish

Sooooo you would call yourself a "Left-Winger" then? Or do you prefer "Democrat"?

Either way... you're just as responsible as the rest of us.. Please dismount the high horse pls.

I view anyone who positions themselves with the "I'm no longer Republican," "I'm not Libertarian even though I love Ron Paul," "throw them all out," "the government is the enemy" crowd as "right-winger." If the shoe fits...

With respect to myself, you can call me Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist or even left-winger if it makes you happy because I really don't care. I openly admit to supporting certain aspects of each and every one of those categories and I'm proud of it.

a reply to: Flatfish

Bad laws and crappy court decisions need to be challenged.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Flatfish

Bad laws and crappy court decisions need to be challenged.

Cheers - Dave

They were challenged, over and over again. Oh yeah, did I mention that Cliven Bundy lost, over and over again? In front of numerous courts and numerous judges!

Now I'm supposed to believe that they're all wrong, but ole Cliven is right? Give me a break!

a reply to: Flatfish

I worked at Public Storage for eight years, so am intimately familiar with the lien process for storage units; at least in my state.

Now, I would imagine that it is somewhat similar for something like the situation at the Bundy Ranch albeit with some variations.

However, I seriously doubt the process takes 20 years being as the first ruling was handed down in 1993.

Now, xuenchen found some intersting lnks to two separate judges with ties to Harry Reid that have ruled against Bundy.

So again, I ask:

if bias exists and cannot be overcome through the "regular channels," what other options are there?

Keeping in mind that "regular channels" includes:

electing different judges or those who appoint them, but that would mean that you would have to garner a majority of voters who agree with your ideology

If the systems we have in place CANNOT bring the change we want, what other options do we have?

Bend over and take it?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Here's those Judges...

There's some more evidence that connects Harry Reid to at least 2 judges in the 9th Circuit Court that were directly involved in two cases from 2013 involving the orders against Bundy.

The July 2013 case order found in favor of the BLM was signed by U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George

Judge George has obvious ties to Harry Reid.

*****

Then, we have U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks, who signed the October 2013 order against Bundy

Judge Hicks also has obvious ties to Harry Reid.

Specifically obvious is a case where a man was convicted of illegally bundling campaign money for Harry Reid and was sentenced by Judge Hicks who blatantly ignored sentencing guidelines.

Hicks said he was deviating from the sentencing guidelines that suggested a minimum of 41 months in prison partly because of Whittemore’s history of extraordinary charitable giving — an estimated $12 million over the past 20 years, much of it to promote medical research, athletics and education at the University of Nevada, Reno. But the judge the crimes were too serious to justify probation without prison time.

Developer Gets 2 Years In Nev. Campaign Cash Case

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Flatfish

Bad laws and crappy court decisions need to be challenged.

Cheers - Dave

They were challenged, over and over again. Oh yeah, did I mention that Cliven Bundy lost, over and over again? In front of numerous courts and numerous judges!

Now I'm supposed to believe that they're all wrong, but ole Cliven is right? Give me a break!

A corrupt system favors the corrupt ;-) I guess that works for you.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I couldn't agree more with the study, America is currently controlled by a few oligarchs and the way they've managed to accomplish that feat is by replacing the voice of the actual human voter with the influence of money. In other words, they've determined that money equals free speech and in doing so they have minimized, if not completely muted, the voice of the common voter.

The problem is that those who are screaming the loudest are the very same ones who orchestrated the takeover to begin with and you right-wingers have supported them all the way. Just take a look at the backdrop behind these politicians and explain to me how you can support them knowing full well that they are actually the "long arm" of the oligarchs.

How many times to you have to get hit over the head before you turn around to see who is hitting you? (Harry Truman)

All of those guys, if left to their own devices would let the corporations write their own tickets, create their own rules and standards.

They would also help those corporations maximize profit that comes from the pockets of American people.

That is the MO, money first without a doubt.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Flatfish

And what a pathetic bunch of "patriots" they are too! Hiding behind women and all. More like a bunch of cowards if you ask me. I wonder how their strategy of putting their women out front would have gone over at the Alamo?

Are you not telling the truth on purpose or are you ignorant to the facts?

FACT, No one used women and children as shields!!! Richard Mack made the suggestion!

Pathetic!

seeker1963, my friend you know what they hate.

They hate it when we Stand Together.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Flatfish

Bad laws and crappy court decisions need to be challenged.

Cheers - Dave

They were challenged, over and over again. Oh yeah, did I mention that Cliven Bundy lost, over and over again? In front of numerous courts and numerous judges!

Now I'm supposed to believe that they're all wrong, but ole Cliven is right? Give me a break!

A corrupt system favors the corrupt ;-) I guess that works for you.

Cheers - Dave

Right, their worried about Cows! We have other more serious problems.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Flatfish

I worked at Public Storage for eight years, so am intimately familiar with the lien process for storage units; at least in my state.

Now, I would imagine that it is somewhat similar for something like the situation at the Bundy Ranch albeit with some variations.

However, I seriously doubt the process takes 20 years being as the first ruling was handed down in 1993.

Now, xuenchen found some intersting lnks to two separate judges with ties to Harry Reid that have ruled against Bundy.

So again, I ask:

if bias exists and cannot be overcome through the "regular channels," what other options are there?

Keeping in mind that "regular channels" includes:

electing different judges or those who appoint them, but that would mean that you would have to garner a majority of voters who agree with your ideology

If the systems we have in place CANNOT bring the change we want, what other options do we have?

Bend over and take it?

For starters, as far as I'm concerned you couldn't possibly have come up with a more unreliable source here on ATS than Xuenchen. I don't know of a single poster that has posted more false information and just plain ole crap than Xuenchen has. He/she jumps on the bandwagon of every idiotic right-wing conspiracy that comes along.

I would wager that Harry Reid has about as much to do with the court rulings in this case, (due to his alleged association and influence over the judges in question) as Barrack Obama had to do with domestic terrorism, (due to his association with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.) Please!

Secondly, I agree that this shouldn't take 20+ yrs. to settle but then neither should a lot of legal challenges that drag on for that long and longer. It's one of the many tactics that lawyers utilize to drag cases out, which enables them to get away with charging their exorbitant fees.

And yes, when you lose every court challenge over a period of 20 yrs., I think it's time to suck it up and admit that you lost this one and abide by the court's ruling. Which by the way, did not include a mandate for anyone to "bend over and take it."

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Flatfish

And what a pathetic bunch of "patriots" they are too! Hiding behind women and all. More like a bunch of cowards if you ask me. I wonder how their strategy of putting their women out front would have gone over at the Alamo?

Are you not telling the truth on purpose or are you ignorant to the facts?

FACT, No one used women and children as shields!!! Richard Mack made the suggestion!

Pathetic!

I didn't hear him suggest a damn thing. What I did heard him say was, "we were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front..."

Here, you can see for yourself;


Apparently, this was their "strategy," it just never came to that.