FBI Investigating Bundy Supporters

a reply to: buster2010

if i threatened you with violence (as in you come to my place and i have a gun and will use it) does this give you the right to turn up at my place armed and with your buddies ?

And you never seen this coming?

If this is the video on that news channel that one cop.. (black) was saying something that never happened.. They were talking about it as that one ex deputy did wit ben swann but it didnt come to fruition..

If you look at the videos you will see this clearly.. it was men, women, and people on horses that was there on the (front) lines.. Not women and kids..

I was refering to this video here.. I didnt realize this was a CNN link..
Vid here cant embed.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: AnteBellum

look what standing up for your constitutional rights in the USA will lead to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please elaborate. How is not paying grazing fees for public land and making money off of it a constitutional right? How is threatening federal agents with guns a constitutional right? What constitutional right would you be referring to?

Uhmmm... Have you really not heard the arguement here?

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Flatfish

They couldn't shoot them all down like they desperately wanted to, too much attention, too many cameras.... Investigation resulting in criminal charges, and making the lives of anyone who was there a living hell is the next best thing..

Who knows maybe some day you'll find a thread here titled:

FBI Investigating ATS Members

I'd just be willing to bet that some ATS members are already being watched by the FBI and rightly so.

When you go into anti-govt. rants and begin promoting and threatening armed revolutions and the like, or pointing weapons at federal agents during a protest, you can pretty much bank on the fact that you will be investigated.

What a bunch of friggin idiots!

Yea. Thats right no one should be allowed to speak their mind if they disagree with you. Where the hell do you live anyways? North korea?

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Phoenix
Seems to me going by the timeline it was federal agents and hired mercenaries that were pointing guns at unarmed protesters during the first days of the Bundy protest. No dispute it was those agents who first resorted to violence either.

Actually, I think it was Cliven Bundy and his wife who first threatened the feds.

When faced with the imminent action by the feds to enforce the court's rulings and possible confiscation of their cattle on federal land, I think they said something to the effect that; "They both had their guns and they were not afraid to use them to protect what's theirs."

So, who threatened who first?

The blm threatened the bundy's. The bundy's said they would defend themselves.

When you go into anti-govt. rants and begin promoting and threatening armed revolutions and the like, or pointing weapons at federal agents during a protest, you can pretty much bank on the fact that you will be investigated. What a bunch of friggin idiots!

Yes, however there are other factors at work here.

That being the fact of some very dangerous groups in America right now. And I'm not talking about 60 year old men with deer rifles and beer guts calling themselves a 'militia'.

One particular group of decommissioned and fired former law enforcement personnel that have gathered in isolated locations in the Ozark Mountains and other places in the south. They have training camps-they are fit, well trained and determined solders that put a huge effort in staying just within the law. They don't have websites that they use to talk big about who they are-while of course cowardly hiding behind a false name.

They don't have internet, comfortable beds, television or any conveniences whatsoever. They are so dangerous that they propose a huge problem for his lordship the Attorney General. They know the area so well-they own thousands of acres of deep forest-it would take infantry brigades from the 101st to ever get them out of there and it would be a bloodbath. They stay just with in the law and allow the Bureau to keep agents amongst themselves.

The Attorney General is a clever man. He fans the flames-or better said the flickering candles of dads bathroom brigade-to keep attention away from groups such as these.

Try and understand that there are also over 180 Al-qedia inspired cells-of American citizens-just waiting for a chance to kill a bunch of innocent people. Some of the ecoterrorist groups in the Northwest-while not solders-are just as dangerous or even more so because many are in deep, deep cover.

That is why stuff like Bundy stays in the news-because no one really wants to know, or admit, that the danger is very real-and it has nothing to do with these fools.

a reply to: buster2010

Grazing fee is a tax, maybe I'm a little loose with the lingo, but whenever I pay the Feds it's a TAX to me.

Definition of tax (n)
1.) strain: a strain or heavy demand
2.) money paid to government: an amount of money levied by a government on its citizens and used to run the government, the country, a state, a county, or a municipality
3.) charge paid by members: an amount charged to members of a club or organization to be used for expenses

You are still missing the point. Yes, IMO Bundy was wrong but the Feds treated him more like a terrorist then a lawbreaker of similar merit or deadbeat in similar fashion. They have shifted there tactics from dealing with these issues in courtrooms to use of 'death' squads. Years ago this would have bounced around in court for many years given the highly debated issue of fair pricing for federal land, whether public, private or protected and state to state. That's why it went on as long as it did, these topics are not new they have been argued for a 100 years! What is new is our governments way of dealing with the people who break the rules. That is my only concern and should be yours also.
We are most likely on the same side on this, I tend to look for trends in the manner things are done on a whole. Years ago if you lived in town and got caught speeding, chances are they would not give you a ticket, then things started to change. Next you had to beat it in court. Now your F'd, no matter what you do! Insurance fees get added the second the ticket is processed whether or not you have gone to court yet.

Obamacare has a clause in it that states if you do not pay, they can elect to use the IRS as the enforcement agency and go after debtors as if they didn't pay their federal taxes. If the new trend for tax deadbeats or any money owed to the Feds is to 'shock and awe', I'm sorry I am getting ready to fight back also.
I've told an IRS auditor to go F!@# himself(he was a stupid narrow minded prick) several years ago and then made him leave my property. Later I received many letters from their attorneys and eventually it was handled by my own.
That WAS the system but it seems they have changed the rules, if you want to sit on your hands with your head in the ground that is your prerogative. As for me I'm getting ready for fight or flight!

a reply to: AnteBellum

But it HAS bounced about in court for years - almost 20 years IIRC! And now we have a bunch of heavily armed militia squabbling within the Bundy homestead, whilst also stopping and questioning local residents who happen to be driving around the general area. Why are these twits there? And what the hell gives them the right to threaten the staff of the hotels where the BLM people were staying?

a reply to: spooky24

I would never of thought we could agree on something!
You are absolutely right.

As it relates to this story, I'm wondering why the Feds are throwing everyone into the same bucket now. Those that pose basically no threat along with those that are very dangerous. Are they trying to make an example of the weakly dissonant. Hoping to thwart other mainstream thinkers, which make up the majority as related to this case, from stepping out of line? Is that why the media blasted this highly debatable story into our minds? Brainwashing us to do what we are told even if we don't agree with the laws or else.

I am very suspect of this situation, along with many that are appearing over the airwaves lately. Things are starting to get out of control. Some are already so connected to the system they are forever enslaved by it.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: buster2010

if i threatened you with violence (as in you come to my place and i have a gun and will use it) does this give you the right to turn up at my place armed and with your buddies ?

You seem to overlook that the BLM was on public land the Bundy's only own 160 acres and that is for farming. So the BLM was never at his place.

a reply to: AnteBellum

The feds were made fools of when they were made to leave, this had to come.

They don't care about the armed BLM with snipers just to remove some cattle or the fact Reid was involved for personal gain, just the people standing up for some rights they thought they had.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Flatfish

They couldn't shoot them all down like they desperately wanted to, too much attention, too many cameras.... Investigation resulting in criminal charges, and making the lives of anyone who was there a living hell is the next best thing..

Who knows maybe some day you'll find a thread here titled:

FBI Investigating ATS Members

I'd just be willing to bet that some ATS members are already being watched by the FBI and rightly so.

When you go into anti-govt. rants and begin promoting and threatening armed revolutions and the like, or pointing weapons at federal agents during a protest, you can pretty much bank on the fact that you will be investigated.

What a bunch of friggin idiots!

Yea. Thats right no one should be allowed to speak their mind if they disagree with you. Where the hell do you live anyways? North korea?

Nope....try Texas.

Everyone has the right to speak their mind and no one is trying to take that right away.

On the other hand, when people choose to exercise that right by promoting armed anti-govt. revolution, showing up at protest armed to the teeth and pointing those weapons at federal agents, they should expect that our government will also exercise it's right to investigate and if applicable, prosecute them for any legal infractions they may have committed.

As far as I'm concerned, they should consider themselves lucky that they didn't already get their asses shot off. I know that's what would happen to me if I chose to point a weapon at a law enforcement officer here in Texas, they'd open fire on my ass! Hell, you see it on every cop show on t.v., every time a suspect points his weapon at the police they open fire and more often than not, with deadly consequences.

I don't feel one bit sorry for them! These crazy assed, right wingers (aka Bundy supporters) made the conscious choice to exercise their right to climb up "Bull# Mountain," support a racist right-wing idiot, (who doesn't even believe in the federal government's right to exist) in his effort to ignore multiple court rulings and prevent federal agents from enforcing the courts mandates by opposing them with armed protestors.

And now these self proclaimed "patriots," who bravely "strategized to put all their women up at the front," are whining about the fact that they are being investigated? PLEASE!!!!!

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Phoenix
Seems to me going by the timeline it was federal agents and hired mercenaries that were pointing guns at unarmed protesters during the first days of the Bundy protest. No dispute it was those agents who first resorted to violence either.

Actually, I think it was Cliven Bundy and his wife who first threatened the feds.

When faced with the imminent action by the feds to enforce the court's rulings and possible confiscation of their cattle on federal land, I think they said something to the effect that; "They both had their guns and they were not afraid to use them to protect what's theirs."

So, who threatened who first?

The blm threatened the bundy's. The bundy's said they would defend themselves.

You have a funny take on things, kinda reminds me of Ann Coulter.

Actually, the BLM along with various other law enforcement agencies, threatened to enforce the court's rulings if Cliven Bundy refused to willfully comply. Cliven Bundy and his wife not only refused to comply, they refused to recognize the legitimacy of the federal govt. and the courts and then they also responded by stating that they both had weapons and were not afraid to use them to protect what is theirs.

FYI: When a court issues a ruling and/or warrant and law enforcement is tasked with enforcing that ruling or exercising the warrant contained within and the individual named in the warrant and/or court decision has pledged to use deadly force to prevent them from doing so, they would have to be some kinda stupid to walk in there unarmed and under the assumption that he/she is going to suddenly decide to change his/her mind and surrender peacefully.

The BLM was tasked with exercising the mandates contained within the court's rulings, the Bundys threatened to use deadly force in order to prevent them from doing so and the BLM, along with other law enforcement personnel, made the prudent decision to be fully prepared to handle that threat while they were in the process of carrying out the courts' order. End of story.

No wait, I almost forgot; Then....a bunch of right-wing nut-jobs decided it was time to gather their weapons, climb up "Bull# Mountain," (aka Fox News) and defend this idiot rancher by pointing their guns at cops.

No wonder they say; "Birds of a feather flock together."

a reply to: AnteBellum

I'm just surprised it took this long for the government steam roller to start. Can't have the peasants errr people thinking the can get away with standing up to the government now can we.

The film maker who got between BLM and protesters calls LEO descriptions into serious question and makes their stories have little veracity when making claims about arms bearing protesters taking offensive actions.


Cop is Wrong About Bundy Events

Having been the first person to arrive on the scene, not only were people scattered all over the place but there were no horses in the backdrop or anywhere near I-15 for that matter. Fact is, the horses were late getting to the protest area near I-15 because they took a different route than the cars. I also know there were no men laying on the ground when metro police arrived.

This directly disputes Sgt. Tom Jenkins interview with the media and his false claims.

It wasn’t until the events shifted from up on the highway to down in the wash (under the highway) that the ranchers arrived on horseback. I have the video to back up my words.

That's how I saw events on video I've watched also.

Although I have seen pictures of militia members up on the highway with guns pointed towards the BLM, it appears to be around the same time the BLM had drawn their guns directly at me — an unarmed filmmaker. I was the first and only person to approach the BLM. My objective was to keep peace between the two sides. I repeatedly said, “I do not have a gun”, and I walked towards them with my hands up in the air. Unfortunately, the BLM kept their guns pointed at me until BLM Agent Dan Love arrived at the scene, which was no less than 30 minutes after I had first entered the wash with a small group of protestors.

As I have postulated in other posts I see any action on the protesters part as being defensive in nature as response to federal provocations. Someone show me a picture that shows any protester brandishing arms at a federal agent who is unarmed or has weapon at port arms with muzzle away from protesters.

As seen in numerous videos and photographs, the 50 or so protestors who stood 80 yards behind me did so in a peaceful manner. None of them had guns pointed at BLM officials.

Again this filmmaker has video showing just that!

originally posted by: AnteBellum

I hope all of you are paying attention, whether he is a racist or not, whether he is a deadbeat or not, look what standing up for your constitutional rights in the USA will lead to. Once all the media goes away and all the politicians silently back off due to the bad associations this will present, you will personally be targeted also.

Wah.

No one was standing up for their constitutional rights. They were standing up for a rich guy's right to fleece them. Lemmings abound, it seems. There was not even an attempt to violate any constitutional rights until after the gathering, when the attempt was made to create a "free speech zone". According to the constitution, the entire country is a free speech zone. That attempt floundered, because it seems to have been pretty much universally ignored, so no actual violations even took place - just an attempt, sparked by the gathering masses of lemmings.

The rest of it was all good under the constitution.

What they are being investigated for is threatening Federal agents with physical harm over a bunch of cows that were not where they were supposed to be, and were there so that Bundy could raise them on free feed, and not pass the savings on to you when you buy a steak. What they are being investigated for, essentially, is threatening Federal agents and other law enforcement so that a rich guy could fleece them and laugh all the way to the bank.

I think "lemmings" is a pretty accurate descriptor, and now they are lemmings under the microscope.

Wah.

originally posted by: nenothtu


Wah.

No one was standing up for their constitutional rights. They were standing up for a rich guy's right to fleece them. Lemmings abound, it seems. There was not even an attempt to violate any constitutional rights until after the gathering, when the attempt was made to create a "free speech zone". According to the constitution, the entire country is a free speech zone. That attempt floundered, because it seems to have been pretty much universally ignored, so no actual violations even took place - just an attempt, sparked by the gathering masses of lemmings.

Even an attempt by the government to create "free speech zones" is a clear violation of civil rights and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent whether in this situation or one more, em heh, progressive in nature. That amendment applies to all whether they are thought of as "right wing nuts" using your parlance or as "left wing Marxists" Since when does political leanings give one the right or not to assemble peaceably which by the way is just what the Bundy protesters did. If "bearing arms" is an issue then answer what the second amendment is for and why have it if the founders intended for the populace to be always disarmed in any intercourse with the government.

The rest of it was all good under the constitution.

What they are being investigated for is threatening Federal agents with physical harm over a bunch of cows that were not where they were supposed to be, and were there so that Bundy could raise them on free feed, and not pass the savings on to you when you buy a steak. What they are being investigated for, essentially, is threatening Federal agents and other law enforcement so that a rich guy could fleece them and laugh all the way to the bank.

I think "lemmings" is a pretty accurate descriptor, and now they are lemmings under the microscope.

Wah.

Rich, Really, compared to what exactly? A Mexican subsistence farmer? A person living in a $300,000 McMansion? A nurse making $85,000? Bill Gates? I mean that's very subjective and so open to interpretation. I'd say he's rich in family and love along with lots of support but can't say he's anything like Senator Reid rich for instance who's nothing but a leech who produces nothing.

Ummm seems to me that the threshold of "threatening" to detractors is the mere possession of a firearm - its so scary, when the public actually shows up not being defenseless to the big bad government isn't it?

Bundy's issues aside right wrong or otherwise I have to agree that everything else under the constitution was good! Meaning their is nothing for the FBI but retribution and revenge by a government that was embarrassed and stymied in their quest to project absolute power.

originally posted by: Phoenix

Even an attempt by the government to create "free speech zones" is a clear violation of civil rights and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent whether in this situation or one more, em heh, progressive in nature.

Piss on "Civil Rights". I don't have any, don't want any, and don't need any. "Civil rights" are, by definition, "civil" - they are issued to you by the government, and therefore subject to revocation by the same, and as such are not "rights" at all. No thanks. You can have my share of "civil rights".

That amendment applies to all whether they are thought of as "right wing nuts" using your parlance or as "left wing Marxists" Since when does political leanings give one the right or not to assemble peaceably which by the way is just what the Bundy protesters did.

"My" parlance? You need to quote me on that, rather than just insinuating that I said it somewhere. The fact is, I AM a "right wing nut", and these fruit loop pseudo-militias are not. Wing-nuts are wing-nuts, whichever end of the spectrum they are situated on, however. Right-wingers DO NOT threaten war with the government over another man's cows - we have other, actual issues to work against. "That amendment" is most vociferously NOT a "civil right". It's an amendment recognizing an already existent, ACTUAL right.

"Peaceable assembly" does not involve going armed to the assembly. The threat of arms defines the threat to peace. It then becomes something other than a First Amendment issue.

If "bearing arms" is an issue then answer what the second amendment is for and why have it if the founders intended for the populace to be always disarmed in any intercourse with the government.

Bearing arms is not the issue - for me at least. One thing I've learned over time is that you don't threaten violence if you're not prepared to back it up. You don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash. The Second Amendment is not about "discourse with government" The First Amendment is about that. The Second is about fixing things when the first doesn't work, and fixing them "by other means". Threat of war is included in those "other means". The Second Amendment doesn't stop at "bearing arms" - it provides for actual use. If you come bearing arms and screeching about the Second Amendment, you'd better be ready to put your money where your mouth is.

Rich, Really, compared to what exactly? A Mexican subsistence farmer? A person living in a $300,000 McMansion? A nurse making $85,000? Bill Gates? I mean that's very subjective and so open to interpretation. I'd say he's rich in family and love along with lots of support but can't say he's anything like Senator Reid rich for instance who's nothing but a leech who produces nothing.

Compared to most of the US population. How many cattle are YOU running and making bank on? If it ain't 900 head or better, then he's rich compared to YOU, and getting richer by not having to pay upkeep on them - you and I are paying for the upkeep on his cattle when we pay taxes, and to thank us for that, he sells his cattle back to us... at profit.

Agreed that Reid is nothing but a non-producing leech. Not seeing what Reid has to do with it, however. I think you place more value on him than he is worth.

Ummm seems to me that the threshold of "threatening" to detractors is the mere possession of a firearm - its so scary, when the public actually shows up not being defenseless to the big bad government isn't it?

Mere possession of a firearm is not so scary to me, but your mileage may vary. If someone shows up with a gun, fine. if they point that gun at me, however, they'd best be searching their person for the red dot of death, so that they know what's coming, and aren't surprised when they get dropped. I do not suffer fools lightly. Evidently the government does.

I am well aware of the difference between being armed and threatening someone with that arm. One end just wags, and the other actually bites.

Bundy's issues aside right wrong or otherwise I have to agree that everything else under the constitution was good! Meaning their is nothing for the FBI but retribution and revenge by a government that was embarrassed and stymied in their quest to project absolute power.

No so fast there - the constitution doesn't restrain the citizenry, it restrains the government. Citizen actions in this debacle are not covered by it at all, only government actions, and they only attempted to violate it once that I can see, which had no effect. FBI investigation of illegal acts by the citizenry are ok, too - that's what the FBI does, you know?

The Founders meant for the Second to be brought to bear in the event of actual wrongs, not imagines ones, and certainly not when private cattle are kicked off of public, government-owned land.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

TAXES TAXES TAXES and MORE TAXES.
You my friend will be a REMF.
Standing in the background.
While others fight to preserve our
CONSTUITION.
Our FREEDOMS
Our RIGHT AS HUMAN BEINGS.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE IDEALS IT WAS FOUNDED ON.

a reply to: imwilliam

It is the LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE.
In my opinion.
WE AS AMERICANS
NEED TO SHOW OUR BRAVERY.
NOW!!!!!
Not Later
Or we are SCREWED