TexasCHLforum.com

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=n0zoee4k7yE[/youtube]

You know that famous sleeping giant that the Japanese were sorry they woke? Our government may be feeling the same way soon.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=fE0iy0-giC0[/youtube]

EEllis wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:BTW, the BLM goons brought grenade launchers to the fight with them

You do know that it's for tear gas right?

You really are on the inside. You know stuff that no one else knows.

EEllis wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:More BLM hijinks....this time, in Texas:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... hers-land/
RED RIVER RUMBLE? BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land!

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

Sooo…. Now we have a bureaucracy re-designing state boundaries?

This same disputes happen fairly regularly between private parties, states, and yes even the feds.

What business do the feds have getting involved in a border dispute between two states? The only land the federal government should own is Washington, D.C., any land gifted to them and any land they have lawfully purchased. Any other land they lay claim to is theft, pure and simple, unless they pay market price for it.

Federal Judge Rules Obama Administration Complicit In Rancher Conspiracy
I suppose this judge is wrong.

RoyGBiv wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:You know eventually these alphabet agencies will come for all of us. The BLM may not have your number, but the EPA is about to give themselves authority over ever puddle in the US. So if your land ever gets wet or ever has gotten wet they will be there to tell you how the corn will now be grown on "their" land. They are intent of forcing us to all bow to them. They are intent on breaking and impoverishing all of us. When they come, they will have the support of the law because they wrote the law. They will have the courts because it is their guy that is judge. So disparage Bundy call him names, but one day all of us will be where he is unless something drastic happens.

You've been very consistent in this thread, distilling the essence of what is most troublesome with what is going on in this case. I believe it's possible, based on available facts, to be on either side of the specific issue of whether Bundy is right or wrong, but as you have very succinctly stated several times, it would require burying your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la-la-la-la" at the top of your lungs to avoid seeing how wrong the BLM's actions have been. Is there any question that our government has become far, far too at ease with raising arms against those from whom it derives its authority?

BINGO!!! There's a LOT of head burying, ear plugging and yelling "la-la-la-la" going on right here in this thread - and all across America too. We are the frogs slowly boiling, and the one's crying, "It's getting really hot in here!" are being laughed at by the ones who have covered their eyes.

Something has to change, and quick, or we are done for.

Here's a Google Maps presentation of the area. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bundy ... 45a71f2a59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EEllis wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:I get it now. Sam Houston and his fellow Texians should have complied with Mexican law and court rulings instead of making trouble.

I wouldn't say so. In fact when the settlers started moving in Mexico was a republic. Santa Anna overturned the Govt and became a dictator so any social contract was broken, IMHO. If BO does the same you can bet I wouldn't be waiting for what a court told me. But this is not that.

If BO does the same? We used to be a nation of laws. Now we have a President who ignores the law and does whatever he wants. He ignores immigration law. He uses the IRS to harass his political appointments. He ignores criminal violations of the law when they are committed by people he supports. We have a lawless Attorney General. A law breaking former IRS Commissioner. A President who is ignoring the Constitution and making "law" through Executive Order. He's worse than Santa Anna ever hoped to be.

I have to ask; for some of you still sitting on the fence, what will it take for you to wake up? If the President was a Republican, the media would be screaming bloody murder and the Democrats would be demanding impeachment. Is this behavior really acceptable simply because he's a Democrat?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dtEVg8KNgBA[/youtube]

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

20 years of abuse of the Constitution does not justify stealing a man's property.

It was never his property.

I was referring to his cattle, which are most certainly his property.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Unless you no longer believe in America, this is a seminal moment in our history.

Only if you don't believe in the rule of law.

I don't believe in the abuse of the rule of law. Just because there is a law doesn't make the law right nor its enforcement right. Unconstitutional laws are passed every day. Are we required to obey them like automatons with no intelligence?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The outcome of this fight may well determine if we remain a free people or are forced to live under tyranny because we refused to fight.

Seriously? Because whats effectively a welafare queen won't pay to graze his land? Thats nonsensical.

You should be ashamed of yourself for calling Bundy a welfare queen. The government is trying to drive him out of business and he is resisting.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

And it looks like there is going to be a fight, and there is going to be bloodshed. http://www.libertynews.com/2014/04/bund ... -picks-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Strangely, if you threaten federal officers they respond like you mean it.

Over-respond, you mean.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

What happens after that is anybody's guess. This could be the lighting of the fuse or it could be another in a long line of abuses by an out of control government that the people continue to tolerate, to their detriment.

LIght the fuse. You sound like you're loooking forward to a fight. Others have tried that. Didn't work out for Shay or the Confederates. Won't work out for anyone who takes up arms against the US.

You may no longer believe in freedom, but some of us do. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we have the right as free men to abolish any government that becomes abusive of its powers. Your belief that this is an impossibility was not shared by our forefathers, who took on the most powerful government in the world and defeated it. In that revolution, 90% of the population sat on their hands while 10% did the heavy lifting. It appears the same will be true today.

RoyGBiv wrote:t's not an unreasonable/tinfoil assumption any more (as Jim Beaux illustrates)... Tragically.
However, I would substitute "pushing the Progressive agenda down our throats" instead of "out to destroy us all".

That's a distinction without a difference.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: If your neighbor's cattle graze on your land you can't steal them and haul them off.

Well it isn't stealing when you go to court and get a judgement saying you can take the cattle now is it?

The naivete is astounding. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRS penalties in Obamacare are a tax, thus, for the first time in our history, allowing the government to fine you for NOT doing something.

I'm sure you're fine with that too. After all, the court has ruled.

They also ruled in the Dred-Scott case, if you will recall, and I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans would say that ruling was wrong.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: This is very much a case of the federal government using "might makes right" instead of the Constitution to govern the affairs of men. And I would like to add that I am not politically affiliated in this debate. Both major parties are tainted with this case. It began during Clinton's first term, continued through both of his and both of Bush's terms, and continued into the Obama administration.

What are you talking about? Bundy's on the losing end of 20 years of court fights. The government has been more than calm in this instance. I know if it were you or me, the government would not have waited 20 years.

20 years of abuse of the Constitution does not justify stealing a man's property. Unless you no longer believe in America, this is a seminal moment in our history. The outcome of this fight may well determine if we remain a free people or are forced to live under tyranny because we refused to fight. And it looks like there is going to be a fight, and there is going to be bloodshed. http://www.libertynews.com/2014/04/bund ... -picks-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What happens after that is anybody's guess. This could be the lighting of the fuse or it could be another in a long line of abuses by an out of control government that the people continue to tolerate, to their detriment.

EEllis wrote:What raid? Where was the raid and when? Because all I know id that the BLM was going to close the range and seize cattle that were on it. I never heard anything about a raid. That is my issue. The lies to support a position. It isn't that I agree with the BLM, it's that if you are right you shouldn't have to lie to make your point. If it is right then make the case with the truth. And I really don't want you to take that personal. I'm not trying to say you are lying it's just that the "FACTS" that people are throwing around just are not. They are not the facts. They are not an accurate representation of the conflict and how and why it's going on. I try and point that out and suddenly I'm 100% fed loving and any second someone will start calling me a liberal flunky. It just isn't true.

You've got a mighty funny definition of raid. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/raid?s=t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"a sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed: a police raid on a gambling ring."

The feds suddenly showed up at the location and began seizing cattle legally owned by the Bundy family. If that isn't a raid, please tell us what is.