[aeroektar]

(01-03-2016 12:41 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

It's good to review the Posse Comitatus Act which limits the feds from using military on it's own people.

Quote:

The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to them being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army and Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

And the feds clearly didn't step out of line with Waco or Ruby Ridge...

[Troutslayer]

Please see link below for a thorough synopsis of the events leading up to this.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...rsecution/

The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret, nor is it isolated.

Some suspect all of these incidents of BLM over reach across the west as being some sort of conspiracy being led by the federal government to economically marginalize a potentially (and increasingly actually) restive part of the population. By preventing many of these very independent communities from being economically self sufficient, they are effectively brought into tighter orbit around the mainstream and neutered as political opposition.

Is there an actual conspiracy at the federal level to accomplish this? It is certainly possible, though not exactly plausible. The malevolence certainly exists but the competence and operational security likely does not. Malevolent conspiracy or not, the effect is the same, many, many people across the west have lost the ability to derive a living from the land as a direct result of BLM/Federal overreach. The end effect is the same and therefore must be resisted with force either way. It is natural and justifiable to do just that.

A final note, I would not trust any breaking news report on this, especially regarding strength, disposition, training & equipping of the militia operating in the area. Anyone even halfway competent in conducting a 4th generation operation will be adept at using the media to deceive their opposition. As they should.

[VincentVinturi]

(01-03-2016 09:21 AM)kleyau Wrote:  

In theory they should just be able to move their herds. In practice, the federal government owns the west, and there is no where to go.

The federal government doesn't 'own' anything, much less the land of virtually the entire West Coast of the USA.

Let me make it concrete:

If you've slaved away for a decade at your shit job to buy a house in California, to whom does the house belong: you or the federal government?

Who is this federal government anyway and why is nobody questioning the notion that it is some self-sufficient, distinct entity apart from the people who create it, elect it, run it, and give it all its clout?

The land of the country belongs to its PEOPLE and the government officials are appointed by those same people to protect and serve constituents on state and federal levels.

If a group has a legitimate claim to a their land by virtue of ancestry or manifest destiny (they were there first and making use of it), then what right has another group to come and dispossess them of their land by force?

And don't tell me that the government was elected by the people and therefore whatever claims are made on these folks' property is legitimate.

Nobody has the right to vote your property or freedom away from you.

Should such an attempt be made it MUST be met with force.

This is all the logical conclusion of a long process of far too many people ceding their freedoms bit by bit and thereby allowing the government to grow to its current grotesque and frightening proportions.

As far as these ranchers go, I think if you'd just done time in prison for some bullshit trumped up charges that were clearly meant to shut you up and make you amenable to further encroachments by instilling fear in you, you'd probably be on the defensive too.

They take 1 year of your life (father got a year, son got 3 months) for nothing and now they want to take your ancestral land?

I can't say I'd react any differently.

On another note, it's demoralizing to see people on my facebook wall - otherwise intelligent, successful people - parroting Twitter SJWs.

"Domestic terrorism! Redneck gun nuts blah blah blah"

[Foolsgo1d]

Vincent, not going to get at your post on a nit-picking basis but the US and UK has law powers to remove a man from his own own at the behest of a woman or female member of your household who has no name on the deed.

I seriously doubt the government, especially the federal government of the US will give a flying fuck about these rights to land when you step out of line. In their version of events that is.

All the Feds are going to see is a bunch of armed men with issues and they should be stopped. It is no longer about the rough justice on trumped up charges of terrorism but some mountain men couped up on federal property refusing to come out peacefully.

The media will spin this anyway they please. A bunch of white guys with big guns? Its like Christmas.

[Luvianka]

Never understimate an armed population!

[nomadbrah]

(01-03-2016 01:23 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

If you've slaved away for a decade at your shit job to buy a house in California, to whom does the house belong: you or the federal government?

I'd like to say you own it, but we both know it isn't true, if you stop paying your land/house tax, then the government takes your house.

Tell me with a straight face that this is different than the serf farmer of the medieval? You pay your Lord first, then yourself.

This is also what this is about. While legally you can't be a free landowner, in practice if you're living in rural isolated Oregon or Nevada, then you are usually quite free of the long arm of the law. The nearest police, which is usually one local guy, might be half a day away. The government simply doesn't really control these areas and that's probably what they are nervous about.

[thoughtgypsy]

(01-03-2016 12:32 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 07:17 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

For interest sake :

I don't know who the hell got a hold of that link but you'd think Salon is reporting on it or something. Fucking comments are a shitshow of brainwashed Anti American group think.

If you sort for comments 'newest first', the general consensus is different. I wonder if there is something active going on to coordinate up/downvoting on specific comments.

[Hannibal]

(01-03-2016 01:23 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 09:21 AM)kleyau Wrote:  

In theory they should just be able to move their herds. In practice, the federal government owns the west, and there is no where to go.

The federal government doesn't 'own' anything, much less the land of virtually the entire West Coast of the USA.

Let me make it concrete:

If you've slaved away for a decade at your shit job to buy a house in California, to whom does the house belong: you or the federal government?

Who is this federal government anyway and why is nobody questioning the notion that it is some self-sufficient, distinct entity apart from the people who create it, elect it, run it, and give it all its clout?

The land of the country belongs to its PEOPLE and the government officials are appointed by those same people to protect and serve constituents on state and federal levels.

If a group has a legitimate claim to a their land by virtue of ancestry or manifest destiny (they were there first and making use of it), then what right has another group to come and dispossess them of their land by force?

And don't tell me that the government was elected by the people and therefore whatever claims are made on these folks' property is legitimate.

Nobody has the right to vote your property or freedom away from you.

Should such an attempt be made it MUST be met with force.

This is all the logical conclusion of a long process of far too many people ceding their freedoms bit by bit and thereby allowing the government to grow to its current grotesque and frightening proportions.

As far as these ranchers go, I think if you'd just done time in prison for some bullshit trumped up charges that were clearly meant to shut you up and make you amenable to further encroachments by instilling fear in you, you'd probably be on the defensive too.

They take 1 year of your life (father got a year, son got 3 months) for nothing and now they want to take your ancestral land?

I can't say I'd react any differently.

On another note, it's demoralizing to see people on my facebook wall - otherwise intelligent, successful people - parroting Twitter SJWs.

"Domestic terrorism! Redneck gun nuts blah blah blah"

You can sit in an abandoned house for five years, it doesn't make it yours. You can rent the same apartment for your entire life and have no claim to it. You could live in a wildlife reserve The Village style, have eighty kids with ten different women and still have no claim to the land. Being first or making use of it doesn't make it yours. In the past, you had what you could reliably defend.

Renting BLM land from the goobermint for 130 years does not make you a landowner.

Did they get sent to prison for bullshit, trumped up charges? Yeah, they did. They are getting fucked by the feds, big time. It still doesn't mean they own that land. I believe in respecting private property and it most definitely is not theirs. It's no different than renting an apartment and the landlord says you can't smoke cigarettes indoors.

[Gmac]

(01-03-2016 01:15 PM)Troutslayer Wrote:  

Please see link below for a thorough synopsis of the events leading up to this.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...rsecution/

The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret, nor is it isolated.

Some suspect all of these incidents of BLM over reach across the west as being some sort of conspiracy being led by the federal government to economically marginalize a potentially (and increasingly actually) restive part of the population. By preventing many of these very independent communities from being economically self sufficient, they are effectively brought into tighter orbit around the mainstream and neutered as political opposition.

Is there an actual conspiracy at the federal level to accomplish this? It is certainly possible, though not exactly plausible. The malevolence certainly exists but the competence and operational security likely does not. Malevolent conspiracy or not, the effect is the same, many, many people across the west have lost the ability to derive a living from the land as a direct result of BLM/Federal overreach. The end effect is the same and therefore must be resisted with force either way. It is natural and justifiable to do just that.

A final note, I would not trust any breaking news report on this, especially regarding strength, disposition, training & equipping of the militia operating in the area. Anyone even halfway competent in conducting a 4th generation operation will be adept at using the media to deceive their opposition. As they should.

A lot of good information and fact-checking there.

But more importantly... WYB?

Y/N/Y

[nomadbrah]

(01-03-2016 03:27 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 01:15 PM)Troutslayer Wrote:  

Please see link below for a thorough synopsis of the events leading up to this.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...rsecution/

The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret, nor is it isolated.

Some suspect all of these incidents of BLM over reach across the west as being some sort of conspiracy being led by the federal government to economically marginalize a potentially (and increasingly actually) restive part of the population. By preventing many of these very independent communities from being economically self sufficient, they are effectively brought into tighter orbit around the mainstream and neutered as political opposition.

Is there an actual conspiracy at the federal level to accomplish this? It is certainly possible, though not exactly plausible. The malevolence certainly exists but the competence and operational security likely does not. Malevolent conspiracy or not, the effect is the same, many, many people across the west have lost the ability to derive a living from the land as a direct result of BLM/Federal overreach. The end effect is the same and therefore must be resisted with force either way. It is natural and justifiable to do just that.

A final note, I would not trust any breaking news report on this, especially regarding strength, disposition, training & equipping of the militia operating in the area. Anyone even halfway competent in conducting a 4th generation operation will be adept at using the media to deceive their opposition. As they should.

A lot of good information and fact-checking there.

But more importantly... WYB?

Y/N/Y

These folks sure look like a threat. Happy family of 3 generations, 2 slim, feminine women and kids who don't look like punks.

Better put that old man in prison 5 years.

[Hades]

I'm not sure why the FWS has decided to fuck with them so much over the years. I hope for their sake they can catch a few of those cocksuckers to skin alive and make it worth their while, because they're going to prison either way. The Fed doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

It is likely that they'll falsify information to make these guys look bad. No doubt this perfectly normal american family is going to be painted as far right Christian extremist cousin fucking hillbillies by the media in the upcoming few weeks.

[Dr. Howard]

I am very interested to see if the current presidential candidates speak on this matter. Trump, Cruz and Hillary specifically and Bernie just for kicks.

[WanderingSoul]

(01-03-2016 04:29 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I am very interested to see if the current presidential candidates speak on this matter. Trump, Cruz and Hillary specifically and Bernie just for kicks.

I hope Trump flies out there and offers to mediate on behalf of the family/militia to ensure a peaceful resolution, and highlight the horseshit our federal government is trying to pull.

Get more eyes on this situation and ensure another Ruby Ridge doesn't happen.

[WanderingSoul]

(01-03-2016 03:27 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 01:15 PM)Troutslayer Wrote:  

Please see link below for a thorough synopsis of the events leading up to this.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...rsecution/

The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret, nor is it isolated.

Some suspect all of these incidents of BLM over reach across the west as being some sort of conspiracy being led by the federal government to economically marginalize a potentially (and increasingly actually) restive part of the population. By preventing many of these very independent communities from being economically self sufficient, they are effectively brought into tighter orbit around the mainstream and neutered as political opposition.

Is there an actual conspiracy at the federal level to accomplish this? It is certainly possible, though not exactly plausible. The malevolence certainly exists but the competence and operational security likely does not. Malevolent conspiracy or not, the effect is the same, many, many people across the west have lost the ability to derive a living from the land as a direct result of BLM/Federal overreach. The end effect is the same and therefore must be resisted with force either way. It is natural and justifiable to do just that.

A final note, I would not trust any breaking news report on this, especially regarding strength, disposition, training & equipping of the militia operating in the area. Anyone even halfway competent in conducting a 4th generation operation will be adept at using the media to deceive their opposition. As they should.

A lot of good information and fact-checking there.

But more importantly... WYB?

Y/N/Y

Looks like a wholesome, hardworking, white, American family....





I'm starting to love this meme.

[Tim in real life]

Mike Adams' personal Twitter account, @HealthRanger, is live tweeting about this.

[wi30]

It took me two pages into this thread to realize that BLM didn't stand for Black Lives Matter.

[Samseau]

(01-03-2016 03:19 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  

You can sit in an abandoned house for five years, it doesn't make it yours. You can rent the same apartment for your entire life and have no claim to it. You could live in a wildlife reserve The Village style, have eighty kids with ten different women and still have no claim to the land. Being first or making use of it doesn't make it yours. In the past, you had what you could reliably defend.

Renting BLM land from the goobermint for 130 years does not make you a landowner.

Did they get sent to prison for bullshit, trumped up charges? Yeah, they did. They are getting fucked by the feds, big time. It still doesn't mean they own that land. I believe in respecting private property and it most definitely is not theirs. It's no different than renting an apartment and the landlord says you can't smoke cigarettes indoors.

Right, and if any other man were to own all the West like the Fed does he's be sued under monopoly laws, but if the Fed does it, it's okay.

Most people hate hypocrites fyi

[Hannibal]

I was amazed to read that the Feds own about a quarter of all the land in America. It's ridiculous.

[Ingocnito]

(01-03-2016 01:47 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Vincent, not going to get at your post on a nit-picking basis but the US and UK has law powers to remove a man from his own own at the behest of a woman or female member of your household who has no name on the deed.

I seriously doubt the government, especially the federal government of the US will give a flying fuck about these rights to land when you step out of line. In their version of events that is.

All the Feds are going to see is a bunch of armed men with issues and they should be stopped. It is no longer about the rough justice on trumped up charges of terrorism but some mountain men couped up on federal property refusing to come out peacefully.

The media will spin this anyway they please. A bunch of white guys with big guns? Its like Christmas.

I totally agree with Vincint's post, yet in the name of practical outcomes, based on your example of the feminine primary order of society we live under now, you're probably right.

Yet, martyrdome in the name of a "just" cause is a very powerful tour de force, and for that I commend these guys to the fullest. The name of the game here is empathy based in freedom.. again, an extremely powerful cause.

If the feds want to win without bullets shot, much like we impose sanctions of countries we're in cahoots with, the most logical non-violent method to stop this is starve them out. Yep, just surround all entrances to the the wildlife refuge building and stop supplies from entering. While that would drag this out for quite a while potentially, it's the safest way I can imagine to do so.

Granted, there may be a final stand off, and a few could get killed. Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

[kaotic]

(01-03-2016 05:36 PM)wi30 Wrote:  

It took me two pages into this thread to realize that BLM didn't stand for Black Lives Matter.

BLM land is the best place to shoot stuff and set up target shoots also

[Anabasis to Desta]

(01-03-2016 08:41 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

The possiblity of this goes up tenfold once these guys become martyrs, and the government knows that all too well.

There are men just like them all over the country, some just waiting for a reason, and others just sitting on the fence where something like this could push them over.

On top of that, many law enforcement officers and military will identify with these guys over the government.

Interesting.

Couple of months ago i read an article about how Police departments all over the US have started hiring immigrants as officers to fill "vacant positions". Up until recently you had to be a US citizen to become a police officer which i believe is 100% right.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../70236828/

Quote:

Law enforcement agencies struggling to fill their ranks or connect with their increasingly diverse populations are turning to immigrants to fill the gap.

I call bullshit. Law enforcement jobs are one of the most sought after jobs in America due to the inflated salaries, job security and excellent benefits. I don't see any police department in any part of the country "struggling to fill the ranks". Also chuckled at the "dealing with increasingly diverse populations part".

The real reason they are "diversifying" police forces with recent immigrants is simple.

People are tribal by nature and an immigrant cop from Burma, Guatamala or Somalia is much more likely to be willing to follow orders and use brute force/violence on an unruly local population than someone who has social, familial and racial ties to the community.

Can't see cops who are mostly of white lower-middle and working class backgrounds turn on "their own" en masse like that.

An Italian American cop from Staten Island will be very hesitant to shoot or beat up some drunk violent Jersey Shore type guidos who resist arrest. He might even cuff them up and drive them home. Why? Because they're his kinfolk. Now if the cop was a recent immigrant from Syria I'm sure he'd have no qualms about using violent force to please his superiors. Same way the Staten Island Italian cop would be much more likely to shoot dealing with black youths in the Bronx.

There is real life evidence of this. Back when Ethiopia was a communist country in the 70's and 80's the government had a problem with the "Feds" who were like the Statsi/Gestapo/Red Terror thugs. When stationed in their home provinces, they were much more likely to sympathize with the local population and join in on a rebellion instead of stumping it like the government expected them to.

Along with Russian advisers, the government then started a program called "Sefera" in which the feds were stationed far away from their home provinces. Feds from the wealthy Orthodox Christian north were stationed in the majority Somali Muslim southeast. Highland farmers were stationed in lowland nomadic areas full of goat herders. City slickers were stationed in the backward southern swamplands full of primitive tribes who walk around naked.

The result was a brutal "Red terror" campaign which led to the slaughter and disappearance of over a million people.

The best way to curb police violence and brutality would be to make it a requirement for cops to apply for a police department in the area they grew up in. Grew up a Cuban American in Little Havana, Miami? No applying for cop positions in the redneck northern parts of Florida. Stay in your area and you'll be less likely to inflict harm upon people you have no emotional ties to.

Expect more "diversification" of police and military forces in the western world in the coming years. Won't be surprised if refugees will be mass recruited by the German and Swedish armies in preparation of an inevitable uprising akin to the 1848 revolutions in Europe.

[Going strong]

(01-03-2016 02:50 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

The land they're ranching on is owned by the Federal government, but his family, like the Bundy family, has ranched it for generations, the Bundys since 1870s. They have had permits to farm/ranch it for many many years.

Over the years the Federal government has been steadingly decreasing the area they allow for it and then asking the ranchers high fees if they want to continue.

What is therefore happening is the government formally taking over land that has informally been used freely by farmers. They then use enviromental concerns to take over the land.

As with anything else, this is about the government wanting to get paid from its serfs.

Few people know that one of the things that really started the French Revolution, was the fact that the State (through the King at that time) had been deliberately shrinking the "communal lands" where ordinary, middle-class or poor Frenchmen were allowed to farm (feed their cattle for free).

Interestingly, lower- and middle-class Frenchmen who made the Revolution (partly to get access to more free-farming "communal lands"), were massively cucked: 4 years after the Revolution, the new, revolutionary French State, passed a law... allowing for the selling of "communal lands" to (very) rich private citizens. So ordinary people who had fought the Revolution, at the end of the day got... less available farming land than during the Kings! Capitalism always win!

References: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_du_par..._juin_1793
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biens_communaux

[Ingocnito]

Well it's now at the top of Google News

http://news.google.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/arm....html?_r=0

[Sumanguru]

(01-03-2016 10:41 AM)SunW Wrote:  

Those playing the "Devil's Advocates" are the SJWs in disguise on this forum.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid SJW, as I'm sure everyone here would be just as happy with a group of 15 armed blacks taking over a federal institution.



This is where the trad con wing of the manosphere goes way too far off the deep end for my black ass. I think now is a good time to go to the Black Hotness thread and request that Excelsior post some more fire.

[Going strong]

(01-03-2016 05:36 PM)wi30 Wrote:  

It took me two pages into this thread to realize that BLM didn't stand for Black Lives Matter.

Like you, I feel confused. At first I thought BLM was Black Lives Matter, then I realized that it was Bureau of Land Management, but then I read (from Troutslayer) on the thread that: "The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret" and I once again thought it definitely was Black Lives Matter... In any case I now wonder which BLM is the more vindictive and tricky?