Western States Finally Standing Up to Rapacious Federal Gov’t

The Federal government is quickly becoming an enemy to the people. One more example of that is its theft of land. We recently saw an example of this in Nevada with Obama’s Bureau of Land Management attempting to destroy the livelihood of a Nevada rancher by stealing his cattle–and killing them–and sending hundreds of SWAT team-like, heavily armed para-military forces to attack him. But western states are starting to oppose these federal thieves by warning Washington to stay in Washington.

The simple truth is that the U.S. government has already stolen too much land in these United States. The feds have taken possession of land in every single state, and in some states it has taken possession of most of the state preventing citizens of those states from buying, trading, or improving those lands.

But some states, especially western states where the actions of the federal government have become especially egregious, are starting to put their foot down and saying “no more.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry, for instance, just told the BLM to keep out of the Lone Star State.

Perry said, not only does the federal government already own “too much land.” The Texas Governor also told Fox News that the feds are “out of control.”

The governor is acting in advance of news that BLM is looking at absconding with thousands of acres near the Red River. “At issue are thousands of acres of land on the Texas side of the Red River, along the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Officials recently have raised concern that the BLM might be looking at claiming 90,000 acres of land as part of the public domain,” Fox reported.

“It’s not a dare, it’s a promise that we’re going to stand up for private property rights in the state of Texas,” Perry insisted

Perry isn’t alone, either. A coalition of western states have recently been mulling over ways to tell the feds to take a hike and to regain control of their own land.

This is all part of the move toward reinstating the 10th Amendment to its former–and intended–glory.

The tenth is one of the simplest amendments in the law of the land. It simply states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This reiterates that founders’ ideal that the U.S. Constitution was giving limited powers to the federal government.

Many states are beginning to look at this amendment in a new light using it to put a halt to the out of control government in Washington that imagines its has no limits to its power and can do whatever it wants to do.

Some imagine that this all is a precursor to armed conflict between we, the people, and the autocratic, un-American federal government. While that is possible, it isn’t a necessity. All it will take is millions of voters to begin to agree with a return to federalism and Washington will eventually succumb to the will of the voters. But it won’t be an easy battle.

It would be terrible if it became open season–literally–on all government workers, but if the federal government doesn’t begin to shed some of its unearned, unethical, and un-American powers, it may just end up losing those powers at gun point. This is something we should try to avoid.

The rest of the country needs to take a lesson from what Perry and other western states are starting to do. The federal government needs to be chopped down to size.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Now Obama Bows to Foreign Robot, Seriously!
  • Hank_M

    I remember reading a while back something Stanley Kurtz wrote, about the long term plan to transform how we live. The plan being to: “block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars.” At the time I dismissed it as not possible. But when one looks at the actions of the dems, what Obama has been doing as president and then at the unbelievable amount of land owned by the feds, it all seems to add up.
    And libs/progressives are nothing if not long term thinkers who as we’ve seen will use any means necessary to advance their agenda.
    I agree, the govt has to be chopped down before it’s too late.

    • jim_m

      Joke is on the left. The new wild frontier will be in dem run cities like Detroit where there is now more open land than there is occupied buildings. Of course the other joke is that they aren’t going to be able to control all that land The people have had enough of detached overlords from DC trying to dictate how they live their lives.

      • The theory seemed to be that the polite right wouldn’t complain (much) until the left got things to a point where they could just grab everything as a fait accompli.

        But that’s not exactly how it’s turning out. The next few years are going to be interesting, and not in the good sense of the word, I think.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Wow, this is dumb. Dude, the gummint owning land doesn’t mean that it “stole” that land from someone. All governments have owned property including land. From the dawn of civilization to the present. And obviously the Feds own vast swaths of land in the west. Otherwise Pocahontas, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull would have title. Or the French would own it. Or Mexico. Have I lost you already? Plus a lot of that land for decades in the 20th Century was devoted, you know, to military matters. Testing weapons systems. Nuclear testing. Do you really think the Joneses should own acres in NV, UT and NM, where they once exploded atom bombs and where they store nuclear waste? Geez. In any event, obviously the Feds control too much land and we’d all be better off if the states controlled more of it. Elections determine land use policies. Voting. Not editorials and certainly not the sorts of coffee klatches and sewing circles so common in and among the horrific demographics of the erstwhile conservative chattering classes.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      If, as you say, nothing will come from this sort “of coffee klatch” involving “the horrific demographics of the erstwhile conservative [btw, to whom are you referring as a former conservative?] chattering classes,” why are you wasting your time commenting here? You know, pearls before swine and all that.

    • 914

      Do yourself a favor and grow a brain.

    • pork chop

      Dood, you ARE a one-man chattering class. Try not to love yourself so much. In public.

    • McGehee

      In the western states, the federal government retained ownership of public land that should have been ceded to state jurisdiction.

      That is theft.

  • Hawk_TX

    This is exactly why the founders included the tenth amendment. The Constitution never delegate the Federal government the power to own vast tracks of land within a state.

    1, section 8, clause 17 states ” 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, dockyards, and other needful

    This limits the Federal governments enumerated
    authority to D.C. and to “needful buildings”. Clearly that would not
    include range land, national parks, solar plants, or nature preserves.
    Put simply the Federal government cannot “exercise legislation” or own
    land that is not serving a Constitutionally enumerated purpose.

    • Brucehenry

      Nope. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 expressly authorizes the ownership of land by the federal government.


      • Hawk_TX

        Article 3 states “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States”

        Nothing in that authorizes the federal government to own land. It merely authorizes congress to make rules and regulations regarding territory and property belonging to the U.S. . However any property belonging to the United States would still be limited by article 1 to “needful buildings”.

        • Brucehenry

          The phrase “TERRITORY or other property belonging to the United States” assumes the US will own “territory” — land.

          There is also the phrase “to dispose of” to consider. That would mean the US can sell land or give it away, which means it can own land. It can’t “dispose of” something it doesn’t own.

          • Hawk_TX

            The definition of territory is:
            “a region or district of the U.S. not admitted to the
            Union as a state but having its own legislature, with a governor and other officers appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.”

            Territory is land under a countries jurisdiction that is outside of a state. It does not have to be land that the government owns. It is just a political division that is overseen by the federal government. Since a territory is overseen by the federal government the federal government is the only entity that could manage the deeding of the land to new owners. Again this does not mean that the government owns the land. You can confirm this by checking real estate listings in any U.S. territory.

          • Brucehenry

            As is the case with many English words, the word “territory” has more than one definition.

            The US is simply NOT constitutionally prohibited from owning land. It has owned land without question (except from nuts) throughout our history. Jump through all the hoops you want, the government can, does, and will continue to own land.

          • Hawk_TX

            I never said that the U.S. could not own land. I said that the Federal government could not “own land that is not serving a Constitutionally enumerated purpose.” And that article 1, section 8, clause 17 stipulates that as for “needful buildings”. As in buildings that are needed for the federal government to carryout its Constitutionally enumerated duties. And article 1 even further restricts the government by stipulating that this land must be purchased by the consent of the respective state legislatures.

            No matter what definition of territory you use I have already shown that territory does not mean that the government owns the land.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you keep saying it can’t, but for over 200 years it has.

            Nutty interpretations of the Constitution aren’t new, but they’re still nutty.

  • Commander_Chico

    The simple truth is that the U.S. government has already stolen too much land in these United States.

    I agree!


    • jim_m

      The difference is that the Jews in Europe never rose up and wiped out whole settlements, scalping the women and children. The indians chose poorly in both the French and Indian war and the Revolution. The atrocities they committed are well documented. It is with this historical background that the actions of later administrations were taken. Failing to understand that is failing to understand the events entirely.

      While you and other ignorant, lying leftists would like to characterize the actions of the US as proceeding purely from racism and ignorance, the reality is that they also proceeded from a well earned distrust and enmity that at the time you suggest was as recent as the grandparents of the people running the nation.

      I do not say this to excuse everything that was done to them but to lend some perspective. The comparison you make is inaccurate and dishonest. Merely calling it unfair would be a gross understatement. But then your intent is not to educate or even to understand. Your intent is to spread ignorance and hate.

      • Commander_Chico

        Captain Jeffrey Amherst and his smallpox infected blankets?

        Of course the winners get to write history. How many white settlers were scalped vs how many Indians massacred?

        • jim_m

          I didn’t claim that anyone was innocent. Unlike you I simply pointed out that there was innocent blood spilled by both sides. You deliberately ignore that fact.

          You ignore the fact that it was with those atrocities in the memories of Americans that decisions were made against the indians. I do not claim that these were equitable, but I claim that there were reasons why they were made apart from ignorance and racism.

          History is never as simple as the left claims. With the left it is always that America is evil and they never bother to look at what really happened. If you spend some time reading history you can see that nothing ever happens in a vacuum. Read about the Napoleonic wars and you can see the seeds of the Spanish Civil War were planted 100 years before it started. You can pretend that you know all the answers but you don’t.

          • Commander_Chico

            There is no doubt white people, including the USG, engaged in a sustained campaign of what would now be called “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in the territory of the USA.

            It’s just that most of the people writing about it believed in racial superiority or were beholden to moneyed interests.

          • jim_m

            Yeah. Stick with the generalities, Chico, because when you try to talk specifics it’s always a bunch of bs.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, “specifics.” You’re like one of those truthers or holocaust deniers who takes one questionable fact to say it “proves” the Nazis didn’t have death camps or that Saudis didn’t fly planes into the WTC. The fact that the Iroquois might have tortured people once in awhile does not mean they should have been eliminated and kicked off their land.

          • jim_m

            Fuck you Chico. You’re the anti-Semite here. And don’t you dare call me a freaking troother when you are the one who has suggested that “Bush knew”. Quit your leftist projection.

            I said stay away from specifics because you chose a bullshit example where there is no proof and you couldn’t even get the person’s identity correct. Your “example” was an out and out lie. Whenever you provide some example it is nearly always a complete lie.

          • Commander_Chico

            WTF? Amherst and his gang wrote about distributing smallpox infected blankets and wanted the total annihilation of the Indians, Nazi-style.

            See here, then you can try some nitpicking sophistry:


          • jim_m

            I said that they did. I even linked that they did. However, as the link points out there is no evidence that the distribution ever occurred. Furthermore, there is established science which says that unless it were undertaken in a manner that would have exposed those who distributed the blankets it would have been completely ineffectual..

          • Commander_Chico

            You didn’t even take the time to read what was at the link.

            The letters said they did it, “from the smallpox hospital.”
            Quote: All in all, the letters provided here remove all doubt about the validity of the stories about Lord Jeff and germ warfare. The General’s own letters sustain the stories.

          • jim_m

            They gave 2 blankets and a handkerchief. However, as I have pointed out, unless these were taken directly from the hospital to the indians and they handled them within 24 hours of exposure to an infectious patient, the infectivity would by rather slight.

            So you have evidence that they tried but no evidence that they succeeded. The fact that smallpox was already in the area makes it highly likely that they could have contracted it from other sources as well.

          • Commander_Chico

            As I said, you are like the holocaust deniers who say there is no evidence Jews were killed in gas chambers, despite the German documentation of that.

          • jim_m

            Fuck you Chico. How dare you as one of the biggest anti-semites here call me like a holocaust denier. FUCK YOU

            Especially when you are the sort of person that would have put the Jews in the ovens yourself!

            You’re just bent because I called you out in your anti-American lie when you claimed that this was done by an American Captain, I pointed out that it was an English Baron. You just hate the fact that your claims that America is evil are totally bullshit.

        • warnertoddhuston

          There is no such thing as “infecting” blankets with small ox. It don’t work that a way.

          • jim_m

            Indeed. Chico has just posted a vile anti-American lie that has no basis in fact and which is scientifically impossible.

          • Actually, with smallpox the scabs and liquids coming out of the sores were infectious – and the quantity of virus needed to infect with smallpox is very, very small, and could lie dormant for months or years.

            Small ox, however, would have been very noticeable, and would need frequent applications of hay or other fibrous media to stay active enough to replicate.

          • jim_m

            Small pox virus can survive for a long time but only when in scab or skin tissue. Exposed in the environment (like on a blanket) it dies.

          • Er, hate to disagree on that, but from der Wiki on smallpox…

            “Transmission occurs through inhalation of airborne variola virus, usually droplets expressed from the oral, nasal, or pharyngeal mucosa of an infected person. It is transmitted from one person to another primarily through prolonged face-to-face contact with an infected person, usually within a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects (fomites) such as bedding or clothing.”

            And all it takes is enough virus to infect one person. With the state of the sanitation/medical arts in the 1700s, if one in a susceptible population got it, it’d spread like wildfire until either (a) the population was gone, or (b) it would leave a few survivors that were naturally immune.

            But however they got it, they apparently got it somehow.

          • jim_m

            See my links in my other comment to Chico. 90% of it dies in the environment within 24 hours. Nothing of what you just posted in any way contradicts that fact. Contaminated bedding etc can serve to transfer the virus but in most instances people in contact with said bedding would have contacted it close in time to when the infected person contaminated it.

            The fact was that there was already smallpox sweeping the area and the epidemic spread to the neighboring indian population. Such a spread would not have required human intervention to facilitate it. In fact we already know that the indians were in contact with the people in the affected areas because they were waging war against them.

          • (Shrug.)
            Okay. No biggie – not like we can do much about it at this point anyway, unless we want to invent a time machine, go back, and force vaccinations on all the affected populations.

        • jim_m

          Captain Jeffery Amherst in 1763, which makes him a British soldier and NOT an American. Which also puts this in the context of the French and Indian war where the French were paying the indians to murder colonists (yes, woman and children too). The Iroquois were not the innocent natives you want to pretend that they are.

          Also, while there is evidence that this was considered there is ZERO evidence that this was ever attempted and considering the fact that 90% of smallpox virus dies within 24 hours when exposed to the environment it is highly doubtful that the plan would have succeeded. One can forgive the Brits for not understanding how viruses work since viruses were not discovered until 1898.

          So what we have is yet another blood libel perpetrated by the left. There is no evidence that this happened and what we know of the science suggests that if attempted it would not have worked.

          This is yet another example of anti-American lies and propaganda from Chico, the self admitted parasite on our nation.

      • Constitution First

        The indians learned scalping from the Spanish.

        My Iroquois ancestors fought in King Phillips war, on the side of the French. Can you guess why?

        The French asked for trapping rights, they didn’t take, or assume it was theirs. They married into the tribes, they tried to assimilate into Iroquois culture, unlike the English, who steam rolled over everything and everyone that didn’t go along with English ideals.

        Where was the fair compensation for my ancestors lands? Blankets infected with smallpox?

        Yeah, ignorance and hate, tell me all about ignorance and hate.

        • jim_m

          That’s right. Much like Elizabeth Warren your family history trumps the truth.

          It is also important to establish that the practices of the Iroquois were more than the exaggeration and hearsay of excitable Frenchmen. The Iroquois surely performed torture upon war captives; many European settlers viewed first-hand the mutilated body-parts of war captives….

          The death of family members had a profound psychological effect upon the Iroquois, thus they required strong measures to relieve themselves of sadness. Essentially, they felt that they needed restitution in some form or another for the dead relative. Grieving matriarchs petitioned the tribe’s warriors to retrieve captives from an offending tribe. The Iroquois warriors then established a raid solely to gather captives; scholars call this practice “mourning-wars.”According to Anthony Wallace, the grieving Iroquois could find restitution in one of three ways. The first was for a warrior to bring back the scalp of an Indian from the killer’s tribe and to present it to the grieving person. Though the scalp represented a captive, live prisoners were preferred. The other two options involved a live captive: the Iroquois either vengefully tortured the prisoner to death or adopted him or her into the tribe.

          So according to your bullshit the Iroquois learned scalping from the Spanish, whom they NEVER came into contact with. If you are going to spout lies you had better make sure that you can’t be fact checked.

          There is a lot of ignorance and hate and it seems to be coming from you buddy. If you need further information on Native Americans I suggest you contact Sen Warren and she can surely provide you with info that is at least as good as what you have already provided.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    It is nice to know that some die hard conservatives haven’t left the Bundy bandwagon? And at least, Huston spared readers the National Review article by Kevin Williamson, who compared Cliven Bundy to Mahatma Gandhi.

    • jim_m

      Ass. This wasn’t some cult of personality like you lefties constantly fall for. This was about an overreaching federal government.

      Furthermore, it is about the idea that everyone deserves protection from that government regardless of who they are and what they believe. Unlike little jack booted fascists like you, we believe that freedom is for everyone, even the people we don’t like.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        The cult of personality… The wingnuts on this site led by Huston were tripping overthemselves to praise Bundy, but then again the demand for a weak federal government along with the freedom to whip our Africans, have been familar cries for fanatical conservatives, before in American history! The civil war continues..

        • jim_m

          Like I said Steve, freedom is for everyone, not just our friends. You apparently believe that in order to access your civil rights you ought to be forced to pledge yourself to a set of ideological ideas. Only the worst sort of totalitarian would claim as you are that Bundy does not deserve his freedom.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            And someone should send Bundy a copy of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. He obviously has a lot more to learn about the meaning of freedom.

          • jim_m

            Thanks for admitting that you believe that freedom should only be offered to people that agree with you. Your refusal to admit that even people you disagree with ought to be free shows that you are a fascist at heart.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            My entire previous comment about Bundy ” having to learn about the meaning of freedom” with attribution ,was a concluding paragraph taken from a column in the National Review, hitherto not known as a lefty publication except by a few wingnut crazies.

        • Hank_M

          Regarding this phrase: “the freedom to whip our Africans,”
          You’ve mentioned this twice in different form.
          I haven’t been following Bundy much.
          Is that what Bundy said? If so, I’d appreciate a pointer.
          Reason I ask is I’d like to know if Bundy did indeed state this or if this an overheated summation of what he said.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            How else was slavery enforced? Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to re-assert the dominance of the master or overseer over the slave. Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders; in contrast with small slave-owning families, where the closer relationship between the owners and slaves sometimes resulted in a more humane environment. William Wells Brown, who escaped and became a fugitive slave, reported that on one plantation, slave-men were required to pick 80 pounds-per-day of cotton, while women were required to pick 70 pounds; if any slave failed in his or her quota, they were given lashes of the whip for each pound they were short. The whipping post stood right next to the cotton scales. Some of you shouid you read the autobigraphy ’12 Years a Slave’. The movie was toned down from the book.

          • Hank_M

            Thought so. Bundy never did say that.
            Took you a lot of words to not really admit that.
            With any luck, some reporter can ask Bundy about global warming and then you can really go nuts.

          • Crampless lies, but not well nor succinctly.

          • jim_m

            How else was slavery enforced?

            Through the RULE OF LAW you dumbass!!

            To suggest that slavery was enforced only by force or fear of that force is to make the slaves complicit in their own slavery. What a bigot!

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Jim is suddenly concerned with the RULE OF LAW when discussing Bundy. Wizbang has now become an apologist for slavery, no wonder there are no longer any moderate conservative commentators left on this site. Of course ‘the rule of law’ on plantations was adminstered by the whip, backed by guns. But shooting slaves meant they would lose their value.

          • jim_m

            No. I am saying that it was the rule of law that enforced slavery, and not white man’s cruelty. Your bullshit screed would claim that it was white man’s cruelty that enforced slavery, this is patently false as after the Civil War the KKK and its torture, terrorism and lynchingsdid not keep blacks in slavery, the rule of law had freed them.

            By claiming that it was the cruelty of Whites and the reciprocal fear instilled in Blacks you make the Black people complicit in keeping themselves enslaved. This is a racist lie.

          • Brucehenry

            Your comment is a perfect example of how conservatives – or you, anyway – can maintain your weird logic.

            Whenever we talk about high taxes you claim that it’s the government, through THREAT OF FORCE, taking what you have earned by the sweat of your brow and giving the proceeds to the undeserving welfare cheats and loafers. Now, when we talk about perfectly legal whippings and floggings administered to slaves by their legal masters, it was the RULE OF LAW that was responsible, not the “threat of force.”

            WTF is the difference, dude? And if slavery had been illegal but only winked at and condoned in practice, and the slaves held in bondage through terror and not legality, the slaves would have been “complicit in keeping themselves enslaved”???? WTF could you possibly mean?

            I suppose you would have been a “kindly” master, who only rarely had his slaves horsewhipped, and only when they really and truly deserved it, by being insolent maybe.

          • jim_m

            The government uses threat of force under the color of law. If you cannot recognize that then I cannot help you.

          • Brucehenry

            Seems to me it was you trying to make some kind of distinction.

          • jim_m

            There is a pretty significant difference if I threaten you vs the government threatening you. If I do so you can potentially run to your neighbor or the government for protection. If the government threatens you you pretty much can’t ask them for help and your neighbor may be dissuaded from helping too.

            Defy the government and go to prison. Or like with obama, criticize him and get audited. The government has many ways of making your life difficult.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I mean you were trying to make a distinction as in trying to split hairs for the purpose of trying to gotcha Crickmore, with your “complicit in their own slavery” nonsense. I don’t pretend to know how your brain works but I suspect it has something to do with every conversation, to your mind, being a fencing match. That and you listen too much to The Voices.

      • Brucehenry

        Oh no. As Colbert demonstrates there was no Cult of Personality involved here:


        • jim_m

          Yeah, as you have pointed out before: Colbert is a character and there is a reason he is on the Comedy channel. I suppose you get all your hard news from The Onion

          • Brucehenry

            Satirists often expose the truth. That’s how Colbert rolls, anyway.

            The montage of FOX and CNN “reporters” relaying how Bundy has become a “hero” wasn’t invented by Colbert or his writers — just put together for our entertainment and enlightenment. It’s coincidental that it debunks your claim — as if such a ridiculous claim needed debunking — that no “cult of personality” was involved here.

          • jim_m

            Only an idiot takes comedy as straight news. So it does not surprise me in the least that you believe this to be gospel. If you have difficulty accepting the hyperbole of WTH I find it ironic that you find the comedic stylings of Colbert to be rational and reasoned and not at all exaggerated.

            But hey, Thanks for showing everyone what a tool you are.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s true that only an idiot takes comedy as straight news. Other people, not necessarily “idiots” — let’s just call them “dumbasses” — don’t know the difference between satire and comedy. Understandable, because both make smart people laugh, but there is a difference.

            You can tell ’em to look up both words in the dictionary, but if they have a point to make, however ridiculous or wrongheaded, or if they in their dumbassery imagine they’ve got hold of a Gotcha, they won’t listen.

            Hey, did Colbert put words in Hannity’s mouth or was that Hannity engaging in the Cult of Personality attached to Cliven Bundy, American Hero?

          • jim_m

            A cult of personality requires more than just one news personality. Go look back at the 2008 election if you want a good example of cult of personality. You had all sorts of people making hyperbolic claims about obama. He, himself was claiming that his nomination meant the the earth would begin to heal.

            Of course you probably think that all this is reasonable and you think that it still is.

            Don’t come talking to me about a cult of personality when you haven’t ever been able to spot it with your own people.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha Ha you brought it up, saying that there was no cult of personality beginning to form around Bundy. When shown a clip of a news media montage showing exactly that, you want to change the definition and discredit the source. You’re priceless, don’t ever change.

          • jim_m

            There is none. No one is following this guy like he is the messiah. He isn’t leading anyone. Yet people are still licking obama’s ass like everything that proceeds from it is a gift from your lord and savior.

          • Brucehenry

            No, no one is following this guy. No armed militia members have shown up to support his specious scofflaw claims. Idiots like Hannity haven’t been lionizing him for weeks. There haven’t been billions of electrons expended on the Wingnut Web explaining how he is standing up heroically to a “rapacious federal governmment” and how he is just like the Founders and the wackaloons who are showing up armed around him are just like the Minutemen of old and yada yada.

            BTW who ever denied a cult of personality was around Obama? But just by way of comparison, check this out:



            There are hundreds if not thousands of sites like this.

          • jim_m

            There is a difference between people showing up to support someone and that someone being the focus of a cult pf personality.

            Since this entire thread has been a series of out and out lies from you I’m done.

          • Brucehenry

            More like a series of comments wherein you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and shout “La la la la la!”

          • jim_m

            Look at the thread asswipe. You are the first person to use the phrase “Cult of personality”(3 posts up). Don’t fucking lie to me now and say that I brought this up you dishonest POS!

          • jim_m

            Correction I brought it up 2 days ago. You refreshed the discussion unbidden this morning

          • Brucehenry

            Nope it was you in a reply to Crickmore 2 days ago, beginning, characteristically, “Ass…”

          • jim_m

            Yep. You brought it up today all fresh. This is your discussion not mine/

          • Brucehenry

            Oh do we wipe the slate clean every day now? Alrighty then.

          • jim_m

            And note that in my comment to Steve it was that this is not like the cult of personality like you fell for with obama. (or frankly, Jim Jones, who also was a lefty.)

          • Brucehenry

            I never denied that a cult of personality existed around Obama, as it does around many — not all — politicians. Obama is one example, as are Kennedy, FDR, and Reagan.

            But you’re wrong that the Bundy example doesn’t resemble Jim Jones. He may indeed wind up getting somebody killed, although we can hope it won’t be 900 people. And while Bundy so far isn’t inspiring personal fanatical loyalty, perhaps because he lacks charisma, if somebody DOES get killed over this idiot’s bogus bullshit, it will at least partly be the fault of stupid rabblerousers like Hannity. Who, despite your denial, HAVE attempted to foment a cult of personality around this lyin’ sack of shit bumpkin.

          • jim_m

            A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Sociologist Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as “charismatic authority”. A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is established by mass media and propaganda usually by the state, especially in totalitarian states.

            Hasn’t happened with Bundy. I have yet to see the unquestioning flattery and praise anywhere. This is not about him personally as you claim. This is about the principle that he represents. Fewer and fewer people view him as a hero. Only lying assholes like you still make that bogus claim.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it’s true that as the facts come out fewer and fewer people are regarding him as a hero.

            Such as the fact that his family HASN’T ranched on this land since the 1870s. His parents bought the land adjacent to the grassland in question in 1948.

            And the fact that his claims to NOT owe the grazing fees have been repeatedly found to be in error.

            And the fact that his refusal to recognize that the US government exists is fucking nutty.

            And the fact that he has repeatedly vowed to oppose the enforcement of valid court orders with armed force and has backing from legions of heavily armed militia lunatics.

            That doesn’t change the OTHER fact, as demonstrated by the montage put together by Colbert’s staff, that Hannity and others attempted to foment a cult of personality around this guy, showing him prancing around on horseback carrying the flag of a government he “doesn’t recognize”(WTF?) and generally casting him in a heroic light.

            It’s plain as day, Jim. It only makes you look foolish to pretend it didn’t happen.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Another moron listening to the chopped up video instead of bothering to listen to the ENTIRE set of comments.

      • Hank_M

        Yup. From what I’ve read, the NY Times accomplished exactly what they were hoping to – change the subject by demonizing Bundy and at the same time, tar everyone on the right with the label of racist.
        Many on the right have obliged by running away as fast as they can.
        All we need now if for there to be just one statement by Bundy about a female and they can throw in the stupid war on women accusation also.

    • cstmbuild

      I read the entire speech. It should never have been used to make any points since the Left is in charge of the sound bites. Most of it has been taken completely out of context. Was he stupid to use that example? YES.
      Anyway, his point is this:
      Is there any difference in being slaves to the federal government (welfare, EBT, etc) with broken families, drugs, gangs etc than slaves to individuals?

      2nd point: Now we are all slaves to the federal government and really have little to no recourse to correct wrongs. You can’t fight them on your own and once it gets complex, as the Bundy battle is, people lose interest or you just get soundbites that put you in the light the MSM wishes..

      • SteveCrickmore075

        The ENTIRE context….”I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
        “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

  • SteveCrickmore075

    “It is bizarre that a man who has ranted about his own freedom for weeks can speak so contemptuously about the freedom of others. Too many conservatives have been charmed by the notion of a cowboy singing the anthem on horseback and threatening to turn guns on bureaucrats. They can’t just proclaim themselves stunned here.” Cliven Bundy’s Slavery Delusion’

    • jim_m

      It is bizarre that a man who has ranted about his own freedom for weeks can speak so contemptuously about the freedom of others.

      Yeah, he sounds an awful lot like a lefty.

      I will just say how typical it is for a lefty to demand that someone they disagree with be silenced and that society eliminate any civil rights that this person might have. It is sadly ironic that Steve complains about Bundy when his whole point is that Bundy should be denied freedom for basically the same reasons that Steve complains about in Bundy himself. I think what really pisses off the left is that they see themselves in Bundy and therefore they want him to go away.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        I never said Bundy should be silenced. On the contrary, let him speak as much as possible- it is doing the conservative libertarians cause wonders, on the admonition it is “better to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth, and remove all doubts”- It is Huston who imposed the blackout, or censorship by omission, on what Bundy had to say. He wrote this post after the firestorm of Bundy’s racial remarks (including in the conservative blogosphere,) with not a word of reference to it, even obliquely, as if Bundy had never uttered a word on race, even though the entire landscape in the debate has changed because of it. Here is another influential conservative http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/ and how warped his thinking is. it is unbelievable these people exist in 2014?

        • jim_m

          The entire point of your series of comments has been that Bundy does not deserve support or that anyone should defend his rights because you disagree with him and find his views offensive. Not once have you agreed with me that people that we disagree with deserve to have their rights defended too.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I agree racists should have the right and obligation to pay taxes, yes..as well as own basketball teams, if they can find players to play for them. Yes! Maybe Bundy who is unemployed can get a job with the LA Clippers as an overseer/ manager? Of course, in America it is never about race …..publicly, only privately, unless it is caught on tape….and then it becomes public and very public.

          • jim_m

            I note that once again you say that they have a obligation to support you and your fascism but you deny that they should have any other rights but to pay for your freeloading.

            You make me sick.

          • Brucehenry

            Bundy has the same rights every other American has. But he doesn’t have the right to graze his cattle on publicly owned land for 20 years without paying the same grazing fees every other rancher pays. (BTW the ridiculously low fees charged by the government to graze livestock are much lower than private landowners charge — and were signed into perpetuity by St Ronaldus Magnus Reagn.)

            He doesn’t have the right to ignore court orders after having his day in court — actually several days in court — and being found to be in the wrong.

            He doesn’t have the right to threaten armed resistance when the government moves to finally collect the judgments he has been ordered to pay.

            He doesn’t have the right to foment violence from the militia wackos who come to support him and his scofflaw deadbeat actions.

            But he does indeed have the right to lie on TV about how long his family has ranched there. He has the right to be a nut who doesn’t “recognize the federal government…as even existing.” He has that right and has exercised it extensively.

            Bully for him. Nobody’s trying to take his rights away. These “para-military” personnel are law enforcement officers sent to, you know, enforce the law.

          • jim_m

            Steve has made several statements to the effect that Bundy, due to his views, should be afforded fewer rights than people with whom he agrees. He has not denied this although he has had multiple opportunities to clarify his position. Instead he has made it more clear that people whose ideas he dislikes should be open targets for discrimination.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually Crickmore, who apparently has more self-control than I, just studiously ignored the wacko-est of your interpretations of his comments. Didn’t dignify them with a response, as it were…

          • jim_m

            The closest Steve could get to saying that people he dislikes should have rights is this: “I agree racists should have the right and obligation to pay taxes”. As I pointed out, the right to contribute to your fascist state is not much of a right, especially since if you do not do so you risk being put in prison (unless of course you are a democrat).

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry, I never should have rejoined this thread, I just lost interest.

            Hey btw there’s a thread on Bundy on OTB right now in which Jay Tea (alias Jenos Idanian 13) is beclowning himself. For all I bitch about Warner, watching Jay Tea troll over there makes me glad he’s over there and Warner’s over here. The article is about Rand Paul distancing himself from Bundy.


          • jim_m

            BTW, no one has claimed that no one in the GOP is a racist. However it is clear that EVERYONE on the left is.

  • Commander_Chico

    I’ve been wondering if this guy Bundy is just another welfare cheat with an entitlement mentality instead of a hero.

    • jim_m

      You mean that you now think he’s a democrat?

      • Commander_Chico

        No, what makes him different from a Welfare Queen?

        • jim_m

          Not much. You are describing him as a racist and a freeloader. That seems to fit the vast majority of the left.