Social Security Hitting Kids for Parents’ Debts

This is just hideous:

A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one Grice got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

No one seems eager to take credit for reopening all these long-closed cases. A Social Security spokeswoman says the agency didn’t seek the change; ask Treasury. Treasury says it wasn’t us; try Congress. Congressional staffers say the request probably came from the bureaucracy…

This is just a desperate ploy from a government which is greedy for every dollar it can lay its hands on – but it also shows (if ObamaCare didn’t clue you in) that no one in government really knows what is happening…its all done behind the scenes with lobbyists and bureaucrats and staffers inserting things into bills and regulations without anyone accountable to the people really knowing what is going on.

This, of course, needs to be repealed – it is un-American to seek to collect debts owed by one person from another.  If the person who owes the money is dead and there’s no estate to collect it from, then the debt is a write-off.  Whether or not anyone in Congress will step up to fix this particular problem remains to be seen – but the ultimate fix to this is to prohibit Congress from passing laws of more than, say, 10 type-written pages…and to prohibit the bureaucracy from implementing new regulations (which also must not be more than 10 type-written pages long) before Congressional approval of each new regulation.

UPDATE – technically unrelated, but check out what is happening with the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.  True, its a dispute over grazing rights which has been going on for decades…but whatever one wishes to think about the particulars of the case, why did Uncle Sam whistle up an army to round of the man’s cattle?  Why make a “free speech” zone?

Given that this is Nevada and we have Harry Reid and the BLM is involved, I’m immediately suspicious that this is just another corrupt land deal – there are stories that this land is to be set aside for a solar plant with a Reid son involved.  I’m not so sure about that – this has been going on too long for that (since 1993).  I’m more thinking that since it is some really nice countryside (and the Virgin river runs year-round through it as it heads towards Lake Mead) that someone has a mind to build some resorts out there – and ol’ Harry has been more than once involved in screwy land dealings where, hey presto!, BLM land is made available to the “public” and Reid cronies make a killing.

Advertisements

117 thoughts on “Social Security Hitting Kids for Parents’ Debts

  1. Retired Spook April 11, 2014 / 7:37 pm

    As if giving the government an interest-free loan isn’t reason enough, this is another reason not to over-withhold on your taxes.

  2. Cluster April 11, 2014 / 10:13 pm

    Welcome to another example of the most transparent administration in history.

    • Retired Spook April 12, 2014 / 8:41 am

      Jeremiah,

      The situation in Nevada is coming to a head. The citizens ignored the BLM’s “First Amendment Zones, and I’m guessing they will ignore the TFR. Here’s some more info. Pay close attention to the last paragraph.

      The Left will tell you this is about Bundy’s violation of a federal court order, but his abuse of power on the part of the feds has been going on for a long time. This is just the first time someone has stood up to them and said, “no more”. I don’t think this is going to end well.

      • Cluster April 12, 2014 / 9:10 am

        I think we are learning that this current stand off has a lot to do with crony capitalism, specifically Harry Reid and his boy Rory:

        http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

        Harry Reid is a vile man and has become a multi millionaire “serving the public”. This is just his latest effort to enrich his bank account.

        America simply can not afford the Democratic Party, or the brain dead masses that allow them to get away with this.

      • M. Noonan April 12, 2014 / 12:55 pm

        I’m of the opinion that there’s a crooked land deal – but I don’t think solar is part of it. Its really, really nice land in that area…not the usual complete waste land they use for solar. I’m thinking mega-resorts and planned communities…

      • M. Noonan April 12, 2014 / 12:57 pm

        I’m impressed with the reaction. #BundyRanch has been trending high on Twitter for the past three days and its all over Facebook. I think that, now, Obama and the Democrats want this to end quickly because it’s tailor-made to boost up conservative and libertarian turn out this November. We’ll see how it comes out.

      • Retired Spook April 12, 2014 / 5:30 pm

        I think that, now, Obama and the Democrats want this to end quickly

        It looks like that’s exactly what happened. I think the Feds grossly underestimated the public response. They’re trying to make it sound like Bundy is the ONLY rancher breaking the law, when, actually, he’s the only rancher with the guts to stand up to an unconstitutional law. I’m guessing, if the BLM had not backed down, other ranchers would have grown some spine, and they’d be faced with a full-fledged revolt. I look for there to be more and more confrontations with federal authority in connection with the public use of “Federal” lands now that the ice has been broken.

      • watsonthethird April 12, 2014 / 8:09 pm

        They’re trying to make it sound like Bundy is the ONLY rancher breaking the law, when, actually, he’s the only rancher with the guts to stand up to an unconstitutional law.

        Can you elaborate on the “unconstitutional law”? From the news reports I’ve read, this has been through the courts more than once, most recently last year when a federal court judge ruled that if Bundy didn’t remove his cattle, the BLM could seize them.

        As I understand it, part of his claim is that his Mormon ancestors were there before the BLM was, so he has a right to do what he wants on the federal land regardless of who now legally owns it. If that’s the basis for determining these things, I think there are quite a few people who could cite their ancestors as having been there first.

      • GMB April 12, 2014 / 8:44 pm

        There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government to own land. That is a right left to the state and or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment. Better yet, make a conscious effort to understand it.

      • watsonthethird April 12, 2014 / 9:07 pm

        Thanks for the helpful suggestions, GMB.

        Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, the Property Clause, of the constitution gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, and other property of the United States. Do you see it otherwise?

      • GMB April 12, 2014 / 9:29 pm

        Authority is not ownership or do you see it differently?

      • watsonthethird April 12, 2014 / 10:21 pm

        Well, you’re quibbling with my words. Here is the text of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:

        The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

        That is the the constitutional authority given to Congress to manage and control the property owned by the United States, including land. Even the Heritage Foundation says that “[t]he narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land.”

        So my question still stands: What is the “unconstitutional law” that Spook was talking about? You haven’t identified one, either.

      • Cluster April 12, 2014 / 10:36 pm

        Why would they choose to enforce this law when they don’t enforce others?

      • Amazona April 12, 2014 / 10:38 pm

        “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”

        Do you contend that this means the United States may own parcels of land within its borders, or that this means that everything in the borders of the United States, including its Territories, “belongs” to the United States?

        I read it as “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property THAT IS PART OF the United States;”

        So Alaska “belongs” to the United States, and within the restraints of the 10th Amendment “..Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations …” respecting the state of Alaska. Then it comes down to what constitutes “…needful Rules and Regulations ..” regarding Alaska which are also within the limitations of the enumerated duties of the federal government. Anything not in that narrow range of delegated responsibility is, according to the 10th Amendment, the responsibility of the State, or the People.

        As you are indicating a desire to enter into a discussion on this based on the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, please go through those delegated duties and find the one that allows it to own property.

        I don’t know if what I have always considered to be federal land is rightfully owned by the government. But I do know that the kind of “news sources” you are likely to credit are not likely to give anything but a Massive-Central-Authority kind of view on the subject.

        And I know there has been a lot of abuse of power by the feds, regarding public land. For example, the National Forests are governed by the Department of Agriculture, as their primary purposes were to provide an ongoing source of timber for the nation and to protect our watersheds. They are also multi-use, which means they can be used for recreation. Yet the feds have routinely refused to allow timber leases, even to take bids on cutting beetle kill before it spread to destroy the whole forest system, and have decreed many millions of acres of National Forest as “wilderness areas” and “roadless areas”.

        I’ve studied the effects of grazing, and learned that studies have shown the beneficial effect of hooved animals grazing on forage. It’s available for anyone who wants to learn it. I attended a Range Management class which included extensive research on public land which had been taken out of grazing leases, and the deterioration of the land as a result. Enviro-nazis have demanded that cattle be removed from public lands and the land has suffered for it.

      • GMB April 12, 2014 / 10:43 pm

        We can quibble all day long.

        Where in the Constitution is the authority for the federal government to own any land. Where in the enumerated duties of the federal government in the Constitution does this authority originate from?

        The fact is, federal authority to own land exists only here

        “Congress may exercise exclusive legislative “authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;”

        The Enclave Clause.

        The Deserts of Nevada or even the Park lands of Yellow Stone do not qualify.

      • Amazona April 12, 2014 / 10:44 pm

        Now, now, watson—it is bad form to quote only a small part of an opinion out of context. So let’s take another look at that Heritage Foundation quote, shall we? (emphasis mine)

        “The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

      • Amazona April 12, 2014 / 10:47 pm

        watson, what is your point? Do you contend that the BLM was justified in its actions?

      • Cluster April 12, 2014 / 10:59 pm

        Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. And your interpretation of Article 4 was spot on. Another example would be tribal sovereignty within the individual states

      • GMB April 12, 2014 / 11:01 pm

        This was nothing other than a blatant attempt by corrupt donkeyrat and accused pederast harry reid and his son to put the last rancher in that county out of business so they could acquire the land themselves and make a nice tidy profit by selling it to the chicoms.

        Well this time the actions of the federal gub’mint was vetoed by the American people. Get used to it Watson. It is going to happen more and more.

        The only question you have to ask yourself is, how many people are you willing to murder to get your utopia.

        That is all where this heading to. Millions of us are done with all the rules and regs and laws that make us unwitting criminals who live at the sufferance of the gub’mint.

        Gub’mint was vetoed by the people.
        Involvement by politicians was minimal and hardly needed.
        The People spoke and the gub’mint lost.

        This time.

      • watsonthethird April 13, 2014 / 1:08 am

        watson, what is your point? Do you contend that the BLM was justified in its actions?

        My point is, can you elaborate on the “unconstitutional law”? I am interested in what “unconstitutional law” Cliven Bundy was standing up against. Is it that the federal government owning land is in itself unconstitutional in your opinion? Perhaps it is only a question Spook can answer, since he wrote the phrase in question. But you can all take a stab at that if you want, and you won’t hear a peep in response from me, since you all seem worried about my motives.

        As for federal land ownership, here is an overview from the Congressional Research Service: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf. Not sure the CRS constitutes the kind of “news sources” Amazona expects me to cite, but it is an agency of the US Congress.

      • Cluster April 13, 2014 / 9:31 am

        Watson, again I will ask you – why would the government choose to enforce this law when they ignore so many others. Any thoughts?

      • watsonthethird April 13, 2014 / 1:13 am

        As to whether the BLM was justified in its actions, I do know that a federal court ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal land within a certain period of time, and authorized the BLM to seize Bundy’s cattle if he did not remove them within that time period. He did not remove his cattle, as we know. Here’s the federal court order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/217883270/Order-Enforcing-Injunction-and-Order-in-US-v-Bundy. It is short and quite clear, and you can read the entire order if you’re worried that I’m cherry-picking. But here are the orders of the court:

        IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Enforce Injunction (Doc.#50) is hereby GRANTED.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the former Bunkerville Allotment.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the former Bunkerville Allotment against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has complied with the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation authorized by this Court’s Order.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

        DATED this 8th day of October, 2013

      • M. Noonan April 13, 2014 / 1:19 am

        Like we care what a federal court says when the courts are wrong – the courts once held that black people aren’t human beings.

      • watsonthethird April 13, 2014 / 1:23 am

        So your position is that you can and should ignore ignore court orders that you think are wrong? Would you expect there to be any consequences for that?

      • Cluster April 13, 2014 / 9:34 am

        The federal government ignores laws they think are wrong. Congress over looks laws they think are wrong. Democrat activists ignore laws they think are wrong. Eric holder does not enforce laws he thinks are wrong.

      • tiredoflibbs April 13, 2014 / 6:18 am

        watson: “So your position is that you can and should ignore ignore court orders that you think are wrong?”

        Wow.

        Why don’t you ask your buddy obame! He ignores court orders and laws he doesn’t agree with. We have had this discussion before and you danced around those points as well. You have no problem with obame ignoring court orders and laws since you blindly agree with him. Let’s see, we have obame ignoring a judge ruling that his “recess” appointments were invalid since the Senate was not in recess. We have obame ignoring deportation laws. We have obame ignoring DOMA because he didn’t agree with it.

        The list goes on and on watson. I don’t see you criticizing obame or showing were he is disobeying the laws that he swore to uphold. You agree with the government in this case. You agree that they have the ultimate power in this country and the Consitution and its limits it places on the federal government be damned.

        Pathetic.

      • GMB April 13, 2014 / 7:38 am

        “So your position is that you can and should ignore ignore court orders that you think are wrong?”

        Amen to that brother!!!

        Just like all those radicals from the 60’a and 70’s that ignored every law in the land to get us where we are now. Just like all those fed workers that disobey every law on the books and campaign for barkus dorkus on the fed dime and clock.

        Get used to brother. Going to happen more. Take your laws that are designed to break the back of the tax payers and put em you know where.

        You Watson, were directly vetoed by the the People of this Country. They took your law and told you shove it and they won.

        This time.

        You have to stop it. Your big government sugar daddy is at stake.

        What oh what will you do?

        My guess is you will the fed guns to start blazing. My guess is that you will demand respect for the democratic process even while you are dismantling it to suit your needs.

        You Watson, suffered a cartridge box veto. It will be interesting to see how you demand future veto attempts to be handled.

      • Retired Spook April 13, 2014 / 9:23 am

        Can you elaborate on the “unconstitutional law”?

        I could if I were dealing with an intellectually honest individual, but you, Watson, are a sanctimonious POS. I don’t know why anyone here wastes their time responding to you.

      • Retired Spook April 13, 2014 / 9:36 am

        The only question you have to ask yourself is, how many people are you willing to murder to get your utopia.

        GMB, I think we’re getting very close to finding out the answer to that question. The government backed down this time, because, as someone noted, it’s an important election year. An interesting side note to the current political situation in this country is the stark comparison between those of us who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s. Many of the 60’s radicals now find them in positions of power in government and education, and, to a lesser extent, in corporate America. They see their window of opportunity for the conclusion of a century-long quest closing, and the patience that has been their hallmark is wearing thin.

        On the flip side, many of us from that same generation now find ourselves contemplating the possibility of laying down our lives so that our descendants won’t be enslaved by the radicals from our generation. I guarantee there are a lot more of us than there are of them, and we’re better armed. We’re also not afraid to die for the cause of freedom. And if they think that the U.S. military is going to side with them, they’ve got an unpleasant surprise in store.

      • GMB April 13, 2014 / 10:19 am

        “And if they think that the U.S. military is going to side with them, they’ve got an unpleasant surprise in store.”

        I have to disagree somewhat with your assessment here.

        The field grade command ranks are riddled with officers who play politics. Those who do not bend their will to barkus have been consistently removed from the service. I have no doubt in my mind that those in positions of command here and now, would obey and issue orders from a president Watson type to fire on civilians.

        All other officers should be viewed with at least a 50% skepticism rate just to keep yourself protected.

        The highest levels of the NCO corp are now also suspect and subject to the politics of the day. Look at recent comments made by the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. Politically correct or not?

        The problem comes when you get down to junior NCO’s and the enlisted troops. Will they or will not obey orders from their superiors? My opinion most will not.

        However the current kenyan in the White House is doing eveyrthing he can do to get rid of real men in service and replace them with chelsea manning types.

        The chelsea manning types will have no problem pulling the trigger. Hell most of em won’t even wait for orders.

      • watsonthethird April 13, 2014 / 11:59 am

        So no one can cite the basis for the “unconstitutional law”?

        Amazona asked, “As you are indicating a desire to enter into a discussion on this based on the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, please go through those delegated duties and find the one that allows it to own property.” I cited the Property Clause, which basically no one has disputed other than with the usual uninformed hand-waving. Perhaps Amazona will.

        GMB: “You Watson, were directly vetoed by the the People of this Country. They took your law and told you shove it and they won.” My law? It’s _our_ law, GMB. Or have you given up American citizenship?

        You guys seem so afraid when someone asks some simple questions. Sheesh. I actually knew little about the Bundy Ranch case until I read about it here. You guys make a lot of accusations. I apologize if I’m interested in your explanation of them. You know, asking questions and receiving answers is one way people learn.

        By the way, Breitbart has a good overview of the Bundy situation here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch. It debunks some of theories put forth above. It also makes clear that Bundy doesn’t recognize the federal government as legitimate. “I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a radio reporter. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t recognize the United States Government as even existing.” He also told the Los Angeles Times, “I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws.” Given that, it’s no surprise that he’s gotten crosswise with the federal government.

        Do you agree, GMB, that the federal government doesn’t exist?

      • Cluster April 13, 2014 / 1:07 pm

        I think the question is Watson whether you believe that the federal government has a right to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce. Why should anyone answer your questions, when you ignore those addressed to you? If you can’t address specific questions addressed to you, than how about going back to your new swamp?

      • M. Noonan April 13, 2014 / 1:47 pm

        No one disputes that the land is federally owned – what we are disputing is the government’s choice to prevent a ranch which has been operating since 1870 to continue operating on it. The concept that the desert tortoise will die if the ranch isn’t shut down is a non-starter: if that was the case, then the desert tortoise would already be extinct in that area because the cattle have been there for so long. Was there no reasonable accommodation that could be reached? Apparently, none was tried – it was “get out, rancher: and we don’t give a damn that your family has been here since 1870”. This is the commons – the land actually belongs to all of us and it is simply flat wrong for the government to say that wide swaths of the commons are forever off use to the people…especially for something as absurd as a turtle.

        The solution is to get Uncle Sam out of the land-owning business. It is asinine that more than 84% of Nevada is federally owned (its only a percent or two of, say, New York). It was all set up that way back when so that Uncle Sam could continue to dole out the land goodies to special interests – and that is how it continues to go today (a great deal of Reid’s personal wealth stems from crooked deals with BLM land). Transfer it to the States, or to the people and have done with this nonsense.

      • GMB April 13, 2014 / 12:18 pm

        The federal government has no need of that land. The federal government has no use for that land. Let the tortoise adapt to the grazing of cattle or let it die out. I will not put the tortoise above the human. The federal government can either relinquish that land or they can start killing to keep it.

        The shoe is on the other foot. You were vetoed by armed taxpayers. Not by cowards in college mailing bombs to their victims.

        You were vetoed by the tax payer.

        What is your next move?

  3. GMB April 12, 2014 / 10:04 am

    Not about cows.
    Not about desert turtles
    Not about a rancher not paying his due to the government.

    About Harry Reid.
    About Rory Reid.
    About greed.
    About $5 billion dollar solar energy deal with the chicoms.

    Follow the money.

    God save our Country because I know the politicians have no heart for it.

  4. Amazona April 12, 2014 / 5:35 pm

    In some recent conversations many of us are thinking that the hubris of the Obama Administration will be its downfall, as it overreaches and accelerates reaching the tipping point where people, even the sheeple who voted for him, will realize we have a serious problem.

    We have to bypass the Complicit Agenda Media to connect the dots and get more coverage of the serial abuses of power by the increasingly powerful and aggressive federal government, but it can be done. Everyone I have talked to would contribute to a paid media campaign.

    Just look at the list of the last couple of years. We have had Fast and Furious (swept under the rug by the media and ignored) Benghazi (ditto) the IRS openly and blatantly used as an enforcement arm of the administration, the ignoring of laws by the Attorney General, the blatant racism of this administration and its promotion of racial discord and potentially of racial violence, the assumption of legislative powers by the president in both making and ignoring laws, the executive order handing over vast and uncontrolled power to the EPA with no oversight or controls, now this IRS grab of money to pay debts owed by other people (taking the OPM meme of the Left to new lows) and this Nevada thuggery. Holder recently told a black group that the only reason anyone wants to pursue things like Benghazi and the IRS abuses is racism—-a blatant effort to create even more racial tension.

    I’ve heard talk of a peaceful revolt such as a tax strike, in which people sign contracts to pay taxes owed but withhold them until a set of changes moving toward reestablishing a Constitutional government is accomplished. I can easily see a sweeping conviction that we need the states to hold constitutional conventions and pass major amendments to our Constitution.

    Our problem now is that we are held hostage to Obama. Unless we can get 2/3 of Congress to override his vetoes, he has the entire nation by the short and curlies, and he knows it, and will continue to be increasingly arrogant and dictatorial.

    Thank you, Obama Voters.

  5. GMB April 12, 2014 / 8:49 pm

    Mr Bundy and his people used a “cartridge box veto” on the whole thing. It was effective this time around. Lets see what happens next time.

    • Amazona April 13, 2014 / 11:48 am

      CLIVEN BUNDY emboldens terrorists?

      Not the Attorney General of the United States of America, who looked the other way when domestic terrorists openly put a bounty on a man’s head because of his skin color? Having the chief law enforcement officer of the country take the position he will not prosecute black-on-white crime doesn’t “embolden domestic terrorists”?

      How about refusing to identify domestic terrorism as such? Doesn’t THAT “embolden domestic terrorists”? Calling an overt act of domestic terrorism mere “workplace violence” doesn’t give a little sense of security to others with the same agenda, knowing they will only be subject to normal laws of criminal behavior —–if that—–and not the more stringent treatment of enemies of the state?

      Refusing to secure our borders even in the face of repeated proofs that enemies of the nation are crossing, along with those sainted folk who “only want a better life for their families” and who are “engaging in acts of love” by doing so is not emboldening terrorism?

      What about having the heads of both houses of Congress publicly defining American citizens as “domestic terrorists” simply for stating differing political opinions? Doesn’t that send a message to true domestic terrorists that they are not taken seriously, if this is how domestic terrorism is defined by our political leaders?

    • Amazona April 13, 2014 / 11:54 am

      How about having our own law enforcement officers instruct law abiding citizens to break the law, and provide weaponry to terrorists? It seems to me that when the United States government takes an active role in arming terrorists, even to the extent of making sure they have .50 caliber sniper rifles and scopes, they are making a pretty strong statement to embolden terrorism on our borders, which is close enough to “DOMESTIC” terrorism for me.

      What about simply turning over a United States National Park to a heavily armed drug cartel, and making no effort to expel them and return this property to United States citizens? These intruders, who as far as I am concerned became “DOMESTIC” terrorists when they started operating in this country, certainly seem to feel confident.

      Or should I say “emboldened”?

    • Amazona April 13, 2014 / 11:58 am

      There was a time when passive resistance to government wrongdoing was considered heroic.

      I wonder if Rosa Parks would now be considered to be a “domestic terrorist”. Or those who did sit-ins in the South, or sent black children to segregated schools.

      Now the modern-day Bull Conners types, who taze people and throw little old ladies onto the ground, are the Left’s Good Guys, and the passive resisters are pretty much nothing but “domestic terrorists”—–or at least enablers of domestic terrorism.

      The first thing the Left learned and put to use was the power to define terms, and then redefine them as they went along. This is actually the foundation of their educational indoctrination, as once they control the language they control what is taught and how it is taught.

      • Cluster April 13, 2014 / 1:09 pm

        The Occupy Wall Street crowd was looked upon as heroes when they defied authority, but moving the goal posts based on political agendas is what people like Watson do best. Principles?? Not so much

  6. Amazona April 13, 2014 / 11:38 am

    When the president of the United States and the chief law enforcement office of the United States blatantly tell the public “Do as we say and not as we do” they have created an atmosphere in which any law is subject to subjective analysis of whether the person feels like following it or not.

    This is a logical progression. We have laws saying that the taking of a human life is a crime—-except when the two people who will benefit most by the taking of a human life are allowed, with the consent of the Supreme Court and the support of millions of Lefties, to ignore that and kill a child simply for being inconvenient. We have laws saying people from other countries cannot be here without authorization from our government, yet we allow millions to simply ignore that law, and furthermore have decisions from on high that the government will ignore it as well. We have a nation which has prided itself as being “a nation of laws” yet when a group publicly put a cash bounty on the head of a man because of the color of his skin, this was overlooked because the chief law enforcement officer of the land happens to have the same skin color as the vigilantes and the same racial bigotry.

    All across the country laws are being ignored, bent or dismissed based on the personal decisions of those involved. In Colorado, a second DUI conviction usually results in a year in jail, yet recently a man who had been in the country illegally for more than ten years and who had been convicted of three prior DUIs was driving drunk, again, and hit and killed a young man—–he was not in jail, he had not been deported for his crimes, and he has people defending him because of the stresses he must have suffered for being “persecuted for being brown”. That is, for simply being defined as an illegal alien, as he clearly had not suffered any legal penalty for it. In the United States today, an illegal alien driving drunk, without a license or insurance, will probably not even be charged if he causes an accident, whereas an American citizen would be arrested.

    We are no longer a nation of laws made by our legislative branches and enforced by our law enforcement agencies. The Left thinks this is great, as long as they are the ones picking which laws to follow and which to ignore. This time it was someone with a different political position, and they are in a tizzy about it.

  7. GMB April 13, 2014 / 12:36 pm

    Did Ted Cruz say this or a para phrase of it.

    “We are still a nation of laws. You just have to check with barkus dorkus every day to find out what laws are in effect that day”

    How true.

  8. Amazona April 13, 2014 / 1:56 pm

    I am not defending the personality of Bundy. He sounds like a very unpleasant person.

    I am not defending his stance on the legitimacy of the federal government. He sounds like a crackpot.

    I am not defending his refusal to pay reasonable grazing fees. I understand that there has to be some oversight and administration of public lands and these fees help pay the more than $960,000,000 annual budget of the BLM.

    watson, please stop your coy efforts to conflate disagreement with the way the government tried to deal with Bundy with overall agreement with him as a person.

    I find nothing to support BLM OWNERSHIP of land. Everything I find says the BLM administers federal land. It is an AGENCY of the federal government. It is not the federal government. If there is a law conferring ownership rights to the BLM please produce it. Any land owned by the federal government has to be considered to be held by it FOR THE PEOPLE. There is no other reason for an abstract entity such as a government to OWN anything. Government is a management tool, or at least it should be. Government should be the Board of Directors for the nation, and a Board of Directors does not own the company it administers, but acts in its interests. If it has been determined that some land —in the United States, about 1/8 of the total land mass of the whole country—-should be withheld from private ownership to remain in the public domain, I have no problem with that. And I understand that the only way to do this is to have some sort of ownership established—–that much land can’t just be ownerless. But we have to remain aware that the only reason the term “owned” is applied to the government is because there has to be mechanism for determining who is responsible for it.

    So the federal government has technical title to the land, but it has to do this so the land can be kept out of private ownership and be public land, FOR THE PEOPLE. At this point, some sort of agency for administering this land FOR THE PEOPLE has be established. Again, what has been lost in the greed of big-government types and their unslakable thirst for accquisiton of Other Peoples’ Property is that these administrators WORK FOR US.

    The feds have developed a grasping “mine mine mine it’s all mine” attitude toward public land.

    One way to look at this is to go back in history, to a time when it seemed like a good thing to stretch the Constitution a little and allow the feds to do something not delegated to them. After all, the cause seemed good. Maybe we need to look at this as a natural outcome of tweaking the Constitution—-a little here, a little there, always defended by the claim of noble intent, and all of a sudden a behemoth has developed which is contradictory to the words and intent of the Founders, and there is a huge problem to resolve. A law is passed, a resolution approved, and bit by bit the scope and authority of the federal government has been expanded to include something never included in its original charter. Shouldn’t we look at this as a Teachable Moment?

    And then this is considered to be immutable, permanent, because it exists. There is no consideration for whether it exists on firm ground or not. It simply is so there is nothing that can be done about it.

    I like having public lands, kept for the people and out of private ownership. Unlike probably every other poster here, I have used these public lands extensively, and have a deep appreciation for them. I also see the problems inherent in the escalating overreach of government agencies, in their bullying and abuse of the private citizen in their grasping of more and more power at the federal level.

    My problems come from the thuggish enviro-nazi efforts to shut down certain activities for ideological reasons. Oh, the excuses are many, usually cloaked in the pious claims of “environmentalism”. But the real underlying reason for these disputes is ideological, the fact that allowing ranchers to graze their cattle on public lands treads on two sacred areas of Leftist passion—–profit made via capitalist enterprise, and the use of animals for meat.

    The ugly truth underlying this latest conflict is that it is based on the insistence of the Left on using the might and power of the federal government to advance its social engineering agenda, thinly disguised as “environmentalism”. Bull. Responsible grazing improves the land. Removing hooved herbivores from forage areas always results in degradation of the land. The scope and power of the federal government should be responsible administration of public land, FOR THE PEOPLE, and that should be limited, in the case of grazing permits, to regulations ensuring responsible grazing practices.

    Period.

    The other objection to the Bundy fiasco is the appearance of American Storm Troopers, the thuggery of this administration writ clear in the presence of heavily armed SWAT types closely surrounding the actual home of someone in opposition to them. These government thugs only retreated when protestors started filming them in such close and threatening proximity to a private home from which no physical threat had emanated—and then the government thugs started to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of those observers to gather and to express their opinions.

  9. Jeremiah April 13, 2014 / 3:14 pm

    The so-called “Bureau of Land Management” and other persons claiming to be agencies of the government in charge of this operation at the Bundy ranch have no credentials whatsoever for law enforcement duties. They are hired mercenaries who know little to nothing about law enforcement, they have no training, no studies of law, etc. They amount to nothing more than corporate fiction.

    The government used taxpayer monies to hire their own posse of men to roundup Mr. Bundy’s cattle, to buy them brand new pickup trucks and trailers, as well as the agent provocateurs weaponry, clothing, ammunition, etc. In the end costing the taxpayers in the 3 million $ range.

    In the end, Mr. Bundy wins because this land is his land, and anyone else who is a citizen of Nevada, or any other state for that matter. It is not a product of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and sons, and the Chinamen they are seeking to make mega-millions from.

    • GMB April 14, 2014 / 7:00 am

      Amen Jer,

      Nothing but an attempt my influential collectivists to make a few bucks off what is not theirs. If they have to destroy the taxpayer to get it, well so be it.

      They know the Watsons of this world will cheer them on.

  10. GMB April 14, 2014 / 7:27 am

    The irresistible force of big government ran into a immovable rock named Bundy.

    Mr. Bundy and others told the feds just what they could do with their rules, regulations, laws, and courts. This picture sums up what Mr. Bundy thinks.

    http://viewsfromtherightside.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/news-reporter-american-people-must-take-a-stand-for-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-43

    Watson,

    you have a big problem here. What are you going to do about Mr. Bundy? As I see it you have no choice other than to squash him like the bug you believe him to be. He defied you. He didn’t bow down and beg the feds to be allowed to live and work the land. He took the right. Not only did he take the right but he took the right at gun point.

    Now you have have to decide on how to punish Mr. Bundy. You already know what he thinks of your laws and your courts so that is not really an option you can go with. He will make you look like a fool again.

    However if you don’t do something, your lack of action will embolden other serfs to defy you laws and courts. Now you have got to figure out a way to extract your pound of flesh without inciting a general insurrection against your laws and courts.

    You have spent so long rigging the system to your benefit, you can’t afford to lose it now. Your gravy train is at risk.

    What will you do? Take your time, sit back, enjoy that illicit cigarette, and think.

    What will be Watson’s Reichstag moment?

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 14, 2014 / 9:35 am

      GMB,

      I fully understand the protesters wanting to flip off the BLM thugs as they were leaving, but, seriously, what does that kind of gesture accomplish except lowering themselves to the same level as the mercenary thugs and rubbing salt in the wound?

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 4:24 pm

        “Who have we left out?”

        Keep going and you will be very close to the original intentions of our founders.

        Anyone who has, here and now, the ability to vote them self a bigger share of other peoples money, should have that ability taken away.

        Skin in the game. If you don’t have any, you should not be able to make the rules.
        You want to vote in federal elections? You pay a minimum tax and receive nothing in return.

        The game is changing Watson. Like it or not there is a new breed rising out there. They have as much respect for the current set of rules, regulations, laws, and courts, as the bombers billy and bernadine, had during their time.

        And just to quote one of your heroes,

        Mr Bundy is “guilty as hell and free as bird”

        Hows that feel?

    • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 2:21 pm

      What will you do? Take your time, sit back, enjoy that illicit cigarette, and think.

      Well, first off, GMB, I don’t smoke, but thanks for the suggestion. You certainly do make a lot of unfounded assumptions about other people.

      As I told you before, these laws are our laws. You talk about “your laws and your courts.” They are our laws and our courts, which you spent 18 years of your life defending in the military. The land in question is public land. The Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to manage and administer this land. The BLM is the agency that manages and administers this particular land, as authorized by Congress, per the United States Constitution, on behalf of the American people, including you.

      Bundy has been illegally using public land for years. Years ago the BLM changed the regulations regarding the public tract of land on which Bundy was grazing his personal cattle, reducing the amount of cattle that could be grazed there. Bundy refused to comply. He’s refused to pay any form of grazing fees for a couple of decades. He tried to claim in court that the BLM has no jurisdiction over the land. No court agrees with him because he is wrong. Not only has he continued to illegally use the original tract of public land in question, but he has also illegally used additional tracts of land. The judge who ruled against him last year is an appointee of your hero, Ronald Reagan.

      Bundy doesn’t believe he needs to abide by any federal laws. He doesn’t even think the federal government exists. That would be the one you spent 18 years of your life defending. Once you get out of the conservative bubble, you will find that most people think he’s just a freeloader. Which he is.

      I have no idea how it will end. But it certainly appears that you and your pals are willing to kill other Americans in order to do whatever you want with the public’s land.

      By the way, I took a look at your blog, a link to which you provided above. You suggest, “[T]he removal, also, by constitutional means if needed, of the right for anyone who receives federal money to vote in federal elections.” Does that also include farmers who receive subsidies from the federal government? How about ranchers who use public lands for their direct, personal benefit? I think you need to be consistent here. What do you think, GMB?

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 3:09 pm

        “…it certainly appears that you and your pals are willing to kill other Americans in order to do whatever you want with the public’s land.”

        It appears to you exactly as you want it to appear to you. Yet no one on the Bundy side of the argument ever talked about killing anyone, had heavily armed SWAT types threatening people, had snipers surrounding the opposition, tazed anyone or threw anyone to the ground, and your wild extrapolation that we, and our “pals”, are “…willing to kill other Americans in order to do whatever you want with the public’s land…” is just more of your effort to restate facts in an effort to shore up your position.

        Which appears, to use your own tactics, to be that when the federal government wants to enforce a regulation, even when it is based on the efforts of corrupt politicians to drive a citizen out of business so his property can be used to enrich the politicians and/or their cronies, the government has the right to bring in armed storm troopers, physically attack people, infringe on their rights of assembly and free speech, and use the force and might of the federal government to intimidate and dominate.

        While this view of the unlimited scope and power of the federal government is completely consistent with the ideology of the Left, it is not with the beliefs of most Americans. You people have been getting away with gradual encroachment of the rights of American citizens for many years now, partly because your most egregious offenses against personal liberties and constitutional rights have been spaced out enough to make the pattern harder to recognize except for people who are paying attention. You are just pissed off that one of your incursions into the rights of an American citizen is finally getting the media coverage that Ruby Ridge and Waco should have gotten, and did not.

        Randy Weaver’s family members got killed—–Bundy’s did not. Bundy’s plight got national attention in time to head off bloodshed. And this latest federal overreach may be the tipping point for many Americans, who dislike seeing Bull Connor/Gestapo tactics used by the American government against American citizens.

        This seems to irk you.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 3:26 pm

        “The judge who ruled against him last year is an appointee of your hero, Ronald Reagan.”

        THIS is supposed to be a compelling argument?

        Of course, to the Left, so dependent on Identity Politics, once a person such as a judge is aligned with a political ideology, he is committed to supporting that ideology no matter what. This is one of the many differences between Left and Right. On the Right, we not only accept but demand that people of integrity and ethics will act according to what they think is right, not in a blind lockstep rigidity dictated by political affiliation.

        But really, wattles, going back decades to try to make a point? Which of your hair-in-fire screeching heads came up with that and fed it to you? You people are so funny—in a sad, pathetic, stomach-turning kind of way.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 3:27 pm

        You certainly do make a lot of unfounded assumptions about other people.

        Oh my. Weren’t you the one who accused me of not wanting people to have healthcare?

        Bundy doesn’t believe he needs to abide by any federal laws.

        Neither do the millions of illegal immigrants that you sympathize with.

        And again, why is the federal government choosing to enforce this law, while ignoring others? I don’t why you are refusing to answer this question – but then again maybe not.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 3:29 pm

        Oh, nonsense Amazona. Bundy himself has stated he will do “whatever it takes” to enforce his supposed “pre-emptive” rights to use the federal public land any way he sees fit. Which by the way, is in itself a violation of the very Constitution you so often tout. I so look forward to you yet again spinning the Constitution in a way that claims there is no such thing as public land, and that Congress has no authority to create an agency to manage that land. Do you suppose if some Indians came along and claimed ancestral rights to Bundy’s private property, that he would welcome them with open arms? Well, he would certainly welcome them with arms; that much we know.

        You say the regulations are based on “efforts of corrupt politicians to drive a citizen out of business so his property can be used to enrich the politicians and/or their cronies.” If that’s true, prove it. You and the bubble machine express lots of innuendo that has been easily debunked (even by your fellow conservative) but precious little in the way of facts. But conservatives don’t need facts to gin up their outrage, do they.

        And by the way, I use the term “pals” because GMB seems to feel a need to make this personal.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 3:48 pm

        My, my so testy. I thought California liberals were peace loving people? Or do you just reserve that for the immigrants who choose to break our federal laws? Or the Occupy Wall Street crowd. You seem to not care for the Constitution in so many other aspects that I find it hilariously ironic that you would tout the Constitution on this issue. You’re nothing if not inconsistent.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 3:32 pm

        But really, wattles, going back decades to try to make a point? Which of your hair-in-fire screeching heads came up with that and fed it to you? You people are so funny—in a sad, pathetic, stomach-turning kind of way.

        The point, Little Amy (now that you’ve reached the inevitable name-calling stage), is that GMB’s claim that this is some leftist-only conspiracy is silly. In a sad, pathetic, stomach-turning kind of way.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 3:44 pm

        And again, why is the federal government choosing to enforce this law, while ignoring others? I don’t why you are refusing to answer this question – but then again maybe not.

        Could it be because it’s a completely different circumstances? Cluster, we all know that when you reach the point of being incapable of responding to the issue at hand, you immediately bring up another. That’s why I tend to ignore these interjections by you. Answer one, then you just bring up another.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 7:58 pm

        I was just curious why you suddenly became a stickler for following the law. It’s out of character for you.

        And Amazona nailed it pretty good. The law now depends on circumstances. If an illegal immigrant breaks the law out of “love”, it’s not a crime. So if a bank robber robs the bank out of “love” for his family, do we prosecute?

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 3:44 pm

        Have you seen anyone supporting Bundy’s failure to pay grazing fees?

        Have you seen anyone supporting or agreeing with his cockamamie theories on the existence of the federal government?

        Then why do you keep dragging these silly arguments in as straw men?

        The opposition I have seen has been to the way the heavy-handed, thuggish federal government has handled this, and to the fact that this confrontation was fueled by things far more significant that failure to pay grazing fees.

        The problem was, from the very beginning, that certain people did not want Bundy to be where he was. The best way to get rid of him was to choke him off, make it impossible for him to make a living from his property, and this was done by restricting his grazing rights. The excuse was that for some reason,after centuries of peaceful coexistence between tortoises and cattle, the cattle were suddenly a threat to a species which was, by the way, flourishing to the point of overpopulation. The federal government was complicit in a fraud, in trying to force an American citizen out of business so political and business cronies could take over his land once he was no longer able to make a living from the ranch.

        Most people agree that Bundy was in the wrong in many ways. He got his back up and when it was obvious that there was a fraud involved, and refused to pay fees he should have paid, which just gave the feds the ammunition they needed to go after him. He saw the corruption, the manipulation of the system by crooks such as the Reids, by the Dem power machine in Nevada, and he picked a very stupid way of fighting them, one which made him more vulnerable. On the other hand, what can a lone man do when up against the might of the federal government, in the form of an agency controlled by the Speaker of the House?

        I am betting that you, wattles, are a city person, with absolutely zero experience or personal knowledge of the administration of public lands by various government agencies. Adding that to your proven knee-pad allegiance to anything done by an all-powerful Central Authority, and your position is quite clear. But what you do not realize is that you have shown your true colors (red and yellow) here so often, you are nothing but a noise machine, here only to try to disrupt legitimate discourse. It’s all you ever have been, and all you are capable of being.

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 3:48 pm

        Thanks for bringing the issue up. Yes Farmers who receive direct federal money would lose the right to vote in federal elections. A best case scenario would be the elimination of any federal subsidies to farmers anyway, since there is no enumerated duty for that action anyway.

        As to federal land, that does not have a U.S. Military installation under it? Gone, right back to the state it is in. That takes care of that issue. That would include about 99.5% of all federal lands.

        “Bundy doesn’t believe he needs to abide by any federal laws.”

        He has a lot in common with barkus dorkus the first. Neither does he.

        Anything else?

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 3:57 pm

        Have you seen anyone supporting or agreeing with his cockamamie theories on the existence of the federal government?

        Then why do you keep dragging these silly arguments in as straw men?

        Bundy clearly has a lot of support from the far right. That is very clearly. They may not agree with his cockamamie theories, but they’re ready to defend them by killing other Americans, if needed. Why is it that every cause celeb of the right is someone with cockamamie theories?

        As to the government’s tactics, they may well have been over the top. But it was the government officials who backed off, despite still having the legal authority to round up Bundy’s cattle.

        And then you go on with the “unlimited scope and power of the federal government is completely consistent with the ideology of the Left.” This isn’t an issue of unlimited scope and power. It’s a deadbeat rancher who wants to use the public’s land any way he sees fit. It’s really pretty simple. You just want to make it something more because it fits your agenda.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 4:21 pm

        Why is it that every cause celeb of the right is someone with cockamamie theories?

        Ladies and gentleman, I present to you Cass Sunstein:

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/13/national-rifle-association/obama-regulatory-cass-sunstein-wants-ban-hunt/

        …. but they’re ready to defend them by killing other Americans, if needed

        Wow. Were we watching the same thing?

        It’s a deadbeat rancher who wants to use the public’s land any way he sees fit

        Only in the mind of a liberal with a self superiority complex is an American ranching family who have been in business for over 100 years “deadbeats”.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 4:02 pm

        Thanks for bringing the issue up. Yes Farmers who receive direct federal money would lose the right to vote in federal elections. A best case scenario would be the elimination of any federal subsidies to farmers anyway, since there is no enumerated duty for that action anyway.

        Good. Although I would add that, for you to be consistent, farmers and ranchers who receive indirect federal money should also, under your theory, lose the right to vote in federal elections. This would include ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands, which is obviously a financial benefit to the ranchers.

        And while we’re at it, we must also deny the right to vote to Americans who receive benefits from the VA, don’t you think? And of course, anyone received Medicare benefits, which means no senior citizens will get to vote. And of course, any current and former federal workers. And former railroaders receiving railroad retirement. Who have we left out?

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 4:05 pm

        “It’s a deadbeat rancher who wants to use the public’s land any way he sees fit.”

        And it is deadbeat illegal aliens that come to this country and use federal welfare money anyway they see fit.

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 4:29 pm

        I unfortunately hit the wrong reply button to Watsons last question. Maybe a Mod can mov it down?

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 5:42 pm

        The wattle loves to keep repeating that some people are willing to kill Americans, yet the only comment I have heard along those lines was from Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins,made to Utah County Commissioner Darn Bushman. He warned supporters of Bundy planning to come from Utah that those “inbred bastards” “better have funeral plans.”

        While rifles were not allowed in the Bundy camp, it was surrounded by heavily armed representatives of the federal government.

        The only other reference I have heard lately to killing Americans was the promise by these same feds that drones would only be used to kill Americans if they represented a terrorist threat—not exactly comforting to people who had just heard the Speaker of the House and leader of the Senate call TEA Party sympathizers and returning veterans “domestic terrorists”.

        No one here has been “…..spinning the Constitution in a way that claims there is no such thing as public land, and that Congress has no authority to create an agency to manage that land.” You know, when you can’t make a single point without lying it pretty much flushes everything you say right down into the sewer where it belongs.

        “…You say the regulations are based on “efforts of corrupt politicians to drive a citizen out of business so his property can be used to enrich the politicians and/or their cronies.” If that’s true, prove it.”

        Check out the Reuters article by Marcus Stern from 2012. Of course, to someone like you, it might not be considered corrupt for the son of the head of the United States Senate to work for a Chinese energy company recruited by his father on a trip to China, to build a $5 Billion solar panel plant and solar farm in southern Nevada, or for that son to be connected, through his former position as chairman of the Clark County Commissioners, to a deal to sell this Chinese company land for a price vastly lower than any appraised value. I’m sure it is just a coincidence that some of the land needed for this deal is BLM land involved in the Bundy dispute, and that Harry Reid’s former chief adviser was recently appointed the head of the BLM . Nah—-to your kind, this is just Business As Usual, nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving. Just screeching that this is not true is not the same as “debunking” it.

        You claim that “…GMB’s claim that this is some leftist-only conspiracy ….. ” Yet he does not, unless you admit that this administration’s blatant corruption now defines the entire federal government, in which case yes, what the feds do is leftist-mostly if not leftist-only.

        And again, why is the federal government choosing to enforce this law, while ignoring others?

        Could it be because it’s a completely different circumstances?”

        And here we have Leftist ideology in a nutshell. The wattle inadvertently blurts out a Leftist theory—–that enforcing the law depends on “different circumstances”.

        Therefore, enforcing a law about keeping cattle out of grazing areas so the rancher will lose his grazing and water rights and the land can then be used to enrich politicians and their cronies is OK, but refusing to enforce a law because the goal is to constantly stir up racial tensions, or to buy votes by allowing illegals in the country, constitutes “different circumstances”. It all comes back to the Leftist concept of right and wrong, of the law, always being subject to “circumstances”.

      • Jeremiah April 14, 2014 / 5:53 pm

        Mr. Bundy has not contract with the federal government, and furthermore, the federal government needs to keep their nose out of Mr. Bundy’s business.

        In the old west days, there would have been no such thing, they would not have put up with these fools. If you stole someone’s livestock, you paid a very high price. POW! And it was over for the thief, in this case the BLM.

        The BLM should be very thankful that all they got was a warning to get off the property.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 6:13 pm

        It’s always just a matter of time, usually a very short time, before a Lefty starts to babble incoherent nonsense. Case in point:

        ” to be consistent, farmers and ranchers who receive indirect federal money should also, under your theory, lose the right to vote in federal elections. This would include ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands, which is obviously a financial benefit to the ranchers.”

        Well,as it has been proven that competent management of land includes use of the land, this is just another silly whine of the Left, and I’ve been waiting for it to raise its ugly and stupid head because I have heard it before.

        As I have said here in this thread, research has shown that eliminating grazing results in degradation of the land. I’m not going through it again. The wattle wouldn’t pay attention anyway. The fees paid by ranchers help pay for the administration of the land. Of course, the wattle has never been on a grazing lease,never studied range management, never been a part of anything but a circle jerk of like-minded hate-driven hysterics, so none of this can make any sense to him anyway.

        This is the same crap we heard when the forests were being destroyed. A massive blow-down over thousands of acres left millions of trees,still full of sap, lying on the ground. The wattle-types, all freaked out about the specter of (gasp!) CAPITALISM!! FOR PROFIT !! had wall-kicking hissy fits about letting commercial logging interests come in to harvest these downed trees, in spite of the warnings that they represented a breeding ground for the pine bark beetle. Sure enough, the beetles bred, feeding on downed trees that no longer had sap flowing to allow them to reject the beetle, and after a couple of years these billions of beetles needed new sources of food, and spread out looking for other trees. Again, the hysterical Left had hissy fits about letting commercial logging interests come in to thin overgrown and therefore vulnerable forests, or to clear-cut areas full of beetles and dying trees. The arguments were always the same—-no one should be allowed to make money from public lands, and logging creates pollution were the two biggies.

        So these people were the direct cause of the loss of tens of millions of acres of formerly healthy and valuable trees, and the cause of ferocious fires that have been sweeping through vast areas of standing dead trees,monuments to the stupidity of the Left.

        Pollution? You’ve never SEEN pollution till you’ve seen a forest fire. Compare even a small fire to the exhaust fumes of a few dozers and skidders and log trucks and see how the logging operation looks then. But the ROADS!!! squeal the wattle-types. Well, a logging road is carefully engineered, according to terrain, runoff patterns, and so on, and built to stringent specifications. Roads cut in to fight forest fires, however, are, as a forest ranger described it to me, brutally slashed in with no regard for anything but getting to the fire. They are not built—dozers go in and hack through standing timber.

        The same kind of thing applies to grazing leases. With good forage management, grazing vastly improves the land. Without grazing of hooved animals, weeds spread, the ground becomes hard and water doesn’t sink in, beneficial grass seeds are not spread through droppings, and so on. So grazing leases benefit the land itself, add to government revenues, and help keep meat prices down.

        But who cares about having affordable food? Not the Left, evidently. Maybe when the poor get poorer, and hungrier, more will latch onto the government teat, line up at the government trough, and more votes can be bought.

        Of course they offend the relentlessly ignorant, such as the wattle. After all, they represent profit through capitalist endeavor, and the raising of animals to provide food, two of the things hated by the Left.

        “And while we’re at it, we must also deny the right to vote to Americans who receive benefits from the VA, don’t you think?”

        Absolutely. Instead of factoring in medical care as a benefit of serving our nation, we should just pay our military a living wage so they can afford to pay for their own health care when they are wounded, or need medical care after their service is ended. That is fine with me. The VA is government-run, so of course it is a mess, and a wonderful example of how the feds can and will screw up anything they touch. So let’s get rid of the VA completely, and instead provide a retirement system for our military, as well as a good wage, so their health care can be handled through private health care providers. You betcha.

        ” And of course, anyone received Medicare benefits, which means no senior citizens will get to vote.”

        Again, what a good idea—getting rid of Medicare,that is. Reform our tax system so people can save for their own retirement and old-age health care costs, and allow states to assist the elderly if their citizens so choose. Remove obstructions to insurance companies operating nationally, therefore increasing their risk pools and lowering insurance costs. OMG, I think the wattle has actually stumbled upon a Constitutional idea! This clearly qualifies as an example of even a blind pig being able to find an acorn, sometimes.

        ” And of course, any current and former federal workers.”

        Great idea. You seem to say these people are not actually earning what they are paid, which is really no surprise, and of course if we don’t pay people to work for those federal agencies the agencies themselves will wither away. What an excellent solution to runaway federal size and scope, not to mention cost!

        “And former railroaders receiving railroad retirement. ”

        Is railroad retirement a federal expense? If so, it should not be.

        “Who have we left out?”

        Politicians.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 6:38 pm

        While rifles were not allowed in the Bundy camp, it was surrounded by heavily armed representatives of the federal government.

        You imply that the Bundys were not armed, and that no one else there was armed, except for representatives of the federal government. This is just false. A simple Google search will reveal that. And while you’re at it, Google what Bundy has said about how far he will go to continue to illegally graze on public land. Anyone with a brain understands what he’s talking about.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 6:47 pm

        It’s always just a matter of time, usually a very short time, before a Lefty starts to babble incoherent nonsense.

        Your last diatribe was apparently in response to my discussion with GMB about his theory of denying voting to Americans. It’s cute of you to try and refute each of these points in the context of the Bundy situation, but if you took the time to read what this is about, I was asking GMB to clarify a comment that he wrote on Jeremiah’s blog, which he encourage us all to read by providing a link here. To quote GMB:

        “The removal, also, by constitutional means if needed, of the right for anyone who receives federal money to vote in federal elections. And yes, this would include our Military.”

        http://viewsfromtherightside.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/news-reporter-american-people-must-take-a-stand-for-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-43

        I was trying to clarify just where this eliminating of voting rights starts and stops. If he really means _anyone_ who receives federal money, then that includes a lot of Americans, including all of them over the age of 65. And it is GMB, above, who says even people in the military should be stripped of the right to vote.

        If you have a beef with his stance, tell him.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 7:47 pm

        “diatribe” according to the wattle is how you define explaining Lefty lunacy to a Lefty loon.

        “Anyone with a brain understands what he’s talking about.”

        …which explains why you don’t……

        “If he really means _anyone_ who receives federal money, then that includes a lot of Americans, including all of them over the age of 65. ”

        No, it doesn’t.

        “If you have a beef with his stance, tell him.”

        My problem, such as it is, is with your snarky little game of semantic manipulation. You know nothing, you believe everything you are told by your minders, you operate solely on a mindless knee-jerk response of opposition to anything any conservative says, you are inherently dishonest and thoroughly distasteful. In other words, you are a typical Lefty, and nothing but noise.

        You and your kind slither in here, you try ever so hard to show up what is said here and all you do is make fools of yourselves, over and over again. Your entire political philosophy, such as it is, can be summed up in your inadvertent blurting out of your belief that which laws should be followed and which laws ignored depends on the circumstances.

        You loudly defend a political system you do not understand by attacking its opposition not on the basis of differing ideology, but on the superficial level of “issues”, which is all that people like you understand or care about. It is all Identity Politics, without the slightest understanding of the system using you and your brainless need to attack others, or of the system you attack.

        You are not even a foot soldier of the Left, but mere intellectual cannon fodder, thrown out by those who feed you your talking points to be chewed up and spit out by people who actually know what they are talking about. I’d pity you, if you were not so offensive.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 8:17 pm

        My problem, such as it is, is with your snarky little game of semantic manipulation. You know nothing, you believe everything you are told by your minders, you operate solely on a mindless knee-jerk response of opposition to anything any conservative says, you are inherently dishonest and thoroughly distasteful. In other words, you are a typical Lefty, and nothing but noise.

        I’m so sorry that you have a problem with others participating here. Look, you can read GMB’s post, which he linked to here. You can ask him what he means by “federal money” and denying people the right to vote. Ask him. It’s his theory, not mine.

        Your entire political philosophy, such as it is, can be summed up in your inadvertent blurting out of your belief that which laws should be followed and which laws ignored depends on the circumstances.

        No. You have poor reading comprehension. Cluster asked me, “Why is the federal government choosing to enforce this law, while ignoring others?” He asked me why, not whether I agreed with it. Do you understand that there is a difference? I suggested that it could be because the circumstances are completely different. Do I think the federal government should enforce its laws? Yes. Do they not always do that? Yes. Cluster asked me _why_. Again, your reading comprehension is poor. It is so poor that my attempts to clarify GMB’s stance on denying certain Americans the right to vote are taken by you as an indication that I somehow agree with his ridiculous idea.

        You loudly defend a political system you do not understand by attacking its opposition not on the basis of differing ideology, but on the superficial level of “issues”, which is all that people like you understand or care about.

        No. I came here and asked a simple question: What is the “unconstitutional law” that Cliven Bundy was standing up to? See RetiredSpook’s post of April 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm. No one here seems to know. You might even agree with me that there is no such unconstitutional law, but you can’t bring yourself to do that because you would rather attack. You, of all people, Amazona, should understand the constitutional validity of public land and how they are managed on behalf of the American people, and that Cliven Bundy’s theories in this regard are–what do you call them, cockamamie?–in every way.

        Now, I’m done here because, as you well know, the moderators do not like it when threads become dominated by personal back and forths. If this goes any further, they will delete my posts. I appreciate that the moderators allowed for some exchange. I actually knew little about the Bundy situation until it was brought up here on Saturday. I learned quite a lot.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 9:20 pm

        Watson, you seem to defend the position that laws are enforced depending on circumstances. So the obvious question is then who decides what circumstances dictate the enforcement? And how can you be ok with that?

        And leaving aside some of your asinine comments re: right wingers, killing Americans, and “cockamamie theories”, the obvious reason why you choose to scamper away is because your entire line of logic on this issue is pure nonsense and straight from Harry Reid’s playbook.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 9:42 pm

        Watson, you seem to defend the position that laws are enforced depending on circumstances.

        I haven’t defended that at all. You could also ask me why people drive under the influence, and I could give you a reason or two, but that doesn’t mean I condone the behavior. Do you understand?

        So the obvious question is then who decides what circumstances dictate the enforcement? And how can you be ok with that?

        A great topic for a new post on your blog, Cluster. Oh wait, your blog is private because you didn’t like dealing with people who disagree with you. Well, I’m sure they’ll let you start writing here again.

        And leaving aside some of your asinine comments re: right wingers, killing Americans, and “cockamamie theories”, the obvious reason why you choose to scamper away is because your entire line of logic on this issue is pure nonsense and straight from Harry Reid’s playbook.

        Such a compelling argument, Cluster. Congratulations. (By the way, “cockamamie” is the term Amazona used to describe Cliven Bundy’s theories; I just repeated it. Try and follow along.)

        Say, maybe you can answer my original question: What is the “unconstitutional law” that Bundy is standing up to?

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 10:03 pm

        Not enforcing the laws is unconstitutional, so a good argument could be made that the federal government has set a precedent, and now is acting unconstitutionally. And you are the one that mentioned that laws are enforced depending on circumstance, so at least own up to that and then tell us why you think this particular circumstance called for endorsement and others don’t.

        I took my blog private to get rid of the sewage and that includes you, so you may want head on back to your new sewer that Marner set up for you. I know Rusty misses you.

        I just repeated it. Try and follow along

        You tend to repeat a lot of things. Try being original once in a while.

      • Cluster April 14, 2014 / 10:21 pm

        Dealing with people who disagree with me is what I do on a daily basis. Dealing with people like you and your two other counter parts, who continually attack false constructs and have serious self superiority issues is something that I chose to no longer continue. You do support choice, right? So good luck over there, I am sure you’ll attract a large following.

      • tiredoflibbs April 15, 2014 / 5:30 am

        Warty: “…it certainly appears that you and your pals are willing to kill other Americans in order to do whatever you want with the public’s land.”

        Uh what were you saying about unfounded assumptions? So as usual a different set of rules apply to you. You hysterical fears continue to work against you. Despite the fact you support corrupt politicians who continue to use the force of government to get their way while squashing the little guy. If private businesses did that, you proggies would be all over them. But if one of you own does it, the blinders come on.

        Pathetic as usual, watty.

  11. Retired Spook April 14, 2014 / 8:53 am

    OT, but if we had more journalists like Sharyl Atkinson the political climate in this country would be markedly different.

    • M. Noonan April 14, 2014 / 11:35 am

      Saw two people debating about her on TV this AM – the righty side pointing out (correctly) that its horrible that the MSM is suppressing the truth, the lefty side saying, in effect, that she’s just frustrated that more of her stories weren’t aired…thus giving us the Team Obama-inspired talking point: she’s just a disgruntled MSMer who wanted more air time.

  12. Mark Moser April 14, 2014 / 12:37 pm

    Looks like I may have been right for a change thinking the left has no stomach for a fair fight. Maybe we need more militia to check the abuse of Federal power. How about expanding the idea to use the militia to include enforcing laws the Feds refuse to enforce? I’m not a big fan of vigilantism, but the lack of enforcement by the Administration, is indicative of the need for a strategy to compel action by the Feds who refuse to preform their sworn duty too.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 14, 2014 / 1:02 pm

      Mark,

      It is rather puzzling that the federal government can send agents armed with automatic weapons to confront a rancher over grazing rights but not to the Mexican border to confront drug runners and illegals crossing the border.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 3:15 pm

        Exactly. Well said.

        This administration makes its priorities clear. It can spend $3 million to drive a man out of business so political cronies can get rich off his property, it can send heavily armed thugs to threaten and intimidate American citizens (including those who are simply employing their Constitutional rights to assembly and free speech) but it can’t be bothered to enforce laws that would PROTECT American citizens, both physically and economically.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 3:20 pm

        Where was PETA in all this? Cattle were run to death by the hired guns of the government, yet not a peep out of the alleged animal rights people. We saw helicopters chasing terrified cattle at high speeds, and this seemed quite acceptable to the so-called animal lovers of the RRL.

        Kind of like how “feminists” were suddenly silent when one of their own was accused of being a serial sexual abuser.

        Kind of like how people who claim to abhor racism become mute in the face of racist comments by fellow travelers.

        History may very well tell us that one good thing came from the election of Barack Obama, and that was the exposure of the blatant hypocrisy of the Left.

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 5:10 pm

        “Where was PETA in all this?”

        Yeah Watson, where was pete when it came out that another fed agency was killing off the same specie of turtle that the blm was allegedly protecting?

        Hmmmmm? Hmmmmmmm?

  13. GMB April 14, 2014 / 6:53 pm

    In a nutshell.

    Watson. Your side lost this round. That must be a galling experience for you. I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that must be going on in the collectivist circles.

    You still haven’t said what you are going to do about.

    Bundy defied you. He broke laws. He threatened armed violence on agents of the federal government. He is public enemy number 1.

    I am really interested in your solution to this matter. How will you bring this man to heel? What is your solution. You can’t Ruby Ridge or Waco him. I would bet every last dollar he has planned for this. You don’t play heads up power games with the feds, not in this day and age, if you are an easy mark.

    Harry “the accused pederast” Reid has already said this is not over. Now that I believe. How it is not over I am very interested in seeing.

    What is your solution to this problem Watson?

  14. GMB April 14, 2014 / 7:08 pm

    I’m a fringe sort of guy. Caught between two competing worlds you might say. Fringe, however it is said, describes me rather well.

    I read a lot of stuff that is even way more fringe than what the ptb’s here at B4V would ever think about tolerating. On one, there is a discussion being bandied about in in Cali’s Central Valley. You know that place that has lots of farms that are being shut down because the feds turned the water off to save a fishy?

    Some more radical types are talking about defying the feds and turning the water back on without permission.

    You have to stop this Watson. This could get very out of hand and very ugly in the future. The snail darter is depending on you.

      • 02casper April 14, 2014 / 9:49 pm

        GMB,
        Theirs a difference between preparing woman for combat and using them for cannon fodder.

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 10:10 pm

        Spoken truly like someone who never had to serve with women in combat. Things are fine until they have to go potty. In two years I saw one, count em one female, drop her drawers and squirt the dirt in front of any male member of my unit.

        I was damn neared articled 15 for refusing to deploy women MP’s on patrols over two hours. You know how hard it is to transport a porta potty when you walk everywhere you go?

        The number of urinary and bowel infections suffered by females in my unit was a tad overwhelming. I won’t even mention the number of females, especially reservist that got pregnant intentionally.

        Bottom line. If the women in Bundy compound don’t want to be there, all they have to do is get up and leave. I doubt that Mr. Bundy is forcing any to stay. If they want to make their mark by by being first in line, that is their decision . Lets see what your collectivist government is made of.

        Fair deal?

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 10:40 pm

        “Theirs a difference…”

        Really? THEIRS a difference ????

        And you claim to be a teacher?

        No wonder so many students graduate while being nearly illiterate.

        “Theirs a difference…” What a moron.

      • watsonthethird April 14, 2014 / 11:09 pm

        Way to zero in on the most important thing here, Amazona.

        So, GMB, are you seriously drawing equivalence between the United States military training women for combat and these armed protestors using their women as shields in the hopes that, in the event of violence, the protestors would get more sympathy from the public?

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 11:18 pm

        You don’t think it is important to have teachers who have at least the basics of the language? Many of us think one of the biggest threats facing the United States in the years ahead is its plummet into near-illiteracy and overall ignorance.

        No, what you seem to think is important is barging in here to snipe at posters over semantics, playing speed bump. Clearly this is you can do, and you’re not even very good at this. You know perfectly well that GMB said no such thing. This coy little “So, …..” thing that casper likes to play is no more becoming on you. It’s a silly ploy.

        I thought you were going to grace us with your absence.

      • Amazona April 14, 2014 / 11:28 pm

        GMB, I agree with you. As a woman who has worked for so many years doing what is considered man’s work, I am a true feminist in that I think when work can be done equally well by men and women, women ought to be treated equally. I can drive a truck, operate several kinds of heavy equipment, work with livestock, operate tractors and farm equipment, and do basic carpentry. I grease my own equipment, including the road grader, which has more grease zerks than I could possibly have imagined, and love spending a day moving dirt or digging up boulders.

        Having said all of that, if I have to be carried out of a burning building the last thing I want to see coming up the ladder to get me is a 5’6″ woman. If a woman is willing to squat in front of men to pee or whatever, then let her go on patrol with them if that is the only issue. If physical strength is the issue, then she needs to find something else she can do.

        Silly wattles is trying to pretend you said something you simply didn’t say. Ditto for casper, for whom “silly” is a fond memory as he hit the skids and flew past silly into just plain dumb a long time ago.

        I agree with you, if the women in the Bundy camp want to stand up and face down the goons and thugs of the federal government, let them. I’ll bet this was their idea. The simpering Lefties who seem obsessed with polluting this blog seem a little put off by the realization that the women in the Bundy camp have more courage than they could come up with in any situation.

        “…using their women as shields…”

        It looks like the wattle is projecting again, assuming that real men would approach this situation the way he would. Because hiding behind someone else definitely sounds wattle-ish.

  15. GMB April 14, 2014 / 8:51 pm

    Wonder if this will be enough. I do not believe Mr. Bundy will go quietly.

    • Jeremiah April 14, 2014 / 9:28 pm

      In the words of our good friend, Neo … BRING IT!

      I have a feeling that a lot of people are just itching for the feds to make one stupid move, and the war is on!!

      • GMB April 14, 2014 / 9:38 pm

        Jer, I think you are right. Politicians have no stomach to stand for the taxpayer anymore. Look at them. Where have the ones that claim to be on the side of taxpayer been. Nowhere to be seen. Quiet as a mouse.

        Useless.

      • Jeremiah April 14, 2014 / 10:40 pm

        GMB, that’s a given for any modern day politician. They don’t care about how they make tax-paying people suffer. Taxpayers buy their vacations, lavish dinners, tuxedos, dresses, wine, etc. Not to mention the communist core of government that wants to “even the playing field” so to speak. But it has nothing to do with evening the playing field…it has everything to do with control…and everyone who does not comply either goes to prison or gets a bullet to the back of the head, China and North Korea for example. That is what our modern day politicians want. Anyone who has ever survived a communist regime can attest to that. That’s why they want gun control…they key word being – control. They want to control information, and communication, key word once again, is Control.

        Americans need to be TIRED of this mess, and they need to fight back with UN-reckoning force.

        I would love to go out to the Bundy Ranch and join other patriotic Americans. Unfortunately I do not have the money to make the trip. You can bet though that I will be fighting it on my own turf when it arrives.

  16. tiredoflibbs April 15, 2014 / 12:09 pm

    watty: “Good morning, tired. I must say, your comment made me chuckle, because the _entire_ issue with Cliven Bundy is that he believes he should play by a different set of rules from everyone else. Leave it to you to ignore the salient issues and instead focus on attacking me.

    P.S. “Warty”? That’s a new one. Your creativity truly knows no bounds.”

    First off, it was not an attack. It was an honest analysis of your usual hypocrisy. Bundy is playing by a different set of rules? He is playing by the same rules that your buddy obame is playing by! He is obeying laws he agrees with and disobeys those that he doesn’t! Did Bundy swear on a bible to uphold the Constitution and execute the laws of this nation? Obame certainly did! And yet, he only obeys and enforces laws he picks and chooses from. Too many times this has been pointed out to you and too many times you ignore those annoying FACTS!

    Salient issues? You bring up “salient issues” while cappy posts something completely off and unrelated to the topic? Typical of you on the left to shift focus from your party’s wrong doing and corruption. But what else can be expected from you? Many here have asked you questions that you ignore. Pointing out your hypocrisy is as easy as breathing. Of course, you would take it as an attack.

    “Warty” was a result of auto-correction. But I could get more creative than that. If I did that, it would show that I have creativity, while you mindless drones have your dumbed down talking points and identity politics outside of which you know NOTHING!

    Thanks for playing.

  17. Cluster April 15, 2014 / 1:10 pm

    Watson,

    How about if you address the issues of the federal government arbitrarily picking a date when they choose to enforce a law they have unconstitutionally overlooked, and the issue of Harry and Rory Reid and their unsavory, and possible criminal, actions pertaining to this deal. It would be refreshing for you to acknowledge these angles to the story rather than calling an American ranching family “deadbeats”.

    • Amazona April 15, 2014 / 7:04 pm

      Come on, Cluster—you know perfectly well that the wattle and casper are never going to have the backbone to stand up and admit that Reid is a crook, a vile and contemptible creature whose venality and corruption are increasingly obvious.

      You know they are just going to gaze off into the distance and hum when we talk about the unconstitutionality of the President of the United States simply inventing laws he likes, ignoring those he doesn’t, and changing those he wants changed, all without any input from the legally designated legislative authority of the nation. To the simple minded, such as these, a “dictator” is someone who is mean and nasty, and because they still think Barry is a nice guy they don’t associate the determination and implementation of laws by one man to be a dictatorship.

  18. GMB April 15, 2014 / 1:48 pm

    Your government is going to make the decision to fire the shots. Not the Bundys. You can pack up and leave or you can kill. It’s up up to you. Women have and will again be in the front line of this battle.

    They are there because they want to be.

    Are you saying that only men should be cannon fodder? Are you saying that women are not good enough to be cannon fodder? Rather odd stand for a progressive collectivist to take knowing your view that women can do everything a man can do. We all know this is different though. Why? Because Watson and Casper said it was.

    We all know that is bullshit. Time to call the bluff though. Do you have what it takes to kill women? Time will tell.

    • 02casper April 15, 2014 / 6:48 pm

      “Your government is going to make the decision to fire the shots. Not the Bundys.”

      I think it’s even money on who would fire first.

      “Are you saying that only men should be cannon fodder? Are you saying that women are not good enough to be cannon fodder?”

      I’d prefer that nobody be cannon fodder. Personally, I have know problem with men and women serving together on the front lines. What I don’t like is the idea of placing women only up front.

      • 02casper April 15, 2014 / 6:50 pm

        Sorry, I meant “no problem”.

      • Amazona April 15, 2014 / 6:58 pm

        Of course you can’t admit that the government will fire first. Bundy has played this well so far, and he has to know that if he were to fire first he would lose the advantage he now has of being a hero to many. He also has to know that firing first would give the feds the excuse they need to kill everyone on the Bundy side. So it’s pretty stupid to claim the chances are 50-50 that his side would fire first.

        You act as if someone planned to hogtie these women and place them in the line of fire. Bull. It is a good strategy, as the world will be watching, and even the thuggocracy of the Obama Administration is not likely to want the bad press of firing on unarmed women standing up to them on a matter of principle.

        You have the most distorted way of looking at things—it’s kind of creepy. The wattle says vile things like accusing people of wanting to use women as “shields” because he gets off on being vile, but you seem to just blurt whatever random thoughts flit through your brain, without the slightest idea of how weird they are. It’s like Tourette’s, without the swearing.

        (Or, as one of your fellow travelers once called it, “Turret Syndrome”. You guys might not make much sense, but you sure can be entertaining sometimes.)

      • GMB April 15, 2014 / 8:25 pm

        ” What I don’t like is the idea of placing women only up front.”

        Why? That goes against your progressive collectivist mantra also. If women and me are equal then you should have no problem with women only combat units. Now my question to you is why would you want women not to serve by themselves? What possible reasoning can you have for this silly notion?

        The mantra. Women can do everything a man can do.
        The reality. Casper doesn’t want women only units. What a complete misogynist, sexist, anti-woman point of view.

        I am notifying you local council of soviets again. This heresy must stop! You hear me? Stop!!!!!

  19. GMB April 15, 2014 / 1:55 pm

    Something your progressive media will never tell you. I heard this spoken by just about about every woman I served with. Not all the words were the same, the variations were different but the intent was always understood.

    ” If something happens…..:Please don’t let them take me alive.”

    Watson, Casper. Either one of you want to take a shot at the deeper meaning or why these words would have have to be spoken.

    I hope I am still around when the collectivist progressive world finally does take a dump. It will be “interesting” as the old Chinese saying goes.

  20. GMB April 15, 2014 / 2:18 pm

    I will thank you for the this issue though. Ich habe den Worten nicht auf Englisch. Sorry I don’t really have the words in English for what Casper is trying to do with the women angle.

    One one hand Caper is the good collectivist progressive saying that women should be combat.
    On the other hand Casper is trying to say that women should not be cannon fodder. That Bundy is hiding behind women.

    I do not see why this should be an issue for Casper. The collectivist progressive view is that women and men are equal in everything. Yet Casper is saying that hiding behind women is wrong. Why? The collectivist progressive view does not support this.

    If women should be in combat then there should be no bar to being cannon fodder, or is this another one of Watson and Casper’s situational things?

    Watson Casper. Are you saying that there difference between men and women. That would seem to be the case.

    Bad proggies, bad proggies!. I will notify your council of soviets asap and inform on your heresy.

    Good Day Gentlemen.

Comments are closed.