Federal agents back down in stand-off with armed cowboys: BLM release cattle after they were surrounded by militia following agreement to stop targeting rancher in modern-day ‘range war’

Testimony by Clive Bundy:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkWljeiAhYI

Setting the record straight:  http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

Fox News Report:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE

On Scene Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4#t=113

Read more and see the video and photos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603026/Senator-speaks-favor-Nevada-rancher-militias-join-battle-federal-agents-accused-acting-like-theyre-Tienanmen-Square-fight-disputed-ranch-land.html#ixzz2yp0Dwhkk  

  • Bureau of Land Management would not enforce court order to remove  cattle and was pulling out of the area
  • Politicians have compared the standoff to Tienanmen Square
  • The Bundy family says they’ve owned the 600,000 acres since 1870 but the Bureau of Land Management says they are illegally grazing
  • The dispute began in 1993 when land was reclassified as to federal property to protect a rare desert tortoise, the government claimed
  • Federal officers stormed the property this week with helicopters and snipers to back up about 200 armed agents
  • They have reportedly seized around 350 of Cliven Bundy’s 900 cattle
  • Cattle were handed back to rancher after tense standoff
  • Tensions escalated after private militias poured in to support the family

This is the best explanation I have read on the reason why a person would not want to enter into a contract with the BLM and thus would not pay any grazing fees to them. Offer to pay to the county but not deal with the BLM. I did not write this so if you repost or copy and paste please credit the author.

Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.

If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner

Loma Wharton. Co-Chair

www.liberators2004 dot org

V.A.C.A.T.E. – Valiantly Affirming Constitutional Authority Through Education

 

I also spoke with Sheriff Mack last night. He spent from Sat. morning through Tues. morning with the Bundy’s. He said it was intense! His comments about women of course was taken out of context. He would never put a woman in front of him to take a bullet. If any station that is reporting such a thing would have been at the Bundy’s they would have had the whole conversation instead of sensationalizing on clips of conversations taken out of context. There were no bus loads coming in from the east but there were people in individual vehicles coming from all over this great nation in support of the Bundy’s. A veteran officer of 20 years and member of Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officer’s Ass. made it to the Bundy Ranch before Sheriff Mack (retired) arrived and called Mack, who was stuck in traffic and told him, they (BLM) are going to kill us. He said again, it was intense. There were women on the front line standing up to the BLM before any of the backup were there and Mack was referring to those women that did get picked up and slammed down, dogs sicced on them, guns pointed at them, yes, and BLM snipers, too. Mack said you could have put them on the front line and I’m sure you all saw the clip. After Mack was done those women came up and hugged him and thanked him for his words. Now America gets to view the tainted version of what he said.

I hate to burst bubbles but Sheriff Mack has understood, as well as Cliven Bundy, jurisdiction for many years. Thanks to Jim and Rosemary Anderson Mack was here in Montrose four years ago talking of that very thing. He has mentioned in U-Tubes that I have watched of the press conferences that he has known Cliven for twenty years and Cliven also speaks of jurisdiction. He wouldn’t have been able to do what he has done if he didn’t.

 

Friday, April 18, 2014

Mission Statement by Operation Mutual Aid

Militiamen, Freedom Fighters, Soldiers, Patriots All
Who?
A coalition of States Militias, Patriotic civilians, Individual Freedom Fighters, and Media Relations personnel from Patriotic political activism groups, in conjunction with local Law Enforcement if and where applicable.
What?
Defense of public and private property, lives, and liberty to exercise God-given rights, seen plainly in the laws of Nature, and codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, at the request of such parties in need of such defense, and the documentation and archiving of all defensive actions taken by the coalition for accurate and prompt reporting to all concerned public venues and media.
Where?
Defensive posture shall be taken up in the optimal tactical position in relation to the people or property in need of such defense. All local laws not in violation of the U.S. and subject States Constitution shall be observed. All laws in violation of the U.S. and subject States Constitution are hereby considered null and void, the enforcement of which most likely represents the need for such defense as herein outlined.
When?
As the nature of a Quick Reaction Force is understood, a defensive posture will be taken up in the shortest amount of time possible for the allocation of the necessary defensive resources to the location determined. Minimum force size will be determined by the leadership of the coalition.
Why?
As has been the case throughout recorded history, and reasonably assumed throughout unrecorded history, governments instituted amongst men for the protection of private lives and property have always assumed and usurped duties and responsibilities contrary to the purpose of their institution, and, specific to these United States, such governments have done so in complete and utter violation of the documents which established them by the free will of the people, and the union of them via the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Once those governments have ceded their intended purpose to some other end or intent, it can be reasonably and logically ascertained that such entity would become aggressive to its former purpose and the people who established it in pursuit of its own goals.
At such a point as the government intends to use the physical power granted it by those who implemented it against them, it then becomes the responsibility of the people themselves to defend their country from its government, and to generally revert to the process outlined by the Declaration of Independence to absolve such government of its power, or separate from it to be freed from its oppression. As this coalition is intended for the defense of the populace from enemies foreign and domestic, the latter path shall be left to the determination of that populace, and we shall guarantee them the freedom to make that choice in accordance with man’s God-given Liberty, the ideas espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutions of the several States, the Constitution of their union, and the Bill of Rights, so help us God.

Listen Up You Who Think Democrats Championed the Civil Rights Acts; if you have the courage and intellect to grasp the painful truth.

Listen to Mark Levin (and quotes from Ann Coulter’s books) set the record straight regarding the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, the history which the Democrats have hijacked.

http://therightscoop.com/must-listen-mark-levin-tells-the-truth-about-the-1964-civil-rights-act-says-lbj-was-a-sleazy-human-being/

What party’s platform and actions defended and enforced the Brown versus the Board of Education ruling which reversed the Supreme Court’s endorsement of segregation?  Which party did the opposite, even denouncing Brown versus the Board of Education (97 Dems, 2 Repubs)?  Some Democrat governors openly defied the decision.  Which party’s President established the Civil Rights Commission?

What President stripped the decision of its enforcement provisions (after which 12 Democrat Senators still denounced the decision)?  

Which party, including some of their representatives from the north, resisted the passing of the 1957 Civil Rights Act?   

Every segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat, mostly very famous Liberals. Republicans only began sweeping the South after the old guard Democrat segregationists left government.  

LBJ, in regard to the Kennedy’s sponsored 1964 Civil Rights Act said, “I’ll have those Niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.” 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Please understand that Progressives continually whitewash their history, especially their early 1900′s eugenics efforts and failed statist policies such as LBJ’s “Great Society”, even to the point of co-opting Conservative history, policies, terminology and ideas, in order for them to continue to beguile America.  

The Left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375544/thought-police-patrol-charles-krauthammer

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to the Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the Left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

 

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

 

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just ten days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the Left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the Left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (non-theological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace.

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

  Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group

Sen. Mike Ellis (R-WI) Caught on Tape Plotting Potential Felony. He now won’t seek re-election, fortunately.

Wisconsin State Senate President Mike Ellis (R-19) was caught on tape potentially coordinating how to disguise attack ads against Assemblywoman Penny B. Schaber by arranging his own allegedly independent Political Action Committee (Independent Expenditure), which could be a felony according to Wisconsin State election law.

Ellis was also caught on hidden camera intimating that fellow Republican Gov. Scott Walker is working only for himself, and agreeing that the John Doe Probe was “Blessing in…Disguise”.

The raw video can be found at http://Youtube.com/VeritasVisuals

On April 11 he “decided” not to seek re-election, as a result of the video that exposed his true character.

16 Signs That Most Americans Are NOT PREPARED For The Coming Economic Collapse

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/09/16-signs-americans-prepared-coming-economic-collapse/

#1 Could you come up with $2000 right now?  According to a shocking study that was just released, most Americans could not

Forty percent of individuals in the U.S. said they could not or probably could not come up with $2,000 if an unexpected need arose, according to research by Atif Mian of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

#2 In that same study, Americans were asked the following question…

“Do you have 3 months emergency funds to cover expenses in case of sickness, job loss, economic downturn?”

An astounding 60 percent of people that responded said that they do not.

#3 Another study found that less than one out of every four Americans has enough money stored away to cover six months of expenses.

#4 Some people are actually trying really hard to get ahead, but admittedly that is really tough to do when we are all being taxed into oblivion.  In fact, it was reported this week that Americans now spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined.

#5 Right now, more Americans are dependent on the government than ever before.  In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that currently gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#6 It is estimated that less than 10 percent of the entire U.S. population owns any gold or silver for investment purposes.  That is a stunning number.

#7 It has been estimated that there are approximately 3 million“preppers” in the United States.  But that means that almost everyone else is not prepping.

#8-16 The following are nine more statistics that come from a survey conducted by the Adelphi Center for Health Innovation.  As you can see, a significant portion of the population is not even prepared for a basic emergency that would last for just a few days…

  • 44 percent don’t have first-aid kits
  • 48 percent lack emergency supplies
  • 53 percent do not have a minimum three-day supply of nonperishable food and water at home
  • 55 percent believe local authorities will come to their rescue if disaster strikes
  • 52 percent have not designated a family meeting place if they are separated during an emergency
  • 42 percent do not know the phone numbers of all of their immediate family members
  • 21 percent don’t know if their workplace has an emergency preparedness plan
  • 37 percent do not have a list of the drugs they are taking
  • 52 percent do not have copies of health insurance documents

The Globalist Brainwashing of Your Children Through Common Core

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/02/globalist-brainwashing-children/

Posted on  by Dave Hodges

Carlin-Proud-Parents-of-Freethinking-Child

Common Core is an undisputed and unmitigated disaster. The two rollout states, New York and Florida, are already taking steps to remove themselves from Common Core. This is largely due to the fact that both New York’s and Florida’s student test scores have goneinto the toilet since they embraced Common Core. Many advocates are clamoring for the dismantling of this UN inspired approach to education which perverts both math and English and will force children to read government propaganda as opposed to classic literature.

Read the full article at the link above.  

 

 

 

Devastating 39 Minute Movie on the Federal Take Over of Public Schooling, Called Common Core

http://www.commoncoremovie.com/

We are the Government and we’re here to help you.  We have benevolent, wise central planners to systematize and data collect compulsary standardization.

Who is going to stand up against public education becoming even more of a teaching production line than it is already?

Only in the collectivist mind can education be quantified and everyone fit the same waffle plate.

Many young adults struggle to, well, grow up. It’s been called the “failure to launch,” or the “Peter Pan Syndrome,” or “perpetual adolescence.”

Send them to Summit (http://www.summit.org/,  http://www.summit.org/media/pdf/summit-ministries-brochure.pdf) 

What is Social Justice?

Social Justice is code for all the “good things” Progressives don’t need to argue for and won’t debate, yet what no one DARE! to argue against!

Political Correctness is a worldview based on emotion, such as “compassionately” coercing redistributive equality!!  In fact, inert minds are drawn to Progressive social justice like moths to a light bulb in the dark.

Social Justice is nothing if not collectivist statist political opportunism and intellectual laziness at the expense of liberty in order to restore “equality” of outcomes and “fairness”, instead of equality of opportunity and equality of law, especially economic equality.   It’s positive law (moral relativist, post-modern, nihilist social justice) instead of negative law (justice based on natural law).

The United Nations explicitly calls for institutionalized enforcement of global economic equality and the abolishment of policies based on individual liberty and justice that are not subservient to the agenda of social justice.

Anyone who resists overreaching state coercion of “fairness” can be justifiably treated and smeared as the “enemy.”   Yet Progressives claim that Conservatives are the ones seeking to impose their worldview upon society!

 

 

Common Core: Anatomy of a Failure

When Bill and Melinda Gates go to Africa and see healthy people and sick people, they presumably have a single thought: what can we do to make everyone healthy?  The problems are easily understood; goals can be clearly stated.  Given a big commitment, there’s a high chance of success.

When Bill Gates looks at education in America and sees good students and bad students, he probably assumes that these variations are part of the human condition.  That’s not a promising problem to focus on.

What fascinates Bill Gates is something else entirely: namely, the variety and incoherence from school to school, city to city, and state to state.  It looks so messy and inefficient.  And he thinks: a guy with my money and management skills should be able to organize all this disorder, turn it into an efficient machine, save the country, and make another fortune in the process.

Potentially all true. 

But at that moment he has lost the game.  Because he is no longer talking about educational goals, which must be our main concern.  He is talking about standardization.  He is talking about a tidier assembly line.  (But nobody ever said that democracy is supposed to be tidy.  Dictatorship is tidy.)

Bill Gates brought a programmer’s sensibility to education.  There is a maximally efficient way to design a piece of software.  So let’s do that, and stop all this other nonsense.  Bad plan, even with the best of intentions. 

As Bill Gates’s own experience with Vista proved, the problem lies is finding the perfect design.  You (a person or a society) would have to be a fool to put all your money on one solution.

There is also some willful deception or self-deception here.  If you state that henceforth all children should be able to do X, because that’s the new standard, does this mean that all children can do X?  Can even half the children do X?  Read some of the verbose standards, and you’ll probably conclude that virtually no kid can do X.

There seems to be a belief in magic.  Outline impressive goals (“internationally benchmarked,” no less) in a technical, officious way, and every kid will automatically soar to high levels.  But why would that happen?  Teachers still have to teach, and students still have to learn the information, fact by fact.  But our Education Establishment hates all those traditional practices.  It’s so much simpler to proclaim that henceforth all children will be college- and career-ready.  Presto!  That was easy. 

Bill Gates and Common Core are obsessed with arranging things in standardized patterns, coast to coast.  So we must have standards that will somehow apply to everyone.  Then we need identical curricula, and we’ll need identical tests.  All of these things will be aligned to each other and symmetrically arranged, like so many neat stacks of boxes in a shoe store’s warehouse.  And no one, from that point forward, will be able to think outside those boxes, try something new, or tell the Education Establishment to take a hike and stop annoying us.

The fact of the matter is that many different kinds of schools use many different approaches to achieve excellent results.  Look at all the great private schools, classical academies, Montessori schools, and strong public schools.  The variety and differences are a sign of health.  Let them flourish!

The best plan is to have schools and cities in charge of their own education, so that parents have some control, their suggestions are listened to, and everybody involved is constantly aiming for improvement, not ruthlessly enforcing a top-down mandate. 

I suspected from the start that Common Core would be a fraud and a failure for a simple reason: it recycled all the bad theories and methods from the last 75 years.

If you want to let Bill Gates off the hook, say this: he trusted the wrong people and their bad ideas.  The very same people who had dumbed down the schools were now being asked to create a reform program.  Oh, really?  How could that possibly work?  Typically, these people were socialists.  They wanted leveling, and they worked relentlessly to get it.  They – people like Bill Ayers – call this leveling “social justice.”

I’m not sure whether they tricked Gates or he let himself be tricked.  But everybody knows by now that Common Core accepted all the worst nonsense in Reform Math.  (That’s why we see so many articles and stories about impossible math homework.)  Similarly, Constructivism is the official dogma throughout Common Core.  This quackery orders teachers not to teach; students must figure out everything for themselves.  Similarly again, Common Core embraced sophistries from Whole Word, those sophistries being the cause of our illiteracy problem.

If Bill Gates had turned away from the Education Establishment and its dysfunctional ideas, maybe he could’ve worked a miracle.  But the boss educators would never allow that.  So they made a sweet deal.  Gates would get a huge, tidy market for his wares.  The education professors would get more dictatorial power.

You can talk all you want about standards – for example, “children should learn to read in a timely manner.”  Of course.  But what if the people in charge undermine this goal by using inefficient methods?  That’s the way it’s beenthroughout the 20th century.  All that Common Core was going to do was give the same people more power so no one could get out from under their thumbs.

Bill Gates was seeing a world where every seventh-grade history class would be identical to all the others, as if that’s more efficient.  Ideally for him, they would use books and software created by his companies.  But never mind how much Gates makes.  We wouldn’t mind if the children were being well-educated.  But he was in cahoots with people who had never been primarily interested in making children well-educated.  The goal, ever since the time of John Dewey, was to make children cooperative, largely incapable of independent thought, and easy to govern. 

According to Robin Eubanks:

In the American Common Core classroom any skill, concept, or activity must be accessible to all or most, including the disabled, disinterested, and those with poor English language skills. Or it is not permissible for anyone. Abstract thought is not an ability that has been fairly distributed so it is off limits for everyone in the Common Core classroom of the future. How convenient for anyone with aspirations toward gaining quiet control over masses of people.

Again, in fairness to Gates, I think he did what all the business leaders in the country have done for years when they want to improve education.  They call up the nearest school of education (that’s the fatal mistake) and say send over some experts.  The same “progressive” professors come over and lay out the same hack ideas.  Mediocrity is more or less inevitable.

Before, at least, there was still freedom to experiment and try to do better.  But with Common Core locked in legislatively, mediocrity would be the law of the land.

Forty-five states took the Race to the Top grants (i.e., bribes) and signed up for Common Core.  But Indiana just backed out, and most other states are restless and looking at their options.  Euthanasia is a good one. 

Bruce Deitrick Price explains education theories and methods on his siteImprove-Education.org.