Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (28120)	4/12/2014 6:12:58 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124682

I think the reason the BLM surrendered in the Bundy Ranch Range War... isn't only the exposure of the fraud and corruption being practiced by the criminal Harry Reid. They "quit"... assuming it is more than a tactical retreat, which I still doubt... primarily because of the overlap in the two key arguments: One, I pointed out... noting the consistency with the statements Obama made about Russia... was that their actions were not an indication of "strength"... rather than the opposite ? The other... is that the Constitutional argument came up... which I addressed in this post: Message 29484459 The problem the BLM has now... is that their exercise in Nevada proves they were violating the law prosecuting an fraudulent and flamingly illegal campaign to intimidate the Bundy's, steal their property, and defraud them of their rights... and particularly violating not only their property rights, but trying to muzzle their free speech... And, that effort is unconstitutional. But, it isn't unconstitutional only because of their excess in violation of Bundy's rights to property and speech. You saw the same thing, at that level, being proven in the other articles linked... showing other ranchers have been similarly harassed off their property in other instances... even in violation of court orders preventing the BLM from doing that ? Only, in those other instances, it took the victims 30+ years of fighting in court before a judge finally figured it out and ruled that the government was acting like criminals ? But, in the case of the Bundy Ranch... the situation reveals an issue of it being unconstitutional on a more fundamental basis... The Bundy's didn't win their fight they way they should have... with honest judges laughing the government out of court... but the government still lost, even as corrupt judges were looking the other way in order to facilitate the governments violations of Bundy's rights... Instead, the Bundy's losing in court... but not being silenced in spite of the force applied to silence them... forced the issue onto the LARGER stage of more fundamental rights... "The Constitution ? Article 1, Section 8, empowers Congress: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" So, First: did the Legislature of the State of Nevada provide its consent... to enable the BLM to expand its exercise of authority... by PURCHASING the Bundy's range and water rights ? If not... then any prior transfers that were carried out based on similar fraudulent representations and the use of intimidation tactics... are also null and void ? Second: did the BLM actually PURCHASE Bundy's range and water rights ? We know the answer is NO. The government quit the fight... because they're on the wrong side of the Constitution... and they do NOT want any fight that will prove that is true... particularly in relation to the first question ? They've violated the Constitution... have wronged Bundy... stolen his property... and have intimidated him with TERRORIST TACTICS... trying to prevent his exercise of free speech from exposing their corruption. By the government's OWN LAWS... the U.S. Government... seems it is acting as a terrorist organization ? And, that's the problem with being on the wrong side of the law... while corrupting the use of the power of government and pretending that use is legitimate... when it is not ?