No products in the cart.


Feds Retaliate Against The Bundy Ranch And The Southern Nevada People

Bunkerville Standoff 2

This article comes from the

Feds Retaliate against the Bundy Ranch and the Southern Nevada People On Friday October 10th, 2014 a Notice from the federal registry reveals that the federal government is mounting retaliations against the Bundy family and the Southern Nevada people.

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No.197 Notice, outlines plans to make the Bundy ranch and most of the rest of Southern Nevada, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 90 days from October 10th, 2014 these proposals will become federal law without consent from the Nevada State legislatures or the people of Southern Nevada.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are human restricted management areas. ACECs have been a tool used by the federal government to gain further control of large masses of western lands and the resources.

As proposed, nearly 3 million acres in Southern Nevada will be locked away from the people. This includes most uses on the land (recreational, agricultural or otherwise).

Listed below are just a few of the outlined restriction that come with ACECs:

· Closed Roads
· Excluded Trails
· Closed to Camping
· Closed to Recreational Vehicles
· Closed to Motorized Travel
· Closed to Livestock Grazing
· Restricted Human Hiking
· Restricted Horseback Riding
· Exclude Group Recreations
· Closed to Mineral Development
· Closed to Water Access
· Closed to Hunting / Target Shooting

The Southern Nevada people soon will have less access to their lands than any other people in the history of this country.

There are 33 new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) proposed to cover Southern Nevada totaling 1,739,795 acres. 12 of the 22 existing ACECs are also proposed to be expanded. (See List Below) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) filed this lists on October 1st.

Read more here.





  1. I hope and pray that the people of Nevada and their elected officials take the necessary step to prevent this from happening! I think we all know what will happen if they try to do this by force. The question is are they going to abide by the Constitution? and if Not are they prepared for the Consequences. Bless them Lord for they know not what the do!

  2. To quote a movie “They’re gonna get what they want, let’s just see if they WANT what they are going to get”! (From GI Jane)

    I pray for a peaceful solution. I HOPED for the best. I just see bloodshed happening this time….I really hope I’m wrong. I know that if they take lives…it will kickstart the revolution, IMO.

  3. Mark your calendars folks, we have a lot of camping,recreating,hiking,riding,mining,watering and hunting to do, and don’t forget to bring along a rabbit so it can do some grazing.For those of you who were not with us on April 12, this is your chance.You won’t want to miss the magnificent camaraderie – a national convention of liberty minded people!Personally, it was the most exiting thing iv’e ever done, and I can’t wait to do it again.

  4. The federal government have NO LAWFUL authority over the lands within any state.

    I believe that this is a way they are trying to push the people to start something going. We must stop them from what they are doing, but NOT start any fights.

    Start a lawsuit with lots of publicity about enforcing the US Constitution as the Supreme LAW of this nation and what land, and the way they are ALLOWED to purchase more land FROM the states and ONLY for specific purposes. The US Constitution is not just our government that all is REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend – it IS THE law of our nation that ALL other laws MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here.

    They may not declare “emergency powers” or “martial law” as they are the EXACT opposite of the US Constitution and would be *terrorism being used against the American people.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Remember that contract agents (like Blackwater, etc) can be considered an invading force (probably ought to double check with Vieira, and a few others – but it seems so from what I have studied) when used against the American people on US soil. As would be foreign troops.

  5. Resist this Insanity.

    Has anyone in the Federal Government looked at the Number of people that were killed in the Last American Civil War?
    Is that what Feds want? Why do Feds keep pushing and provoking?
    Keep on pushing Law Abiding, hard working, American citizens who are legally here.
    Keep pushing people and there will be the hell of war on American soil.
    Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. A repeat.
    How long will people remain calm?

    It seems to me that the current president and his regime WANT a civil war.
    Insane, delusional, unfit for command, a TRAITOR. That is the current Amerika president.

  6. I’m behind the previous replies, however, the people of Nevada have serious legal problems beginning with their constitution on down. They require serious help. How a state forfeits all powers to the federal government only a constitutional attorney could answer. What’s needed now is patriot boots on the ground, fast.

  7. I have many fond memories of the S.Nev desert I could drive 5 mins. in any direction and go shooting.This needs to go viral and the line in the sands needs drawing.I remember when the powers that shouldn’t be took such small bites that you didn’t even notice, this ain’t no small bite and if patriots and people that love their country and there freedoms the Liberty tree needs watering!!!

  8. @ Milt S. Chandler, is the Nevada State Constitution that is found online the “real” Nevada Constitution?

    I do not know, but I do know that others online have been “changed” from when I downloaded them for an article I was writing. Since I did not see, download, or read it from before Obama’s treasonous goons started messing with the online stuff I do not know. But I would really be surprised if it was the correct Nevada Constitution as it does not follow the requirements of all new states added as a republican form of government under the US Constitution, not under the “federal government”.

    Anyone know if it is the real Nevada Constitution (online one)?

  9. Yes wilson, a lot of us are agog at the disconnected,tone deaf tunnel vision of the various Federal agencies.To begin to comprehend their actions, it’s helpful to view them as imperialists bent on preserving their power and expanding their empire.Follow the money.The funding recieved by agencies such as BLM or BATFE is justified by their own leaders as neccesary to enforce their mission,and their primary goal is an ever increasing bankroll.Seen in this light,any admission by them that their actions are futile or illegal would hit them where it hurts – in the pocketbook.Make no mistake,BLM got a black eye at Bundy ranch,and they will be out for payback in the next round.Hoping and praying won’t stop them.Mass civil disobedience by an aroused and armed citizenry will,but we should put our affairs in order before we go.This out of control central government HAS TO BE STOPPED,and it’s up to us to stop it, at all hazards. See you there.

  10. Me again. As Dr. Vieira says; “Mr. J.B. Williams published a commentary on NewsWithViews entitled “Can Obama Be Impeached?”… Mr. Williams says that he “agree[s] with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign finance fraud, just for starters”….
    That, however, is not really “the claim” at issue here. The actual charge is that, although Mr. Obama may have succeeded in gaining physical access to the office-space a legitimate President of the United States occupies in the White House, he never acquired legal access to “the Office of President”, because, not being “a natural born Citizen”, he was never constitutionally eligible, and is not now eligible, for that “Office”. For Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution declares (in pertinent part) that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President”. If words have any meaning, a “Person” whom the supreme law of the land declares not to be “eligible to the Office of President” can never “gain access to” that “Office” in the sense of legally holding it or asserting any claim to it. The question then becomes, can an individual who is not legally in that “Office” at all, because he is and always has been ineligible for it, be removed by impeachment and conviction from his non-existent position? (I shall leave aside whether Mr. Obama is actually not “a natural born Citizen”. If he were, he could and should establish that fact, which for some unfathomable reason he has so far refused to substantiate in any satisfactory manner. In the absence of proof on that score from the party in the best position to provide such proof, for the purposes of this commentary I shall assume to be valid the assertion that Mr. Obama is not “a natural born Citizen”.)…

    In support of his position, Mr. Williams marshals some quotations from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Joseph Story. These, however, are quite beside the point, because each of them assumes that the party subject to impeachment is in fact and law actually the President or some other officer of the United States. Not one of them addresses the situation in which some individual, although wholly “[in]eligible to the Office of President”, nonetheless pretends to hold that “Office”.

    Analysis must begin (and, as will become apparent, also end) with the actual pertinent words of the Constitution material to impeachment and related matters:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. No Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President * * * .

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Article II, Section 4. The President * * * shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office * * * the Same shall devolve on the Vice President * * * .

    Plainly enough, the last three of these provisions refer to legal “removal” from a status (“the Office of President”), not physical removal from a place, and therefore apply only to an individual who as a matter of law is actually in that “Office” as “the President”, having first satisfied all of the constitutional prerequisites for that status. These provisions do not say (as they might have said, if Mr. Williams’ position were correct) that “an individual who claims to be the President”, or “an individual whom many people believe to be the President”, “shall be removed from Office”—for the self-evident reason that an individual who is not legitimately in that (or any other) “Office” at the relevant time cannot be removed from it, no matter what his claims or the beliefs of others may be.

    An individual who is not “a natural born Citizen”, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible in principle for “the Office of President”, can never assume the status of “President” legally. The most obvious and consequential practical reason is that such an individual cannot possibly take the necessary “Oath or Affirmation” which is a prerequisite to his “enter[ing] on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]”, because he knows that, being ineligible for that “Office”, he cannot possibly “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. First, his imposture as “President” itself constitutes an affront to the Constitution—that is, his “tak[ing] the * * * Oath or Affirmation” is in and of itself a violation of the “Oath or Affirmation”. Second, not being eligible for “the Office of President”, he cannot ever legally fulfill the duty of the President, set out in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Were he legally capable of fulfilling that duty, and desirous of doing so, his very first step would have to be to turn himself in or order his own arrest as an imposter, thus refuting his own prior claim to be “President”.

    Criminal prosecution would appear to be the obvious first choice. For example, Title 18, United States Code, Section 912 provides that “[w]hoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer * * * acting under the authority of the United States * * * , and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Mr. Williams, however, asserts that “before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they [sic] must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities”. In support of this contention, he cites a memorandum prepared by lawyers in the Department of Justice, of all people! As an outspoken critic of the General Government—and rightly so—Mr. Williams should have been more discerning. For the Constitution makes it plain as day that no such requirement exists.

    The only provision in the Constitution for any immunity with respect to violations of criminal law for any public official while that official remains in office appears in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: “The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same”. So, Members of Congress may be subjected to “Arrest”—and presumably thereafter tried, convicted, and imprisoned or otherwise punished—on charges of “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace”, even “during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses”, and even while they are on the very floor of the House or of the Senate, engaged in their official business. Inasmuch as the category “Felony” includes a multitude of crimes, and inasmuch as it is not inconceivable (particularly today) that every Member of Congress might be implicated in some “Felony” or other at the same time, therefore the Constitution allows for the “Arrest” of any Member, and even the entire Membership, of Congress—with no concern whatsoever (in Mr. Williams’ words) that “the business of the people can continue while the[se] individual[s are] being prosecuted for criminal activities”. And this notwithstanding that the Constitution in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 provides a means equivalent to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office which is applicable to Members of Congress: to wit, that “[e]ach House may * * * , with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member”. Thus, a Member of Congress whose criminal misbehavior comes to light may first be expelled and then subjected to “Arrest”. But he also may first be subjected to “Arrest”, and only thereafter expelled.

    In Article II and Article III, the Constitution extends to the President and to the Judiciary not even the limited immunity it grants to Members of Congress, that “[t]hey shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest”. So, on the strength of this silence and the legal principle inclusio unius exclusio alterius, no immunity from “Arrest” (and thereafter from subsequent indictment, prosecution, trial, conviction, and punishment) for any sort of criminal misbehavior exists for a rogue President or any rogue judge.

    Inasmuch as Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “[t]he Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * , and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the United States * * * , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”, and inasmuch as the Constitution creates only a limited immunity from “Arrest” for Members of Congress and no immunity whatsoever for the President or for any judge, therefore Congress can enact no statute, the President can promulgate no policy (through executive orders or otherwise), and the Judiciary can hand down no opinion that creates, enforces, rules in favor of, recognizes, or otherwise treats as even arguably legitimate any more extensive immunity.

    How can anyone not respect and honor Dr. Vieira?

  11. Okay, youare going to say “enough”, but it is NOT enough. One must understand what the real problem is, and it is NOT that Obama is the US president, because he is not, never has been, nor can ever be.
    The problem is that WE are allowing this charade to continue.

    Dr. Vieira again, on why and how oabma can be removed from the position of presidential imposter, impersonation:

    “A civil action in the nature of the old common-law writ of quo warranto (“by what authority”) could also supply a remedy preferable to impeachment for what Mr. Williams denotes as “the crisis known as Obama”. The applicable statute is found in the Code of the District of Columbia, Division II, Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I, Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503, the first section of which provides in pertinent part that “[a] quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States, civil or military”. By its own terms, this law does not require for its invocation a prior successful impeachment of the “person who * * * usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States”. Indeed, if that “person” is truly “usurp[ing], intrud[ing] into, or unlawfully hold[ing] or exercis[ing]” such an office, impeachment is supererogatory, because it is logically and legally impossible. It would appear, then, that the existence of this law by itself disproves Mr. Williams’ assertion that “Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment”.”

    ” Consider the remedy of impeachment. This depends entirely upon Congress. But Congress has already had two separate opportunities, each required by the selfsame statute, in which to address the issue of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility for “the Office of President”—and both times refused, to a man and woman, to take any action whatsoever. As I explained in detail in my NewsWithViews commentary entitled “In the Shadow of Nemesis” (8 December 2008), when Congress convened in 2008 to count the votes for President that had been cast in the Electoral College, only one Representative and one Senator needed to object to a single Elector’s vote for Mr. Obama on the ground of his possible ineligibility for “the Office of President” in order to compel some kind of immediate Congressional inquiry into the matter. Nevertheless, not one Member of Congress did so—even though each one of them could have interposed as many objections as there were Electors’ votes to be tallied. The same result obtained in 2012. Worse yet, many Members of Congress participated in that process in both 2008 and 2012 in the very same deaf, dumb, craven, and feckless manner.

    If Mr. Obama is in fact not eligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen”, then all of his actions in that pretended status have been null and void ab initio, and now will need to be set aside, with whatever complex, costly, and perhaps calamitous consequences must inevitably follow. For such a disaster, every Member of Congress from 2008 to today would be personally responsible, because each and every one of them has been complicitous in preventing an investigation of Mr. Obama’s reputed ineligibility. Qui potest et debet vetare tacens iubet.

    Consider the remedy of a criminal prosecution. Unless Congress were to appoint a special prosecutor, which is as unlikely as impeachment for the same reasons, any criminal investigation would be conducted by Mr. Obama’s own cronies in the Department of Justice. Inasmuch as Attorney General Eric Holder has experienced no crisis of conscience to deter him from supplying absurd legalistic apologies for Mr. Obama’s on-going program of “official assassinations”, he should hardly be expected to shrink from defending Mr. Obama’s eligibility to commit those acts.

    Consider the remedy of quo warranto. The statute cited above requires either that the Attorney General of the United States institute a proceeding “on his own motion or on the relation of a third person”, or that if the Attorney General refuses to institute a proceeding the United States District Court for the District of Columbia grant leave for “the interested person” to prosecute a civil action in the name of the United States. Obviously, the present Attorney General will no more institute a proceeding in quo warranto than he will investigate a criminal charge against Mr. Obama. And, having stifled every inquiry by all sorts of plaintiffs into Mr. Obama’s ineligibility to date, the Judiciary can hardly be depended upon to take the initiative—along with the inevitable political heat—now, after immense and possibly irreparable injury has been done to this country, to a large extent because of the Judiciary’s own prior poltroonish defaults.

    Consider the remedy of honest public officials’ unwillingness to cooperate with Mr. Obama on the ground of his arguable ineligibility for “the Office of President”. Mr. Obama may reside in pharaonic pomp behind the All-Seeing Eye in the Great Pyramid of Chaos in the Disgrace of Columbia—but he can accomplish nothing whatsoever without the prosaic day-to-day cooperation (or collusion, if you will) of tens of thousands of underlings in the General Government’s civil bureaucracy and Armed Forces. Is it possible to conceive of a tacit rebellion in these ranks, if not inspired by the pangs of conscience then driven by the goad of self-interest—a rebellion which would manifest itself in those underlings’ continued performance of their mundane duties, but their refusal to participate in any constitutionally questionable activity (to use the phrase familiar to any union member, “working to rule”)?

    In principle, this is not a possibility so implausible as to be dismissed out of hand, because (as pointed out above) “all executive * * * Officers * * * of the United States * * * shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution”—and therefore they should always consult the Constitution before they render blind obedience to anyone, especially an individual who claims to be “the President”, but whose arguable ineligibility for that “Office” has become a matter of national, and even international, notoriety. In practice, though, could any important, let alone large, segment of the contemporary bureaucracy be expected to take this legally scrupulous tack? Unfortunately, no. For here, Mr. Williams is brutally insightful: “The list of usurpations and administration crimes would require an encyclopedia to fully chronicle at this late stage. Recent breaking news of massive violations of American[s’] constitutional rights by nearly every federal agency which Obama has turned against the people of the United States eliminates any possibility that these events are just independent agency coincidences.” That is, the complicity of the bureaucracy is well-nigh complete. And although a few prominent “whistleblowers” can expose the pervasiveness of the rot, they will surely prove insufficient to overcome it.

    No more is relief likely to be had at the hands of high-level personages in the Armed Forces. Except when it comes to convening a drumhead court-martial in order to convict an officer with the courage to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility—such as Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin—these people are proving to be “rubber lions” indeed. None of them seems to be capable of discerning the danger, not just to this country but to themselves personally as well, of their remaining under the command of an individual impersonating “the President”—namely, that if such an individual will violate the Constitution with respect to both his eligibility for that “Office” and the veracity of the “Oath or Affirmation” required of him as “the President”, what grotesquely unconstitutional orders will he hand down in his pretended capacity of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” in order to maintain his power when he finds himself backed into a corner?

    This self-inflicted blindness is incredible, because the officer corps’ own self-interest, and even self-preservation, is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama as the Armed Forces’ putative “Commander in Chief” might himself “pull the nuclear trigger”, or order them to pull it, with what devastating consequences can easily be imagined. Moreover, the officer corps’ own self-respect is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama claims as “the President” a license to assassinate people anywhere in the world without any judicial process, and to call upon the Armed Forces to assist him in these homicidal ventures. See my NewsWithViews commentaries entitled “Where Is the Outrage?” (9 April 2012) and “Death Squads” (14 December 2010). Although no one should ever desire an actual revolt within the officer corps—for the simple reason that “government by junta” or even by the threat of a junta or golpe is utterly incompatible with a free society—one or two well publicized resignations by outspoken officers in high positions would go far towards making “Duty, Honor, Country” more than a mere slogan. Apparently, however, this is too much to expect, if it is not too much to ask.

    Inasmuch as Mr. Obama’s policy of “official assassinations” evokes a direct parallel to no less than Adolf Hitler, every thinking American who imagines that the Armed Forces will come to this country’s rescue would do well to peruse, for example, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 (London, England: Macmillan and Company Limited, 1964). This book sets out some crucial historical lessons that confirm the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers’ profound distrust of all “standing armies”—namely, that in the long run no country can rely upon professional “standing armies” to preserve its freedom from usurpers and tyrants; but that such establishments can be expected to aid and abet, or at least to countenance, and certainly not to challenge, a central government’s steady accretion, concentration, and ultimately abuse of power.

    Patriotic Americans should remember, though, that it is always darkest before the dawn; that God helps those who help themselves; and that (in the words of Algernon Sidney) “[h]e that has virtue and power to save a people, can never want a right of doing it”—and, one must presume, will always be capable of fashioning some remedy to effectuate that right. What Mr. Williams calls “the crisis known as Obama” goes far beyond a lone individual in the Disgrace of Columbia. And it will not be overcome by the relatively few other individuals in Congress, in the Judiciary, in the General Government’s bureaucracy, in the States’ governments, or in the high commands of the Armed Forces—even if most of them were not consciously complicitous in the crisis or otherwise hopelessly compromised or confused. Instead, America must start what will prove to be an Herculean cleansing of her political stables “from the bottom up”, with her own people wielding the shovels. Not necessarily all of her people. Not necessarily even a majority of her people at first. Rather, America must identify, mobilize, organize, and put into the field those whom the Declaration of Independence denoted “the good People”. The people who desired the Colonies “to be Free and Independent States”, even in the face of resistance from domestic “loyalists” who were willing to support “the present King of Great Britain” in his “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”. (End Dr. Vieira quote)

    What is needed is the Second Amendment which is the PROTECTION of our natural right from those who serve within our governments – whatever their title or rank.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

    Who is constitutionally able to lawfully enforce the US Constitution? The Militia of the several states. But so is the LE’s that are OUR replacements. “Replacement” means taking on OUR duties, and they take an Oath that requires that action in the words “Support and Defend” (Us Constitution).

    It means that the ONLY lawful authority they (LE”s) have is that oath, taking and keeping it. That our duties that they now are required to perform before anything else including the duties of the position they occupy and the orders of those above them is to:

    – Enforce the US Constitution (supreme LAW) and each state’s Constitution (highest state LAW),
    – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

    Our borders have been being invaded, what havbe the LE’s been doing?.)

  12. I do not believe another event in Nevada would be even close to successful as the powers are itching for payback along with the reversed baseball capped, expensive sun glass adorned contractors are ticked off at such a small check for a failed operation.

    I feel if the people of Nevada have allowed their land to be handed off and have done noting to change it, then save the confrontation to some urban event that can show possible gain from the operation.

    After Bundy Ranch we saw all kinds of politicians stand before the camera and ring the Liberty Bell while the hand behind their back was rattling the chains of hell.

    I fail to understand how LEO’s Military and Mercenaries think they will have any value after they do their so called job for the power elite. Really with a few million people left on earth after its all over, can you really feel safe and secure being part of a few million Pit Bulls? Maybe just a little soul search on reality might wake a few up to what is coming for them in the end game.

    Learn the difference between inoculation and vaccination as well as what chips inserted into your body can do when required.

    We are all fools, illusion, delusion, manipulation having taken place for generations to get here and a standoff in the desert just don’t make sense to me.

  13. I concur… it’s the people who can enforce the Constitution… the people need to recall their reps from D C, and then arrest them for what they really have done.

  14. @chuck Says:

    Chuck, just a big can or worms here that ‘No One’ to my knowledge has addressed, Who will arrest and try the?

    Do you think the States Troopers or Judiciary will take action on the people that pay or appoint them? Not a chance in Hell of this happening.

    So what are the options and few they are along with less workable of anything one might try to answer the question with.

    You are correct in that it is the ‘People’, start to finish, win or loose. Is this what is call vigilantism? Now what?

    Looks like all or none, unless I have the most offbeat view of what is required.

  15. I would suggest to all the freedom loving patriots to consider a consultation of sorts with the Creator of the Heavens and Earth about this unholy situation. Only He can guide us to an effective outcome, if He wants it to be and we are genuine of heart. Although I am with Cal on this one so far…Anyone up for a Common Law Grand Jury case? The “People” have all the answers to these problems within the pages of our “Supreme Law of The Land”. Cal is smarter than I so he already has most of it figured out. 🙂

  16. @ Ron, “Who will arrest and try them?”

    If the LE’s refuse, then they deserve to lose their position back to the people as the Militia. It is in the LE’s best interests if they want to have anymore federal ans state LE’s to do the job their Oath and as the Militia replacement requires.

    They will lose that “power” that comes with the position, their lucrative paychecks, and be out looking for jobs with a lot of other people of the USA. But, those Militia that train the rest of the people, who will be needed to organize, be officers, etc; those who we will need to occupy it on a permanent basis will receive those paychecks instead.

    It will take years to get the American people up to being trained, etc and we will need ongoing training for years, supplies.

    So you now know who makes the arrests, and charges. Constitutional judges will try them. We do still have a few. Since the others refused to keep the contract they agreed to and did NOT use “Good Behaviour” (keeping their Oath, and doing their duty as the US Constitution assigned it) will be removed from office and refused the honor of serving as anything, eve dog catchers, or any office of trust. Where it is applicable, treason and terrorism that their decisions created they will be held accountable for.

    This is up to us, “We the people” since the others – state and federal – abdicated their duties and broke their contract.

  17. Cal;

    Insightful as always and IMO closer to reality. When you say years for it to turn around, how about a generation or two? I am sure it is not going to self correct in my remaining life.

    Actually one could wonder if it ma never correct, anyway look back at the Slaves in the US. It was not the Slaves that corrected their position, it indeed was a politician with underlying agenda.

    So sad to think what has been lost and will be written out in digital history, while acclimating the millennial’s to a totally different set of right/wrong and whatever will be left of basic human morality.

  18. Ron….In regard to the outcome of another confrontation between us and BLM,We shouldn’t have any illusions.We gave them a black eye on April 12th and they will be out for payback.No doubt reinforced by DHS,Federal marshals,USFS police and the full panoply of federal armed enforcement, the chances of repeating our Bundy ranch victory are close to nil.Those of us who go to stop this land grab should expect an entirely different set of circumstances, and should have a different definition of success.
    A victory for us will be to show the FED in full police-state mode, perhaps even firing on and killing US citizens.As to your suggestion for waiting for a better set of circumstances, When? the Rose Bowl Parade? Not ALL the people of Nevada have knuckled under to the Fed. All it took was for one courageous family – the Bundys – to stand up, and the response by patriotic Americans made history.
    We will never fire the first shot, but do you suppose we can take civil disobedience to the next level without risk to ourselves? Our own history should disabuse you of that fond notion.Contemplate the determination of Capt. Parker……………….

  19. @ Neil Wampler Says:
    November 1st, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Neil, exactly what you say, the outcome would be totally different and Flags would leave torn and folded. There is nothing wrong in my mind with giving all for the cause, except I wonder about the damage done to the movement when the rail sitters see what might happen and which side they fall too.

    My question to a better time and place is in my mind a matter of logistics rather than symbolism. Without doubt (they) have more planned for us and not to far off I believe. Therefore when a event should present itself, ready, supplied and a day or two better trained could stand to answer support. Okay just my thinks and we are all flawed are we not?

    Thanks for the feedback to my idea.

  20. Don’t get sucked in to a confrontation with a superior force.
    Use your head, Not your heart.

    Don’t allow the Traitors to have an excuse for a Civil War or Martial Law. TRAITORS are provoking.
    Don’t get sucked in. There is only so much that can be done.
    Just Ignore their BS in mass. Civil disobedience in a Peaceful, collected, calm, manner.

    Never give an enemy propaganda against your cause.
    Fat guys with guns, standing around the desert in camo, is NOT the Image you want to portray to the general public.
    Showing up with well dressed children, a picnic basket and checkered blanket, baseball equipment, Frisbee, Soccer balls. Would be more effective.

    Have plenty of cameras. The elite FEAR the internet and the masses converging to negate their collectivization and looting.
    Leave the guns and battle rattle at home.

    Who can forget the brave man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square China 1989?

  21. Gahndi
    Martin Luther King
    Lech Walesa, an electrician, who led the labor strikes that brought down Polish ‘iron curtain’.
    And the before mentioned “Man who stood against a China Communist TANK”. What courage!

    These men caused change by peaceful methods.
    They won both the hearts and minds by their non violent by unfaltering DETERMINATION.

    Ego must be put aside.
    Rah rah arm chair warriors with gucci gear have no clue about the realities of armed confrontation.
    Easier to start than to stop. Once war starts the real insanity begins.
    I too believe that a United States civil war is what the grand leader obummer WANTS.
    The TREASONOUS POWERS WITHIN USA government WANT conflict and martial law.

    So don’t give the traitors an excuse. Just wait the current pretend president out.

    When pretend president is out of office, I hope that Charges are brought against him for TREASON.
    We need an object lesson for politicians to understand CONSEQUENCES of CRIMINAL and TREASONOUS activities.
    They are bought and paid for CRIMINALS. With no accountability for their harmful actions against our America and her people.

    Do NOT allow them to PROVOIKE a Civil War or martial law. You must stay in check.
    Do NOT allow these TRAITORS and pretend president to start WW3.

Comments are closed.