Sunday, April 20, 2014

Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

Via NC Renegade

Nevada-Protest

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.

You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.

Thank you so much

HF

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union.

This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection.

Heed: Mercenaries in sheeps clothing available for immediate deployment?

 

There is a tactical reality Patriots must consider going forward.

It has been mentioned (without support, as far as I have seen) that BLM had paid mercenaries on the ground in Nevada.  This guy sure doesn't look like the sort of fellow I've seen in BLM uniform or who would be attracted to BLM as a career choice.  Perhaps he really is simply one of their SWAT guys.

But this is a consideration we must explore until we have some answers.

If there were mercs on the ground in BLM uniform, and had events turned sporty, Patriots may have been facing an adversary far more capable than expected.  Men who not only know how to shoot, move and communicate, but men who have done it for a living.  And if they were mercs, what assets did they have nearby, ready to rope-in with serious firepower?

I have a piece of information that suggests the mercenary angle may have merit. 

China boast: U.S. Marines would be like ‘marching band’ in all out fight

Via LH

Wissler

Lets see, just exactly how did your overwhelming, mass invasion of Vietnam turn out?

casual remark by a U.S. general during a breakfast has made China mad, really mad, and Beijing’s response is far less than civil and humble.

On April 11, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Wissler, commander of the 18,000 Marines in Okinawa, Japan, told reporters at a Washington breakfast meeting that the Marines in the Pacific would quickly retake the Senkaku island group and return it to Japan if China were to invade it.

Taxes v. food, clothing and housing

Via Blue

Dinesh D'Souza on our Marxist educators

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny

How would you like to be on the tripwire force?

Via Daily Timewaster

 
An Army medic aids UPI Photographer Nguyen Thanh Tai after he was wounded by the explosion of a Viet Cong booby trap, 15 miles south of Saigon. Tai was one of six men injured by the blast, which was triggered by a trip-wire. The incident occurred during Operation Enterprise on April 4, 1967. (UPI Photo/Files)“Headlines.

Putin invades Ukraine. Obama responds by invading Nevada.” 

A Washington Post report that the US has decided to deploy ground forces to Poland, ostensibly to act as a tripwire to deter further Russian threats, raises some interesting issues.
Poland and the United States will announce next week the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe in response to events in Ukraine. That was the word from Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, who visited The Post Friday after meeting with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.
Siemoniak said the decision has been made on a political level and that military planners are working out details. There will also be intensified cooperation in air defense, special forces, cyberdefense and other areas. Poland will play a leading regional role, “under U.S. patronage,” he said.
The first is why the story was leaked from a Polish source in an administration that almost always rushes to announce moves it wants to depict as decisive. It is almost as if Warsaw wanted to pre-empt Obama before he could have second thoughts.

The second issue is that Poland will be taking the lead “under US patronage”. Obama, as usual, will be leading from behind.  The Washington Post story quotes the Poles as confessing that “US patronage” will be a hollow unless America re-arms. Here is how the WaPo put it:

King's College Choir - Jesus Christ is risen today

Via Daily Timewaster

r

Crucifixion Controversy: Deputies order "Jesus" down from the cross

 http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/25822252.sf_.jpg

A Good Friday crucifixion display didn't quite go as planned as Lee county sheriff's deputies ordered "Jesus" to come down from the cross and move the show elsewhere.

"This gentleman has had a passion on his heart to do a representation public," one of the display organizers said of the man who was tied to the cross.

But it also generated some angry passion among drivers and pedestrians who didn't think the display should be set up right next to a busy intersection on public property.

Traffic backed up as drivers slowed down to catch a glimpse and take pictures.
Other passersby believed the bloody display was too much for children and others who might not be prepared for the very realistic scene.

More @ Fox

"So what?" or “You a racist!”

 https://i1.wp.com/sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/311546_415676615134917_1812773022_n.jpg?resize=372%2C480

I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, rather than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow themselves to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop.

 Domestic tranquility would follow in torrents.

As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no reason to grovel about it.

I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a caller-in told me, “You a racist!” I would hesitate as if puzzled, and say  “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the planetary supply of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi torch-rally.

Herewith another and yet worse confession:: I do not see, or care, why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate.

But back to "So what?" Among its charms is that there is no answer to it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All of these amuse me. Used frequently, "So what?"would shut up people who badly need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most apparently cannot.

Let us, improbably, glance at reality.

States’ Rights and Civil Rights

 http://four.capecentralhigh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Barry-Goldwater-brochure-1964-inside.jpg

Regarding the 1954 Brown vs. BOE decision by the activist Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater saw the Court guided not by the ideas of the men who wrote the Constitution, “but engrafted its own views onto the established law of the land.”  By legislating from the bench, they usurped the power of the Legislative branch and should have been impeached.
Bernhard Thuersam

States’ Rights and Civil Rights

“An attempt has been made in recent years to disparage the principle of State’ Rights by equating it with defense of the South’s position on racial integration.  I have already indicated that the reach of States’ Rights is much broader than that – that it affects Northerners as well as Southerners, and concerns many matters that have nothing to do with the race question.

{The] country is now in the grips of a spirited and sometimes ugly controversy over an imagined conflict between States’ Rights, on the one hand, and what are called “civil rights” on the other.

I say an imagined conflict because I deny that there can be a conflict between States’ Rights, properly defined – and civil rights, properly defined.  If States’ “Rights” are so asserted as to encroach upon individual rights that are protected by valid federal laws, then the exercise of State power is a nullity.  
Conversely, if individual “rights” are so asserted as to infringe upon valid State power, then the assertion of those “rights” is a nullity.

The rights themselves do not clash.  The conflict arises from a failure to define the two categories of rights correctly, and to assert them lawfully.

States’ Rights are easy enough to define. The Tenth Amendment does it succinctly: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Civil rights should be no harder. In fact, however – thanks to extravagant and shameless misuse by people who ought to know better – it is one of the most badly understood concepts in modern political usage.  Civil rights is frequently used synonymously with “human rights” – or with “natural rights.”

As often as not, it is simply a name for describing an activity that someone deems politically or socially desirable.  A sociologist writes a paper proposing to abolish some inequity, or a politician makes a speech about it – and, behold, a new “civil right” is born!  The Supreme Court has displayed the same creative powers.

A civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law. It may be asserted by the common law, or by local or federal statutes, or by the Constitution; but unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.
There may be some rights – “natural,” “human,” or otherwise – that should also by civil rights.  But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution.  We must not look to politicians, or sociologists – or the courts – to correct the deficiency.

[The] federal Constitution does not require the States to maintain racially mixed schools. Despite the recent holding of the Supreme Court, I am firmly convinced – not only that integrated schools are not required – but that the Constitution does not permit any interference whatsoever by the federal government in the field of education.

It may be wise or expedient for Negro children to attend the same schools as white children, but they do not have a civil right to do so which is protected by the federal Constitution, or which is enforceable by the federal government.  The intentions of the founding fathers in this matter are beyond any doubt: no powers regarding education were given to the federal government.”

(The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater, Victor Publishing Company, 1960, pp. 31-34)

450 rounds on back with continuous fire

Via u_96

 
 Russian Specnaz soldier invented an MG-ammo-bag for a 7,62 PKM machine gun. It allows carry up to 450 rounds on your back and fire without changing the belt after every 100 rounds

  

Scene of Sloviansk Shooting

Via u_96


 Via panzer_papa

Obama Promised a ‘Civilian National Security Force’ – Today There Are Over 120,000 Armed Federal Agents

Via avordvet

 federal agents at bundy ranch
 
FOX News reported:

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement — have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

The Rat Patrol

Via Bearing Arms


College Students Give Obama Cold Reception & Students/Parents Not Thrilled About Michelle Obama Speaking

 

Ouch: College Students Give Obama a Cold Reception in Pennsylvania

Kansas Students and Parents Not Thrilled About Michelle Obama Speaking at High School Graduation Ceremony

Bundy supporter OWNS Chris Hayes on MSNBC: ‘We will not allow governance by gunpoint, ever’

 http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screenshot-2014-04-19-20.59.59.jpg

Nevada assemblywoman Michele Fiore clashed with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes regarding rancher Cliven Bundy’s conflict with the federal government on Friday.

As Hayes pressed Fiore about her position on the standoff, she relentlessly criticized the government’s handling of the situation.

“Why are you there near the Bundy ranch tonight celebrating?” Hayes asks.

“Questioning why the heck the federal government felt the need to come in armed to collect an unpaid bill. I mean, that was pretty bold and blatant,” Fiore said. “I mean, generally when my — when our federal government comes in armed, we’re expecting a bigger problem… We will not allow governance by gunpoint, ever.”

When Hayes asked if Fiore agreed with Cliven Bundy, Fiore grew angry.

More with video @ The Daily Caller

NC: Bloomberg's new gun control group is a noble, shrewd effort

 https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B3FAsDVHAIM/Tt_w-FmJ6RI/AAAAAAAAAGY/fd6vkfM4wRQ/s1600/Marxism+We+Can+Believe+In.JPG

One of the riddles of American democracy is why the will of the people cannot translate into law when it comes to regulating guns.

Polls show a majority supports tighter background checks on gun purchases and limits on semi-automatic assault weapons and high-volume ammunition clips and magazines. And yet, even after the carnage in Newtown, two rampages at Fort Hood where both shooters bought guns at a store named Guns Galore and the daily toll of handgun deaths from homicides, accidents and suicides, Congress cannot be moved to strengthen gun laws in the slightest.

The Next Shoe Just Dropped: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Via Terry
https://lucas2012infos.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/zerohedge.png?w=500

3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is completely private.
 
In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."

It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.

Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

Donetsk "Letter To Jews" Found To Be A Forgery: 3 guesses who's behind it and the first 2 don't count.........

Via Terry


In the days before the Geneva "de-escalation" conference (and coincidentally, days after the secret visit of CIA director Brennan to Kiev), the top story across western media was the "undisputed" proof that east-Ukraine, populated by "terrorist separatists", is preparing to unleash a neo-nazi wave against local jews, when a leaflet was unveiled, beckoning the Jewish population to register and declare their assets.

The USA Today promptly reported (joined by CBS and CNN): "Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website, and Ukraine's Donbass news agency."
Consequences for non-compliance will result in citizenship being revoked "and you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of property," it said. A registration fee of $50 would be required, it said.
Odd because as the same USA Today further reported, "Olga Reznikova, 32, a Jewish resident of Donetsk, told Ynet she never experienced anti-Semitism in the city until she saw this leaflet."

Perversely, even the local Jewish community issued a statement saying the leaflet distribution "smells like a provocation." The chief rabbi of nearby Dnipropetrovsk, Shmuel Kaminezki said, "Everything must be done to catch them."

So the bottom line, namely that this was merely a provocation designed to generate a kneejerk emotional response from the west and paint the pro-Russia militia as neo-nazis and generally, as fascists (even though it was the ultra nationalist Right Sector that was instrumental in the overthrow of the Yanukovich government) was clear to most - even the population that was seemingly being targeted.

But not to John Kerry. "Secretary of State John Kerry said the language of the leaflets "is beyond unacceptable" and condemned whomever is responsible."

Amen and Amen: NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

Via Nancy

 http://buchanan.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/war-protest-2.jpg

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an “evil empire,” the phrase reflected his conviction that while the East-West struggle was indeed a global geostrategic conflict, it had a deep moral dimension.

If Americans did not see the Cold War as he did, a battle between good and evil, Reagan knew that they would indefinitely sacrifice neither the wealth of the nation nor the blood of its sons to sustain it.
That is in the character of Americans.

Jimmy Carter had sought to remove that moral dimension by declaring, “We have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism.”

But with his “evil empire” speech, Reagan re-moralized the Cold War in what Natan Sharansky called “a moment of moral clarity.”

Here we come to the heart of the matter as to why Americans want to stay out of any Ukrainian conflict. Americans not only see no vital U.S. interest, but also no moral dimension to this quarrel.

If, after all, it was a triumph of self-determination for Ukraine to secede from the Russian Federation, do not Russians in Crimea and Donetsk have the same right — to secede from Kiev and go home to Russia?

More @ LRC

For Sioux: CBM: Color Him Father



File:The Winstons.png

Patriot Games and The Upcoming Unpleasantness [ Not to be confused with the Late Unpleasantness :) ]

Via WRSA

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/2977015_450/Lysander-Spooner.jpg?v=1391989920

Patriot Games has a new meaning. I’ve been watching the goings-on in Nevada regarding the Bundy/BLM clash. I have a few observations about how those in the Patriot movement should comport themselves regarding interaction with the .gov and .mil personnel. These observations do not come from a hitch in any military. They come from my own common sense. I freely and openly welcome any correction from my friends in the Patriot Movement.

1. Be much more discreet.

Camo uniforms are fine…if you are in the woods or desert. But camo worn around populations draws attention to you. If you own camo because you are a hunter, fine. Everything in its place at the proper time. But showing up for a pro-gun rally at the State Capitol in your camo BDUs is showing off, and maybe it’s your ego talking when it should be shutting up. Are you trying to show someone that you’re Barney Badass? Better to be not noticed at all. When you’re around other people, don’t you think it would be better to be in street clothing? Is it easier to conceal yourself in a crowd when you look like a member of the crowd, or when you’re in camo? Also, get used to wearing a big hat and sunglasses most of the time. Facial recognition software is pretty good these days. Some of the stuff you see in movies really happens.

Most of the photos I saw of the militia members in Nevada showed men in cowboy attire on horseback. They looked like normal people for their area, not storm troopers. The Afghans who kicked America’s ass for 15 years wore the same things in battle that they wore every other day. They also wore the same stuff when they kicked the Soviet Union’s ass. Fourth Generation Warfare will be best accomplished by warriors in street clothes. The bad people send out bunches of uniformed storm troopers as a PsyOp, with the intent of intimidation and generating fear. Don’t buy it. When the Patriots are dressed in street clothes and the government types are in uniform, it sure make it easier to identify who your enemy is, doesn’t it?

2. Owning Weapons.

More @ Dump DC

Hero Dog Saves Injured Dog On Busy Highway

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny