[N_Fiddledog]

That's not the way I heard it Stratos. A link would be interesting to that one though.

Hey here's something from this morning I found interesting though. Stay with me it won't seem related at first.

Hilary Clinton was washing the feet, so-to-speak, of an undocumented Illegal immigrant this morning.



Let me say that again - "Illegal Immigrant".

I'm wondering if the left would like to step forward and tell me again how important it is to accept the literal rule of law, and obey it without question in all cases.

And Delwin, Harry Reid has everything to do with the resparking of the Bundy case, and the paramilitary attack on their ranch. You don't think so. I do. That's that I guess. Did you see he was calling the Bundy's "Domestic Terrorists" this morning?

[andyt]

Well, if I understand Rick's argument correctly, the BLM has no right to do it's job because the head of the BLM is not an elected official. Apparently they are just a rouge government created organization with out of control with nobody willing to rein in in. Except Bundy and his fellow defenders of freedom and the non-American way (since he doesn't believe in America).

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

(since he doesn't believe in America).

Bullshit. States rights do not insinuate a lack of patriotism.

[N_Fiddledog]

And again, wanna make use of your brand, spanking, new paramilitary force enforcing an actual law BLM?

Here ya go...



It's under your jurisdiction.

Now go do your frickin job, and leave honest Americans alone.

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

andyt andyt:

(since he doesn't believe in America).

Bullshit. States rights do not insinuate a lack of patriotism.

$1:

"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing.

http://www.drudge.com/news/178134/clive ... i-american

[andyt]

Now of course Martin will accuse me of cutting and pasting:

$1:

The Irony of Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand

Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees.

Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.

Federalism—genuine states' rights—is perhaps more familiar to Nevadans than to any other state's denizens. To boost the state's ailing economy in the early 20th century, Nevada exploited the federal architecture of American law to create uniquely permissive laws on divorce, gambling, and prostitution, bringing in much-needed tourism revenue and giving the state a distinctive libertarian character. Just this weekend, the state Republican Party dropped statements opposing abortion and same-sex marriage from its platform at their convention, bucking the party's national stance.

But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):

Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want.
Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy told his supporters, according to The Guardian.

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.

Nevada isn't the only state with a paramount-allegiance clause. Republicans added similar clauses to Reconstruction-era state constitutions throughout the South, although few survived subsequent revisions after federal troops departed. Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today, like North Carolina and Mississippi, don't share Nevada's explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.

That pro-federal sentiment also guided Nevada's first congressional delegation when it arrived in the nation's capital in early 1865. William Stewart, the Silver State's first senator, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December 1865 that would've enshrined a weaker form of the paramount allegiance clause at the federal level:

First—The Union of the States, under this constitution, is indissoluble, and no State can absolve its citizens from the obligation of paramount allegiance to the United States.

Second—No engagement made, or obligation incurred by any State, or by any number of States, or by any county, city, or any other municipal corporation to subvert, impair, or resist the authority of the United States, or to support or aid any legislative convention or body in hostility to such authority, shall ever be held, voted, or be assumed or sustained, in whole or part, by any State or by the United States.
This proposed amendment—which would have resolved secession's constitutionality for all time—did not succeed. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that secession had been unconstitutional and that "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states." Stewart nevertheless left his mark on the Constitution the same year as White, when he wrote what would become the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing black suffrage.

Two decades after Nevada's founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy's family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It's doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nd/360587/

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

Well, if I understand Rick's argument correctly, the BLM has no right to do it's job because the head of the BLM is not an elected official. Apparently they are just a rouge government created organization with out of control with nobody willing to rein in in. Except Bundy and his fellow defenders of freedom and the non-American way (since he doesn't believe in America).

All the people in the BLM should be given ten years for cattle rustling, after all it is still against the law.

The US does not have a government if it allows this sort of BS to occur.

[Jabberwalker]

It's a funny cultural difference between our two peoples but you would be hard pressed to find many Canadians who believe that their government is actually plotting against them.(Few Canadians could believe that they were capable of putting the plot together in the first place, more likely.) It seems to be a common theme in American culture, though, that the "Feds" are out to git them and they have the right to do whatever it takes to stop them. This idea will eventually go to a bad place. States Rights set off one civil war. This is even deeper and more destructive.

[PluggyRug]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

(Few Canadians could believe that they were capable of putting the plot together in the first place, more likely.)

That's true enough.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

andyt andyt:

(since he doesn't believe in America).

Bullshit. States rights do not insinuate a lack of patriotism.

$1:

"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing.

http://www.drudge.com/news/178134/clive ... i-american

You're quoting a mockup of "Drudge Report" taking a quote from the Dana Loeshch interview of Bundy out of context. Bundy was presenting the states rights argument, and within that framework the feds don't exist as far as claim to his property, in his mind. To Bundy he gets property rights from the state, but that doesn't mean Nevada is not part of the United States.

Bundy also said this...

"“At the moment of statehood, what happened?” Bundy said. “At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada.”"

Within those parameters Bundy gives priority to state laws.

$1:

“As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws,” he concluded.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/624588- ... authority/

That's not anti-American. It's pro-States rights.

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

andyt andyt:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Bullshit. States rights do not insinuate a lack of patriotism.

$1:

"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing.

http://www.drudge.com/news/178134/clive ... i-american

You're quoting a mockup of "Drudge Report" taking a quote from the Dana Loeshch interview of Bundy out of context. Bundy was presenting the states rights argument, and within that framework the feds don't exist as far as claim to his property, in his mind. To Bundy he gets property rights from the state, but that doesn't mean Nevada is not part of the United States.

Bundy also said this...

"“At the moment of statehood, what happened?” Bundy said. “At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada.”"

Within those parameters Bundy gives priority to state laws.

$1:

“As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws,” he concluded.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/624588- ... authority/

That's not anti-American. It's pro-States rights.

$1:

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

To read what that constitution says, read my post above. And to say he doesn't recognize the govt of the US not existing means he doesn't recognize America. There is no America without it.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

To read what that constitution says, read my post above. And to say (Bundy) doesn't recognize the govt of the US not existing means he doesn't recognize America. There is no America without it.

You're misreading the context of 'recognizing'.

He's speaking in the language of the Constitutionalists and State's Rights crowd and they use this expressing in the same way the US Government uses it in diplomacy.

Substitute the term 'recognize' for 'acknowledge' and what Bundy says isn't so odd sounding.

For instance the US government does not recognize (acknowledge) the current government of Cuba as even existing. That doesn't mean they deny its existence, its just this how they define their relationship with it.

Bundy therefore does not acknowledge the authority of the US Government over lands that the US Government arguably has a tenuous claim to in the first place.

[andyt]

$1:

Cliven Bundy Is No Hero
Republicans are mistaking the angry Nevada debtor for a states' rights crusader.

It’s no surprise that Republicans are jumping on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's bandwagon. They're desperate for any issue that will help them push propaganda designed to attract votes.

Some are painting the Bundy rebellion as a states' rights issue. It’s not. The federal government isn’t threatening people’s freedoms nor Nevada’s sovereignty. Nevada isn’t fighting the Bureau of Land Management to reclaim the land. Bundy got himself in hot water because he refused to pay his $1 million grazing bill.

It’s not like Bundy didn’t know that the bureau was going to his confiscate his cattle. His dispute with them is 20 years old. He had plenty of opportunities to pursue legal action. The government never denied him due process.

A law abiding citizen would have respectfully paid his debt, but Bundy believes he’s special and that the rules don’t apply to him. He didn’t like the outcome, so he resorted to terrorist tactics, organizing a 1,000 person, gun posse to threaten federal agents and make his point.

Bundy won applause from Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and Republican Sen. Dean Heller. Fox News host Sean Hannity hailed him as a capitalist hero, and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said he’d make a good politician. This follows other violent rhetoric, such as Florida Republican House candidate Joshua Black saying President Obama should be arrested and hung for treason and Texas Senate candidate Chris Mapp saying ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on their land.

This talk is politically useful. It plays on conservatives’ distrust of government. The Pew Center for People and the Press found that 65 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of the government, but only 23 percent of Republicans think the same.

The party admires Bundy, but they’ve have shown no such sentiment when it comes to ranchers fighting against the Keystone XL pipeline. Randy Thompson and hundreds of other Nebraskan have been resisting TransCanada’s efforts to lease their property. The GOP isn’t hailing them as champions of property rights. They're silent because these ranchers are fighting against their big money, big business supporters.

Conservatives would be better off seeing this issue for what it is: an angry debtor who pulled out his gun because he didn’t like the fact that he had to pay up. They won’t be better off believing the GOP’s means what it says.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jam ... ights-hero

[Jabberwalker]

Hilary Clinton was washing the feet, so-to-speak, of an undocumented Illegal immigrant this morning.


It is an ancient Christian custom to wash the feet of those of a lower caste than yourself on Maundy Thursday (last night)or Good Friday. Try not to morph that into something that it probably isn't.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Hilary Clinton was washing the feet, so-to-speak, of an undocumented Illegal immigrant this morning.


It is an ancient Christian custom to wash the feet of those of a lower caste than yourself on Maundy Thursday (last night)or Good Friday. Try not to morph that into something that it probably isn't.

The custom may be ancient in source but it is current in practice.