Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
Yes as a matter of fact.
How come the Federal government is only concerned with rules and law when it pertains to legitimate Americans, yet aid and abet those who routinely violate federal law when they enter US land illegally?
Because the federal government is a bunch of fat-cat bureaucrats seeking a totally cowed and dependent populace who will further its lust for power and feed its greed?
So why do you support and or side with a punitive controlling tyrannical force who wants to basically bury us, who picks and chooses which laws it going to enforce?
There is a section of Arizona along the border that is under the control of squatter illegals. The feds put up signs along the perimeter warning of the danger.
Now they send federal agents against an American rancher for not paying the grazing fees. Kind of like issuing the death penalty for an overdue book.
That is a big reasons a lot of Americans are pissed off about this. The feds are taking the path of least resistance. They go after a perceived weak target instead of protecting our borders from the drug army scum.
And we get to pay for all this to boot.
excellent points dragnet. Why would anyone today, given what we have seen the last 20 years, be so fierce to justify ANY Federal Govt action is rather odd at minimum, and maybe not to be trusted.
You’re wrong. We have long since passed the abuses that justified Lexington and Concord.
This was bound to happen sooner or later.
Government creates issue. Government escalates issue. Citizen gets fed up and decides not to obey the masters. Government brings in armed agents. Government takes citizens property. Citizens band together and get even more fed up. Citizens take up arms.
All because of a G-damn turtle and an overreaching POS government.
PEOPLE ARE FED UP!
Begs the question:
If they have this many agents to round up illegal cattle, why can’t they round up illegal aliens?
The land in question was purchased from Mexico for $15 million 16 years before Nevada became a state. It is "territory or other property belonging to the United States" under Article IV Section 3. Nevada disclaimed the land when it became a state. The isn't a States' Rights issue.
Add to that this. He’s wrong.
The Constitution does not give the fed gov willy nilly right to own land just because it wants to.
The Constitution places very strict limits on what the fed gov can own, and this here part of land under contention ain’t it. Not even close.
Because cows don’t shoot at them.
“First Amendment Areas” defy the very concept of the First Amendment. Eff you, Feral Government, and your harsh locational restrictions on a GOD GIVEN RIGHT.
AMEN. Bump that.
They are willing to send multiple agents from multiple agencies to Nevada while at the same time they are telling the border patrol to stand down.
Priorities.
Rather like the latest joke in Virginia:
What’s the difference between a Virginia coal miner and a polar bear?
Senator Mark Warner cares about polar bears.
The Constitution does not give the fed gov the right to own land other than for reasons listed in the sections you listed.
This particular piece of land fits none of the requirements for fed gov ownership.
Claiming that the word “territory” gives it that right is the same purposeful misuse as the progressives pulled when they claimed the word “welfare” gave them the right to start a federal vote buying scheme using federal tax monies simply because he called the program “welfare”.
I don’t. Just because I think Bundy is wrong (legally and morally) doesn’t mean I support the actions of the BLM or the federal government. I’m ALL IN on putting the beast in its place, but this ain’t the hill I wanna die on. I’d gladly pick a hill on the border and stand with you. (I think you know that.)
...and because so far...
...cows don't VOTE...
Fedcoats - I like it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.