[Dougzilla]

There is no Federal Agent Paul Horner...

The story in question was originally from a satire site.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=6486641&postcount=20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report

http://nationalreport.net/tag/paul-horner/

Correct i did this research yesterday. "Paul Horner" is a fictional character used by many conservative websites who claim he is part of various federal agencies.
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=6486817&postcount=32

^^^That link actually.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: The Case for a Little Sedition:The Bundy standoff reminds us that government is our servant, not our master.
A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point.
Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.
But not all dissidents are content to submit to what we, in the Age of Obama, still insist on quaintly calling “the rule of law.” And there is a price to pay for that, too: King George not only would have been well within his legal rights to hang every one of this nation’s seditious Founding Fathers, he would have been duty-bound to do so, the keeping of the civil peace being the first responsibility of the civil authority. Every fugitive slave, and every one of the sainted men and women who harbored and enabled them, was a law-breaker, and who can blame them if none was content to submit to what passed for justice among the slavers? . . .
If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.
Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.
I think the problem is that the government hasn’t gotten enough pushback. The phrase “the country wouldn’t stand for it” has gone out of the political lexicon. I think it needs to go back in.
It does seem as if we’re seeing more resistance.
Posted at 8:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

This, exactly. Some have lamented that we have raised constitutional questions in what they perceive as a legal dispute. The problem with this stance is that EVERY action of government not only merits constitutional scrutiny, but WE, not the various and sundry branches of an ever-expanding government, are the law enforcement agents of the Constitution.

But it goes further than that. The Constitution is merely a utilitarian document meant to spell out exactly HOW the government it meant to fulfill the mission statement in the Declaration. That mission statement explicitly commissions us, "...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it."

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the Constitution. We are. And the federal government is a creation of, and agent of, our various states, which answer to US. WE are commissioned with the task of restraining, chastening, and, if need be, destroying and replacing the very government that seeks to rule as our master. The same Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration also said of Shay's Rebellion, "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing," and "The Tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be watered by the blood of Patriots and of Tyrants. It is its natural manure."

 

[bobalo59]

I didn't go because, while I agree with Bundy, he was breaking the law. That being said, I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to go head to head against this regime in my own backyard,why travel 1500 miles when armed rebellion will be cropping up here at any moment?

 

[NHP1127]

Because I'll pick my own fights. Thank you.

+1. Don't tell me where, how or what I should do.

 

[deprogramming services]

As the cold war between patriots and traitors gets increasingly more intense things like this will erupt from time to time. Every patriot does not need to be at every eruption point to serve his country. If the cold war becomes hot it could spread nationwide very quickly; it would serve no useful purpose to our cause for all patriots to be concentrated in one spot.

 

[daddyjim]

I was unable to attend so I paid $1,000 fuel bill so my friends could go. After a little medical procedure I will join my pals next week. I think we will still need to be there.

 

[elmojo]

Btw, this fight began before 1993.
That's the last time Bundy paid a fine for illegal grazing.

 

[gtmerkley]

We cant all go to one place far away and leave the rest of the country unprotected. Get all the troops in one place ? I don't think anyone is that foolish to fall for that trap.

 

[Stevejo]

A few questions. I'm still a bit unclear on the situation.

Isn't this area "state land"?

Was the original reason his grazing priveleges/rights/whatever were revoked because of some endangered turtle or some such thing?

Is this "public land" available for use to anyone that wants to use it?
Why couldn't I just decide to herd pigs out there and let them graze or whatever?

Did the bundy's have any kind of renewable or perpetual lease or contract on the land? A 100 year lease?

Not being sarcastic or anything. Just rather undecided on the issue.
On one hand, it would seem the government is basically manufacturing reasons to eject legitimate users from public owned land for their own less than savory reasons.

On the other hand, this smacks of the sense of entitlement enjoyed by the "cattle barons" of a century ago. They were sort of these little princelings that basically seized control of vast swaths of open range for exclusive use for their own enterprise without the burden of actually owning the land or buying the land or paying taxes on it.

Without making a commitment to the issue on either side, I must confess, my initial instinct is that I do not "owe" the bundy's squat.
Not my time or sympathy for the basically free use of land he neither owned or paid taxes on. Like I do.

Alternately, the government and its lackeys most certainly do not get a free pass. Having this sort of "at will" management of public land without any sort of contractual or regulatory guidelines to both protect the interest of its owners(us) and the local users (for profit) for over 100 years seems like the perfect embodiment of "**** poor performance" by everyone involved.

Can anyone here accurately sum up the situation?
I mean, without any heated debate or rhetoric.

Every day that I think I have a basic understanding of the situation yet another tidbit of info surfaces to leave me standing baffled at the situation.

 

[cerberusassoc]

On the other hand, this smacks of the sense of entitlement enjoyed by the "cattle barons" of a century ago. They were sort of these little princelings that basically seized control of vast swaths of open range for exclusive use for their own enterprise without the burden of actually owning the land or buying the land or paying taxes on it.

At one time (before 1993) 50 or so other ranchers that used the land as grazing as well.

 

[Warrior_22]

I support the Bundy's because I know what bullying looks like. And because I know anyone who says as they're leaving "we will pursue judicial system avenues" is up to no good (nothing legal). Think hard about that.

All you dolts talking about him flouting the law have to be ignorant, Im really gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here. Are you telling me an organization with no law enforcement (legal) authority, acting by the "unconfirmed" ruling from a lower court (not Supreme Court) somehow has standing over a guy grazing his cows for 20 years, his family for 100's of years?? (Read about prescriptive law a bit) All this while trespassing on the Bundy Ranch w/o warrant, illegally maintaining AND enforcing to the extent of bodily injury "1st amendment zones" and stealing cattle that never belonged to them. (Again already stated they had NO lean/magistrates title for the cattle or any other property.

Those BLM guys were blatantly flouting the law in EVERY way, with every action.

NOW, for those of you who say "but yeah the court ruled in favor of govt before". Like I said, only Supreme Court matters and even they can screw it up - see ruling and majority opinion on Obamacare for examples.
And who do you think established the States? The Constitution those States were "unionized" within? The Federal Govt then constructed to funnel the will of those individual State/Countries? Ever wonder why we call our "sections" States just like we call other NATIONS States/Countries? The answer is as simple as it appears. This is a can of worms that will take another Century to map out but suffice it to say the Federal Govt is a TOOL of the States, not it's master and my first argument FOR Bundy is that the Fed Govt had NO legal right to demand secession of territory for ANY use as a prerequisite to admission into the Union, just as they did with ALL Miss-West States, and with all Southern States as a part of reconstruction. There's a TON of history behind all this that I really won't do for you and it makes Bundy's argument particularly valid, trust me or DONT and do your homework.

FYI I didn't go because I'd have to drive, it'a taken me 2.5days and I am the only full time in my shop, nevermind owner/manager so I "had work".
If Bundy ranch were in GA.. FL... maybe even 3 day round trip range I would have been there, anything more and it'd be logistically impossible.
Not to mention Opsec...

 

[Jojo]

We cant all go to one place far away and leave the rest of the country unprotected. Get all the troops in one place ? I don't think anyone is that foolish to fall for that trap.

Operation American Spring.
But just so we are clear, I don't need your protection. Feel free to go...

 

[TheMonsantoPlanto]

Ted Bundy? Isn't he dead?

 

[usafvietnam]

Anybody remember "Paul Revere?" What's happening in this country right now is no different than it was in 1775-1776. The NSA is the prelude as to find out how "prepared" America is when it comes to the "Showdown". That's why the NSA is so ****ed at Snowden.

 

[mmbsr]

FYI I didn't go because I'd have to drive, it'a taken me 2.5days and I am the only full time in my shop, nevermind owner/manager so I "had work".
If Bundy ranch were in GA.. FL... maybe even 3 day round trip range I would have been there, anything more and it'd be logistically impossible.
Not to mention Opsec...

The part of your post that I posted/pasted is what negates your entire argument. to me anyway. It relegates your passion to the level of no more than a convenient excuse. Was not the Colonial Militia ripe with sole proprietors, shopkeepers, merchants, etc. that closed shop and marched from as far north as modern day Vermont's Canadian border (Ethan Allen & the Green Mountain Boys) and from the swamps of the Low Country of South Carolina (Francis Marion aka 'Swamp Fox'), or how about the Patriot combatants of 1812, or the fighting men of either side of the Civil War???? I'm sure they would have all preferred a '3 day day round trip range', too.

FYI, that's just my opinion, of course ...

 

[ksmithdc]

It seems obvious that some people in here don't understand the full story of the situation out in Nevada. Bundy's family settled in that area 137 years ago (1877). And for all that time, they used the land (forage and water) for their cattle. And that was perfectly fine with the local, state and federal governments. That is up until some environmentalists got their panties in a twist over an endangered animal (the desert tortoise). The environmentalists lobbied and then sued the government to make the land of Gold Butte a safe haven for the desert tortoise.

It was at THAT point, because of the mounting pressure from a well organized environmentalist special interest group which caused the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to start charging Bundy a fee to use the very same land which he and his forefathers were using since the 1870's. At the very least, he should have been grandfathered in - based in no small part to the fact that he and his family had been there long before the BLM or even the Department of the Interior.

Bundy refused to be shaken down by BLM and cooperate with their extortion ('er, uh, I mean taxation) demands. So they escalated things. And escalated. And escalated.

So the guy who used the house / rent analogy is pretty off base. A more accurate depiction would be if you had been living in a cave in a mountain, and your family had been living in the cave for 137 years...and then all of a sudden along comes a new government agency who attempts to boot you out of there.

Bundy was there for a long, long, long time. Case closed.


Now to address the other point - why wasn't I there? I wasn't there because I'm not stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with the federal government. There's far better ways to get things done than to try to flex your muscles, and stroke your own ego. You're vastly out gunned and out manned. Great, you show up with your rifle and your Glock 19. They come out with gun ships and the national guard.

Instead of going toe-to-toe with the enforcers, how about lobbying to get the laws changed? That also includes forming a political action committee to get some more reasonable people elected to the state legislature so better laws would be on the books. The government thugs have to go by whatever the law says. So change it that way.

 

[War_Eagle]

The last week has shown how intense the passion is on both sides of this issue. Actually, to say 'both sides of the issue' is not fair; it has many sides.

To those of the 'This is not over / This is a victory / The Feds will reassemble and reattempt/Bundy Supporters' camp; why aren't you there?

Anticipated Responses:

1) I have other responsibilities / priorities.
2) My health prevents travel but I'm with them in spirit.
3) It's too far for me to travel.
4) I can't get the time off.
5) and on, and, on ...

My response to the anticipated responses:

It's a good thing the men and women that did rise to the occasion at the Bundy Ranch didn't make the same excuses ... just imagine if everybody that has energetically spent hour after hour, post after post on sites similar to this one had mobilized instead, and actually made the trek to lend armed or logistical support to the Bundy supporters, walking the walk like they did instead of participating in self congratulatory back patting on the internet.

Why wasn't I there?
Because I'm of the it's the 'Wrong Fight & Bundy is the wrong man & situation' / 'Publicly-embarrass-and expose-Harry Reid-and-his-minions' camp.

I'm just curious, is all. I know if my conviction to a particular cause were as strong and passionate as I've read expressed here the last few days by many posters regarding the Bundy story, God himself would not have kept me from being on scene offering my resources.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Simply put, because I have obligations here. While I support Bundy, I simply can't be everywhere at once and for me to go there would leave a family, a church, and a business unattended and without leadership.

I can't be everywhere and so I have to pick my battles carefully. He has my moral support and my prayers, even if I can't join him in person right now.

 

[azrancher]

Bundy was there for a long, long, long time. Case closed.

Squatter's rights on Federal land, it doesn't exist, used to be you could homestead a sector of land (640 acres), but that's only a single section per person, I know of husbands and wives building the homestead on the property line of two sections so they had two sections.

Long Long time doesn't cut it, it's not their land.

You can feel sorry for them, but they didn't pay their rent...

Case closed!!!

Rancher

 

[Harmless Drudge]

Squatter's rights on Federal land, it doesn't exist, used to be you could homestead a sector of land (640 acres), but that's only a single section per person, I know of husbands and wives building the homestead on the property line of two sections so they had two sections.

Long Long time doesn't cut it, it's not their land.

You can feel sorry for them, but they didn't pay their rent...

Case closed!!!

Rancher

You are neglecting the virgin claim.

 

[Meadcam]

I am not even in the US, I found it hard to get accurate information on what really happened and who was really to blame. From an outsiders point of view, this the potential to blow up into something very big and very ugly that has the potential to effect the entire world.
But it does worry me that government agencies like the BLM have actual armies, willing to go out and shoot law abiding US citizens. I am worried that there will be further attempts to limit and control law abiding citizens.