Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 12:39:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79111 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Armed Resistance?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Armed Resistance?  (Read 75 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« on: April 14, 2014, 12:21:49 PM »

The recent events in Nevada concerning the rancher Bundy, his cattle, BLM, grazing fees to the Feds, and the presence of armed militia have been of great concern to me.  Most of us here believe in the Second Amendment, and understand that it is not about hunting or self-defense alone-- It is about defense of the nation from all enemires foreign and domestic, including if need be a government gone tyrannical.

This thread is for matters concerning where where that grey line may be.

In the case of the moment, as sympathetic as many of the apparent facts are for Bundy (his family has been grazing there since 1877, the apparent bull excrement nature of the tortoise story the Feds are putting out (apparently the Feds have bred so many turtles they are now killing some of them)  The Feds owning/controlling some 84% of Nevada, etc there are many warning flags here.   Apparently Bundy has unique legal theories disregarding settled law regarding the Feds and BLM.  He has lost in court for some 20 years now.   I doubt hardly anyone on his side could give an accurate summary of the courts' various rulings in the case on what the law is.

And for this militia types are willing to show up talking about shooting it out with the Feds?

As this forum well attests, my loathing for much that is being done to our country by the Federal government is open and obvious.  That said, the rule of law is a precious thing, and not to be tossed away lightly.   A civil society, a Constitutional Republic, requires that everyone sometimes accept what they believe to be a mistaken court ruling.

As additional facts come to light, I reserve the right to change my mind, but with what I have at the moment, is some people have allowed their passion to override good sense and they came very close to setting off something that would have given the Feds the opening for which they desperately and not always legally search to shut down our freedoms.   I am very glad that cooler heads seem to have prevailed at BLM.  I am concerned that many regular folks will form negative impressions of the Tea Party and related factions (militia types) based upon the foolish hot-headedness that seems to have been on display here.

=================

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/14/3426222/militia-rancher-behind-bars/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2014, 03:45:05 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2014, 04:23:26 PM »

OTOH

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/13/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11486


« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2014, 05:30:57 PM »

Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers
 
Drivers advised to travel north
 



By Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella
 
-
 
The Washington Times
 
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

 

The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.
 
The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.
 
They warn travelers that they are entering an “active drug and human smuggling area” and they may encounter “armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.” Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to “use public lands north of Interstate 8” and to call 911 if they “see suspicious activity.”
 
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.
 
“Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,” he said. “They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.
 
“This is going on here in Arizona,” he said. “This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States.”
 
He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.
 
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government’s “continued failure to secure our international border,” saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.
 
In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them “an outrage” and telling President Obama to “Do your job. Secure our borders.”
 
BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.
 
“We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up,” he said. “The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all.”
 
He said there should be “no sense that we have ceded the land,” adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.
 
“I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area,” Mr. Godfrey said.
 
Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.
 
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar “La Barbie” Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.
 
More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.
 
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol’s front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.
 
“The federal government’s lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity,” he said. “Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.
 
“Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond,” he said. “This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas.”
 
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government’s new border security plan apparently is to “erect some signs telling you it’s not safe to travel in our own country.”
 
“If you are planning on loading up the station wagon and taking the kids to Disneyland, the federal government doesn’t advise going through Arizona - it’s too dangerous and they can’t protect you,” said Mr. Poe. “These signs say to American citizens, the federal government has ceded this area to the drug cartels. Don’t come here; we can’t protect you.”
 
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called the signs “an insult to the citizens of border states.”
 
“American citizens should not have to be fearful for their lives on U.S. soil,” he said. “If the federal government would do its job of enforcing immigration laws, we could better secure the border and better protect the citizens of border states.”
 
Michael W. Cutler, a retired 31-year U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) senior criminal investigator and intelligence specialist, said the BLM warning signs suggest the U.S. government is “ceding American territory to armed criminals and smugglers.”
 
Meanwhile, he said, politicians in Washington, D.C., including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, continue to claim the border is now more secure than ever and, as a result, it is time for comprehensive immigration reform.
 
“How much more land will our nation cede to drug dealers and terrorists? At what point will the administration understand its obligations to really secure our nation’s borders and create an immigration system that has real integrity?” Mr. Cutler said.
 
“At the rate we are going, the ‘Red, White and Blue’ of the American flag will be replaced with a flag that is simply white - the flag of surrender.”
 
Ms. Napolitano said this week that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would begin flying a Predator B drone out of Corpus Christi, Texas, on Wednesday, extending the reach of the agency’s unmanned surveillance aircraft across the length of the 1,956-mile border with Mexico.
 
Last month, Mr. Obama signed a $600 million bill to beef up security along the southwestern border. The bill funds 1,000 more Border Patrol agents, as well as 250 CBP officers and two more unmanned aerial vehicles.
 
Two years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative arm of Homeland Security, said in a report that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless and had begun targeting not only rivals, but federal, state and local police. ICE said the violence had risen dramatically as part of “an unprecedented surge.”
 
The Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, in its 2010 drug threat assessment report, called the cartels “the single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States.” It said Mexican gangs had established operations in every area of the United States and were expanding into rural and suburban areas. It said assaults against U.S. law enforcement officers along the southwestern border were on the increase - up 46 percent against Border Patrol agents alone.
 
At the same time, the Justice Department brought a lawsuit to stop a new immigration enforcement law in Arizona, saying it violated the Constitution by trying to supersede federal law and by impairing illegal immigrants’ right to travel and conduct interstate commerce.
 
Mr. Cutler said it was “outrageous” for the BLM to direct travelers to dial 911 to report suspicious activities since the calls do not go to the federal government but to state and local police. He said the signs are telling Americans to call state and local law enforcement authorities to deal with border lawlessness while at the same time telling Arizona that only the federal government can write and enforce immigration laws.
 
“You can’t make this stuff up,” he said.
 
Mr. Godfrey said that just because the signs direct travelers who witness illegal activity to call 911, “that does not mean that only a local agency will respond.”
 
“The idea is that people will get help as quickly as they can,” he said.
 
Sheriff Babeu has dealt firsthand with the rising violence in his county since his 2008 election. One of his deputies, Louie Puroll, was shot and critically wounded in April after he spotted five men he suspected of transporting drugs along a remote span of desert near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84.
 
He said his experience makes him see the issue differently from the administration in Washington.
 
“The president is only looking at this from a political perspective,” he said. “Everything is not fine. Everything is not OK.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11486


« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2014, 05:44:39 PM »

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/news/mn-1258_1_desert-tortoise

Desert Tortoises Threatened With Euthanasia Plan

August 30, 1991|PAUL FELDMAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER


The desert tortoise, a federally protected species since 1989, faces a new threat in the quickly developing Las Vegas Valley--euthanasia.

Under a plan approved by county and federal officials that is due to take effect in early September, tortoises living on Las Vegas-area properties slated for construction will be removed to a Clark County animal care center. Those that are not adopted or relocated within five days will be killed by lethal injection.






Authorities, who say that adequate funding is unavailable to hold the tortoises longer, say that the odds are in favor of most of the reptiles being saved by concerned Clark County residents.

"It sounds worse than it actually is," said federal Bureau of Land Management wildlife biologist Michael McGill on Thursday. "There's a pretty good chance they'll get adopted. Most of them will find a home."

The euthanasia plan is part of a larger compromise reached by county and federal officials that will help provide funds and land to preserve a natural habitat for more than 60,000 desert tortoises in more pristine areas of Nevada, authorities said.

For its part, Clark County has agreed to purchase the rights to use more than 400,000 acres of BLM land as a desert tortoise preserve. For the next three years, the land, much of it near Searchlight, would be off limits to off-road vehicles. Authorities would also ward off birds that eat thin-shelled baby tortoises.

More than $6 million would be provided to purchase the land rights and establish a trust fund from fees assessed to Las Vegas developers, who will also be charged $40 per tortoise for the housing at the animal care center.

In exchange, developers will be allowed to remove the tortoises from their own land.

Since 1989, it has been illegal to take, harm or kill a desert tortoise without a federal permit. In the Las Vegas valley, construction was forced to a standstill on properties where the tortoises resided.

Officials said the Las Vegas tortoises--as many as 3,000 are expected to be uncovered by developers in the next three years--will not be relocated in the Searchlight habitat. Doing so could result in overpopulation. Also, they said, many of the Vegas tortoises suffer from a respiratory disease that might be passed on to their rural cousins.

"This was the compromise we felt we had to come up with when there was a limited amount of money to be spent," said Betty Burge, chairwoman of the Tort Group, a Las Vegas-based tortoise conservation organization.

However, the agreement has stirred questions among other tortoise preservationists.

"That's saying that development will take place no matter what and development should be slowed down until you can figure out that 'what,' " said Elden Hughes, chairman of the Sierra Club's California Desert Committee. "You should find a place where you can put the tortoises. . . . I'm sure they have enough money to put researchers on it."

Palm Springs attorney Paul Selzer, who represented Clark County in the negotiations for the federal permit, said the rules occasionally led to bizarre situations.

"You ended up with this weird deal where two pieces of property were next to each other and one had a tortoise and one didn't. So one guy developed and what do you think happened to the desert tortoise next door? The neighborhood kids picked it up, or a dog got it, or it went in the street and got run over."

Selzer said that long-range efforts will be made to relocate Vegas-vicinity tortoises in the wild, but that it is not clear whether the tortoises can be moved successfully in the wild. "You can't just pick these dudes up and corral them and put them back in the desert," he said.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2014, 11:28:11 PM »


This story is amazing.  The Feds concede the loss of control, turn it to state and local authorities and then ban them from any enforcement.  If it's not safe or secure 75 miles in, then  its not safe anywhere - it's not like we have another line of defense somewhere further in.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2014, 11:14:47 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/14/defiant-reid-vows-bundy-ranch-confrontation-not-ov/?page=all#pagebreak
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2014, 03:06:00 PM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2014, 10:39:07 PM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/15/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29572


« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2014, 02:32:43 AM »

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
April 15, 2014 4:00 PM
The Case for a Little Sedition

The Bundy standoff reminds us that government is our servant, not our master.
By Kevin D. Williamson

A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John
Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point.

Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.

But not all dissidents are content to submit to what we, in the Age of Obama, still insist on quaintly calling “the rule of law.” And there is a price to pay for that, too: King George not only would have been well within his legal rights to hang every one of this nation’s seditious Founding Fathers, he would have been duty-bound to do so, the keeping of the civil peace being the first responsibility of the civil authority. Every fugitive slave, and every one of the sainted men and women who harbored and enabled them, was a law-breaker, and who can blame them if none was content to submit to what passed for justice among the slavers? The situation was less dramatic during the government shutdown, but every one of the veterans and cheesed-off citizens who disregarded President Obama’s political theater and pushed aside his barricades was a law-breaker, too — and bless them for being that.

Harry Reid, apparently eager for somebody to play the role of General Dyer in this civil-disobedience drama, promises that this is “not over.” And, in a sense, it can’t be over: The theory of modern government is fundamentally Hobbesian in its insistence that where political obedience is demanded, that demand must be satisfied lest we regress into bellum omnium contra omnes. I myself am of the view that there is a great deal of real estate between complete submission and civil war, and that acts such as Mr. Bundy’s are not only bearable in a free republic but positively salubrious. Unhappily, those views are not shared by many in Washington, and, if I were a wagering sort, my money would be on Mr. Bundy ending up dead or in prison, with a slight bias in the odds toward death.

Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington both were British subjects who believed that their legal situation was at odds with something deeper and more meaningful, and that the British were a legal authority but an alien power. (Washington is not really so much closer to London than New Delhi is.) Mr. Bundy is tapping into a longstanding tendency in the American West to view the federal government as a creature of the eastern establishment, with political and economic interests that are inimical to those of the West and its people. And it is not as though there is no evidence supporting that suspicion. The federal government controls 87 percent of the land in Nevada, something that would be unheard-of in any state east of Colorado. Uncle Sam owns less than 1 percent of the land in New York, 1 percent of Maine, less than 1 percent of Rhode Island, less than 1 percent of Connecticut, but nearly half of New Mexico and Arizona, more than half of Utah and Idaho, and is practically a monopolist in Nevada. And a monopolist is rarely a good and honest negotiating partner. The original Sagebrush rebels objected to conservation rules written by eastern environmentalists who had never so much as set foot in the lands they were disposing of; a century and some later, people travel more, but the underlying dynamic is the same.

There are of course questions of prudence and proportion to be answered here, and though I note that he uses the very strong phrase “lawless government,” I sympathize with Mr. Lowry’s desire that both sides should follow the law. But there is a more important question here: Is government our servant, or is it our master? The Left has long ago answered that question to the satisfaction of its partisans, who are happy to be serfs so long as their birth control is subsidized. But the Right always struggles with that question, as it must. The thing that conservatives seek to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty, not the other way around. And it is the government that exists at the sufferance of the people, including such irascible ones as Mr. Bundy, not the other way around.

If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.

Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.
 
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!