Will there be blood?

[Yorkshire pud]

Though I don't think JC demanded that we give to the poor at the point of a sword (or in this case a militarized police and the IRS.) Though, I guess, it could be considering "rendering unto Cesar"...or in this case Czars.

A bit unfair I think that the west has hijacked the word Czar to use as an administrator. They stemmed from Ivan the Terrible (Rurukid) into the Russian/Balkan monarchy didn't they?   I think old Ivan would make the IRS look like a bit weak kneed in comparison, don't you?

[RealCool Daddio]

I bathe daily and, I know several Christians and you are no Christian.

Amen!

[albrecht]

A bit unfair I think that the west has hijacked the word Czar to use as an administrator. They stemmed from Ivan the Terrible (Rurukid) into the Russian/Balkan monarchy didn't they?   I think old Ivan would make the IRS look like a bit weak kneed in comparison, don't you?

Tzar, Tsar, Czar all Slavic-Bulgar-fied, to coin a new word, word for Caesar. IRS, so far, isn't quite as bad, but I guess you might get another opinion from Ed and Elaine Brown and some others. You can get less sentences for robbery and rape in many cases than the Feds will give you for no comply with a tax act that even professional lawyers and accountants can not understand at times due to the sheer volume, loop-holes, and changing regulations and IRS revenue hearings, "revenue procedures", private letter rulings, and now the ACA, etc. And good luck getting a "jury of one's peers". Instead you are prosecuted in a special tax court. Guess what, if your accountant or lawyer advises you on your taxes and get it wrong they aren't liable and that is no excuse- you are the one charged. Oh, yeah, what about "Ex Post facto" protection? Not for taxes- it doesn't apply to civil tax legislation/regulation. They can change the rules and get you on past transactions and reporting. Meanwhile you have no "presumption of innocence" and will have you assets seized whilst you fight the charge(s).

[FightTheFuture]

I bathe daily and, I know several Christians and you are no Christian.

Don't get carried away now. Just because I have you talking about Jesus and the Scripture, doesn't mean that you are Jesus ((laughing)).


.

[RealCool Daddio]

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


Can I have an amen?

James 2:14-17

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Damn leftist Bible, telling people to provide their fellow humans with food and shelter.  Hell, the thing reads like Karl Marx.

[Yorkshire pud]

James 2:14-17

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Damn leftist Bible, telling people to provide their fellow humans with food and shelter.  Hell, the thing reads like Karl Marx.

In a previous post I suggested that he take in the (in his words) smelly rag wearing protesters and bathe them, give em a meal and clothe them, Christian spirit and all. Jesus was a liberal? Deliberately?

[FightTheFuture]

James 2:14-17

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Damn leftist Bible, telling people to provide their fellow humans with food and shelter.  Hell, the thing reads like Karl Marx.

My heart is singing. You know, the old timers say that the Lord moves in mysterious ways. I never really believed that, until today. I have all the godless heathens worked up and quoting Jesus and the Scriptures. Man, I never thought I'd see it!!

Amen!! Amen!!

[Yorkshire pud]

My heart is singing. You know, the old timers say that the Lord moves in mysterious ways. I never really believed that, until today. I have all the godless heathens worked up and quoting Jesus and the Scriptures. Man, I never thought I'd see it!!

Amen!! Amen!!

You keep believing that old son, you keep believing that....  :

[FightTheFuture]

It''s a special day. I would suggest all you former  heathens find a good Bible study group.

Keep talkin' about the Lord.

[RealCool Daddio]

My heart is singing. You know, the old timers say that the Lord moves in mysterious ways. I never really believed that, until today. I have all the godless heathens worked up and quoting Jesus and the Scriptures. Man, I never thought I'd see it!!

Amen!! Amen!!

“They ask you (O Muhammad, PBUH) what they should spend. Say: Whatever you spend of good must be for parents and kindred and orphans and Al-Masakin (the poor) and the wayfarer; and whatever you do of good deeds, truly, Allah knows it well.”

[Yorkshire pud]

It''s a special day. I would suggest all you former  heathens find a good Bible study group.

Keep talkin' about the Lord.

He sure doesn't talk about you...

It's good though that your 'Christian' values gives you the grace to call others heathens. It's so, so hypocritical.

[b_dubb]

Just listened to Sean Hannity interview Cliven Bundy.  Bundy was barely intelligible.  He was rambling and belligerent.  Exactly the kind of pain in the ass I thought he would be.  And even after the BLM opted to concede to Bundy's BS the fucker is still angry because the sheriff didn't disarm the park service rangers.  What an asshole.  Pay your damn land use fees.

[VtaGeezer]

... I guess you might get another opinion from Ed and Elaine Brown and some others.

Invoking the names of those loonies of the first order provides a good calibration of your world view. Are you into sovereign citizens too? 

[PB the Deplorable]

... when you find yourself wondering WTF happened to your country and your rights...

We're already doing that

'You can keep your doctor if you like him', 'you can keep your insurance if you like it'.  What exactly gives Obama and his cronies (just about every single Democrat in the House and every one of them in the Senate) the right to steal our health insurance plans and spend 5 years lying through their teeth about their program?  Anyone doing that in the private sector would be in prison.  And rightly so.

[VtaGeezer]

We're already doing that

.
You and your pals in the clown car are obsessed with potholes while the GOP and the plutocrats are methodically dismantling the bridge to America's bright future. Obama was wrong to make an absolute statement about a complex new program that will, like any major program, take some time to get its wrinkles out.  That doesn't make him a socialist devil; it makes him a politician.  Wise up, you're being played by pros with inexhaustible propaganda resources.

[wr250]

.
  That doesn't make him a socialist devil; it makes him a politician.

is there a difference?

[VtaGeezer]

Just listened to Sean Hannity interview Cliven Bundy.  Bundy was barely intelligible.  He was rambling and belligerent.  Exactly the kind of pain in the ass I thought he would be.  And even after the BLM opted to concede to Bundy's BS the fucker is still angry because the sheriff didn't disarm the park service rangers.  What an asshole.  Pay your damn land use fees.

Was there ever any doubt?

[Foodlion]

Pay your damn land use fees.

I'm of the mind that money isn't the underlying issue here. It's Harry's way or the highway for this Rancher, and the amount owed is chump change compared to the amount spent on these government workers out to enforce all of this.

[albrecht]

Invoking the names of those loonies of the first order provides a good calibration of your world view. Are you into sovereign citizens too?

All citizens are sovereign, at least to their own conscience, though the government can do what they will to you.
Like the ACLU sometimes you have to pick extreme examples to prove the the point. In this case that the IRS and its minions to to their actions and policies being Unconstitutional, at least as originally written and thought about. Before the packed Court, an individual Federal income was even declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And certainly, Founding Fathers, or anyone rational would have to admit that the Federal tax code is WAY to hard, long, and constantly changing for an individual to truly understand but, yet, one must comply. If you rely on trained professional lawyers and accountant it is you who is still liable. And that special courts and no juries of peers are not a good thing. Nor are rules that can be changed almost at will and even to penalize for things done in the past (no ex post facto) provisions but, because they treat it civilly it is claimed that such protections don't exist. However, if you violate this civil law you will be treated as a criminal and go to prison. Lastly, where is the presumption of innocence? Why are drugs and taxes laws written to presume guilt and allow seizure of assets, wage garnishments, or other forfeiture before even being found guilty (in taxes cases even before being found guilty in the special Tax Courts?) And, yet, the IRS is on the record of claiming it is a "voluntary system". Voluntary in that you must do it. Self-reporting "voluntarily" would also logically seem to violate "self-incrimination" but the IRS has determined that argument to be frivolous. Interestingly though the IRS officials sometimes take "the Fifth" when Congress tries to investigate political targeting.

[wr250]

All citizens are sovereign, at least to their own conscience, though the government can do what they will to you.
Like the ACLU sometimes you have to pick extreme examples to prove the the point. In this case that the IRS and its minions to to their actions and policies being Unconstitutional, at least as originally written and thought about. Before the packed Court, an individual Federal income was even declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And certainly, Founding Fathers, or anyone rational would have to admit that the Federal tax code is WAY to hard, long, and constantly changing for an individual to truly understand but, yet, one must comply. If you rely on trained professional lawyers and accountant it is you who is still liable. And that special courts and no juries of peers are not a good thing. Nor are rules that can be changed almost at will and even to penalize for things done in the past (no ex post facto) provisions but, because they treat it civilly it is claimed that such protections don't exist. However, if you violate this civil law you will be treated as a criminal and go to prison. Lastly, where is the presumption of innocence? Why are drugs and taxes laws written to presume guilt and allow seizure of assets, wage garnishments, or other forfeiture before even being found guilty (in taxes cases even before being found guilty in the special Tax Courts?) And, yet, the IRS is on the record of claiming it is a "voluntary system". Voluntary in that you must do it. Self-reporting "voluntarily" would also logically seem to violate "self-incrimination" but the IRS has determined that argument to be frivolous. Interestingly though the IRS officials sometimes take "the Fifth" when Congress tries to investigate political targeting.

people volunteer better by force - major frank burns

[albrecht]

people volunteer better by force - major frank burns

!! Great line. But sadly true. Like all this push to make children "volunteer" as a requirement for graduation. It you are made to do something, even if good, it is not voluntary- no matter how the Courts, IRS minions, or school administrators twist words.

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm not particularly satisfied with the rancher's argument that the federal land actually belongs to the State of Nevada. Seems weak, and the rancher seems whiney, so I tentatively go with the pay for your damned land use permit angle. I say tentatively because I had a bitch of a time separating fact from fiction in the media on this one, some say its about turtles, some say it's about Federal land use, some say it's about the guy's own ranch, still more say he's been paying the fees to the county rather than the Federal government. I have no idea what's really true in this one.

However, what disturbs me about the whole thing is the way the BLM went about it. Raiding and rounding up the cattle with an armed SWAT-style team? What the hell ever happened to property liens? Why does the BLM have an armed SWAT team? Or for that matter why does the USPS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, IRS, Commerce Department and Department of Energy all have similar armed SWAT team divisions? I thought we had Federal US Marshalls for that.

It seems about time to have Congress reign in the damned police state. Good god.

[Little Hater]

Why does the BLM have an armed SWAT team? Or for that matter why does the USPS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, IRS, Commerce Department and Department of Energy all have similar armed SWAT team divisions? I thought we had Federal US Marshalls for that.

It seems about time to have Congress reign in the damned police state. Good god.

Don't forget the Department of Education (student loan collection, they say) and many university police departments.

[wr250]

I'm not particularly satisfied with the rancher's argument that the federal land actually belongs to the State of Nevada. Seems weak, and the rancher seems whiney, so I tentatively go with the pay for your damned land use permit angle. I say tentatively because I had a bitch of a time separating fact from fiction in the media on this one, some say its about turtles, some say it's about Federal land use, some say it's about the guy's own ranch, still more say he's been paying the fees to the county rather than the Federal government. I have no idea what's really true in this one.

However, what disturbs me about the whole thing is the way the BLM went about it. Raiding and rounding up the cattle with an armed SWAT-style team? What the hell ever happened to property liens? Why does the BLM have an armed SWAT team? Or for that matter why does the USPS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, IRS, Commerce Department and Department of Energy all have similar armed SWAT team divisions?

you forgot the NOAA

I thought we had Federal US Marshalls for that.

It seems about time to have Congress reign in the damned police state. Good god.

its my understanding that the feds took the land from the county in 1993, then tried to force ranchers into grazing agreements. most simply gave up and moved on to other pursuits. bundy refused to sign the grazing agreement then with the blm citing "prior use" (back to the 1880's), and has offered to pay clark county nevada for grazing rights. apparently the federal courts sided with the BLM against bundy (no surprise there) and told him to pay up, to which he flipped them off i guess.
now at this time, a powerful (read makes alot of high dollar campaign contributions to congress critters campaigns) environmental group filed suit to remove the cattle (but not the some 1700 wild horses occupying the same land) citing damage to the environment causing a decline  in desert tortoise populations. 
the BLM claims they do not have the money to remove the horses, but apparently they came come up with the scratch to round up cattle, assign a large number of armed officers(?), k-9 units, helicopters, and apparently a APC (armored personnel carrier) .

note that bundy has quite a large acreage that developers have been drooling over (read build homes that sell for millions) for at least a decade. he has turned down all offers, preferring to keep the familial land. as for harry reid and the chinese angle, i dont put much past reid in this regard (he has done this before) but i think reid has no interest in this, and the chinese/oil/mineral lease thing is non existent.

i live not to far from there, and the turtle thing is a sore spot here as well, esp when the feds eminent domained quite alot of high dollar property for the turtle reserve.   

[Yorkshire pud]

However, what disturbs me about the whole thing is the way the BLM went about it. Raiding and rounding up the cattle with an armed SWAT-style team? What the hell ever happened to property liens? Why does the BLM have an armed SWAT team? Or for that matter why does the USPS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, IRS, Commerce Department and Department of Energy all have similar armed SWAT team divisions? I thought we had Federal US Marshalls for that.

Just a theory; The various departments have their own armed sections for a couple of reasons: 9/11 demonstrated in words writ large the lack of liaison and co-operation between various disparate government departments. This extends in many places (not just the USA) between the different offices in the same department. Getting a department that you have possibly never contacted before on the local level to (in this case) possibly get in the way of a round or clip of ammunition to protect your personnel carrying out an administrative job might be a prolonged and persuasive task. The local police might number three possibly four guys who live there and know the locals and therefore might not be keen to take that round from outsiders shipped in from far and wide.

Secondly, if you know that there is going to be a possible firefight with said outsiders who might (for all you know) be bringing lots of guns and ammunition, you make damn sure you've at least an ability to come off first best. Put yourself in the shoes of the officials; Would you prefer to be protected or not? So called patriots who aren't, but armed, are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them.

[wr250]

Just a theory; The various departments have their own armed sections for a couple of reasons: 9/11 demonstrated in words writ large the lack of liaison and co-operation between various disparate government departments. This extends in many places (not just the USA) between the different offices in the same department. Getting a department that you have possibly never contacted before on the local level to (in this case) possibly get in the way of a round or clip of ammunition to protect your personnel carrying out an administrative job might be a prolonged and persuasive task. The local police might number three possibly four guys who live there and know the locals and therefore might not be keen to take that round from outsiders shipped in from far and wide.

here in the US ,the highest law enforcement official is supposed to be the elected county sheriff. but though assorted deals with state and federal agencies, many have given that title up.
and i agree with the federal  inter-agency cooperation angle, sometimes its getting the person in the next desk over to cooperate.

Secondly, if you know that there is going to be a possible firefight with said outsiders who might (for all you know) be bringing lots of guns and ammunition, you make damn sure you've at least an ability to come off first best. Put yourself in the shoes of the officials; Would you prefer to be protected or not? So called patriots who aren't, but armed, are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them.

i thought thats what the APC was for. in addition a few phone calls will get them to the white house, who could in theory (but is very unlikely) order in a air strike. more likely is to send in ground troops with armored vehicles and high powered ground based weaponry. (like they did in waco).

[Yorkshire pud]

here in the US ,the highest law enforcement official is supposed to be the elected county sheriff. but though assorted deals with state and federal agencies, many have given that title up.
and i agree with the federal  inter-agency cooperation angle, sometimes its getting the person in the next desk over to cooperate.
i thought thats what the APC was for. in addition a few phone calls will get them to the white house, who could in theory (but is very unlikely) order in a air strike. more likely is to send in ground troops with armored vehicles and high powered ground based weaponry. (like they did in waco).

An airstrike over a cowboy not paying grazing fees might be a political hot potato, not to mention on a humanitarian level. The dogs probably have more effect. An airstrike/armoured car is a nebulous thing if you've never seen one. No-one wants to be bitten by a dog, (especially one that won't let go until it's handler says so) many have been and can relate to it.

[Juan]

In addition to SWAT teams, we have the addition of thousands of federal crimes in recent years.  The idiots in Congress pass laws that make violation of administrative rules criminal, so that now, most people are guilty of committing some kind of federal crime - many don't know the rule exists.

The rise of federal criminal statutes has been over the last 50-years.  For instance, when JFK was assassinated (wounded, kidnapped, whatever) there was no federal murder statute, so the only crime Oswald could have been indicted for was the Texas murder statute.

As for whether Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, or liberals are to blame - they all are. Arguing about progressives vs. neo-cons is absurd and non-productive.  We have an elite class of corporatists/bureaucrats  in the US (and other places in the world) - call it the 1% or the .01% - that look out for each other and distract the rest of us into petty bickering.

[SciFiAuthor]

Just a theory; The various departments have their own armed sections for a couple of reasons: 9/11 demonstrated in words writ large the lack of liaison and co-operation between various disparate government departments. This extends in many places (not just the USA) between the different offices in the same department. Getting a department that you have possibly never contacted before on the local level to (in this case) possibly get in the way of a round or clip of ammunition to protect your personnel carrying out an administrative job might be a prolonged and persuasive task. The local police might number three possibly four guys who live there and know the locals and therefore might not be keen to take that round from outsiders shipped in from far and wide.

Secondly, if you know that there is going to be a possible firefight with said outsiders who might (for all you know) be bringing lots of guns and ammunition, you make damn sure you've at least an ability to come off first best. Put yourself in the shoes of the officials; Would you prefer to be protected or not? So called patriots who aren't, but armed, are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them.

Except that most of these departments seem to have no good reason to be in a position of a possible firefight anyway. WR noted that the NOAA has an armed team. Um, that's the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's basically a scientific research and weather service. Why do they have the ability or need to raid anyone? Even if they do have some obscure reason, why not simply have the branch whose job it supposedly is to enforce federal law, i.e. the US Marshalls, FBI, local law enforcement etc. take care of it?

I can see the BLM carrying rifles in case a cougar attacks a ranger or something, but in legal matters they need to be handing it over to local law enforcement to act on rather than running around with their own SWAT team. Nothing under their purview can possibly justify a need for armed agents in a dangerous position of a firefight.

[Little Hater]

Secondly, if you know that there is going to be a possible firefight with said outsiders who might (for all you know) be bringing lots of guns and ammunition, you make damn sure you've at least an ability to come off first best. Put yourself in the shoes of the officials; Would you prefer to be protected or not?

Which doesn't explain the paramilitary police attack on an Amish farm for selling raw milk. Thing is, it's a cliche, but like most cliches it has a nugget of truth: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Allowing all these Barney Fifedoms to have paramilitary SWAT teams means they will all find some reason to use them, often with tragic results.

I have also read too many police officials in the last several years (since 911?) stating that their first priority is to get the police officers safely home after the confrontation. Well, no. Protecting and serving the people is your sworn first priority.