Multiple militia groups from across USA going to Las Vegas for standoff w/Bureau of Land Management

Plot Device said:

UNCONFIRMED REPORTS:

For over two hours now I have continually heard reports that all cellular phone service in the area of Mesquite, Nevada and Bunkerville, Nevada have been lost.

Click to expand...

Do you have any reason to believe that these reports are true ?

I know - you labelled them as an 'unconfirmed report'. But is that being responsible?

How is it different from saying "There are unconfirmed reports that the Jews caused 9/11?"

You've acknowledged that it is a situation where people are highly emotional and have powerful guns. Is it really a good idea to be spreading rumours when you acknowledge that you haven't taken the time to confirm if those rumours are true?

If a reporter chooses to spread rumours that whip up a crowd into a frenzy .. can they disclaim responsibility by simply saying that they were just doing their job as a reporter? After all - they didn't say that the Jews ACTUALLY caused 9/11 ... merely that there are reports that they did.

Mac
(PS: Given that there are people in the area who are busy tweeting - isn't it more reasonable to believe that the reception is no more spotty than usual? )

I've seen a few dozen people posting on Facebook different conspiracy theories that this is all being done for oil/gas/fracking. I'm trying not to look at my wall now.

This is all about one asshole refusing to follow instructions he was given twenty years ago. This is not about civil rights. This is not about a huge government conspiracy. This is about one asshole misrepresenting his situation for fifteen minutes of fame, and he's going to get a lot of people killed over it.

On top of that you have the rogue militia's coming in now. Many of whom are probably so certain a new civil war is about to break out that they're willing to go out and take the first shot to try and start it.

Mac H. said:

How is it different from saying "There are unconfirmed reports that the Jews caused 9/11?"

Click to expand...

Well, one could cause reactionary racial violence and the other could cause... annoyance with cellular companies?

Sorry, I mean, I see your point, but... I think there is absolutely some kind of major difference there.

kuwisdelu said:

Well, one could cause reactionary racial violence and the other could cause... annoyance with cellular companies?

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

The accusation isn't that cellular companies have spotty reception. The accusation is that the government is preventing phones from working as part of their preparation for the big attack on these people.

It's a conspiracy theory .. 'annoyance with cellular companies' is never going to be an option.

Mac

Plot Device said:

Hanson, I had a history professor who said he thinks the most compelling question asked of us by all of human history is the question: "Are we Nazis?" He believes all people --individually and collectively-- must take it upon themselves to ask that question from time to time to make sure they are not blindly crossing moral and ethical lines which became blurry due to life's daily grind of never ending distractions and obligations and especially the demands made by emergency contingencies.

He perceives the practice of self-asking of this question as one of the most important checks/balances to keeping life and equilibrium in what we hope will remain a democratic society of free thought and tolerance.

Now that I've Godwinned my own thread ....

If the employment of one's own reasoning power in deciding when to disobey an order is unacceptable to you, then what is the correct circumstance/guideline for justifying the refusal of an order?

Click to expand...

another question is "is Patriotism sometimes used as a 'refuge of the scoundrel'?"

another is "Does the Constitution say x.y.z.?"

another is "Who determines what the Constitution says? Is it the guys with guns, or the guys with books?"

Of course, it's all very subjective - to some extent.

'One man's freedom, is another man's prison', and all that sort of thing.

And the argument becomes circular.


However, in my personal judgement, the motivation of the Oathkeepers and similar, is not one of 'equality, justice and freedom' for ALL.


I'm a big fan of that question 'Are We Nazis?' Big big fan.

It's the one question we must always ask.

And I'm asking it now. I'm asking 'what is the motivation of these militia groups, including the Oathkeepers?'

My answer, I know.

Others, may well have a different answer. Thankfully, as things currently stand, different answers are allowed to exist.

And yes, sometimes freedom does demand the gun, but this isn't one of them.

Then there's the questions, Am I acting Nazi-like, and of course that's one I have to answer. (I have, for me)

But the point I'm making is

This group which says 'we want to defend this oath', but then in the same page they state, well yes, the oath says something about the president and stuff, but well, it depends - that's not as important as the 'constitution' itself - so the door opens wide to 'so, what DOES the constitution say?

and the answer inevitably tends to be 'it says whatever we think it says'.

so our 'oath', is to ourselves.

On the immediate issue: Is the current US govt and president legitimate? to me, yes it is. should they be disobeyed on this issue, no they shouldn't.

This act of civil disobedience is a far road from being 'protectors of freedom'. imo.

some actions certainly are, but this isn't one of them - least not to me.

ShaunHorton said:

I've seen a few dozen people posting on Facebook different conspiracy theories that this is all being done for oil/gas/fracking. I'm trying not to look at my wall now.

This is all about one asshole refusing to follow instructions he was given twenty years ago. This is not about civil rights. This is not about a huge government conspiracy. This is about one asshole misrepresenting his situation for fifteen minutes of fame, and he's going to get a lot of people killed over it.

On top of that you have the rogue militia's coming in now. Many of whom are probably so certain a new civil war is about to break out that they're willing to go out and take the first shot to try and start it.

Click to expand...

It's also about a freeloader trying to claim he doesn't have to pay to graze cattle on land we all collectively own. He's stealing from us, when it comes down to it.

Any time a matter has been left to fester for decades, and it suddenly becomes imperative that things change--I tend to wonder why. While the rancher may be in the wrong, there appears to be other interests involved. Just because they are members of our government, doesn't make them 'more' right.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

"Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link."

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Check back on this area in a couple of years. I imagine there will be no cattle, no tortoise, and lots of solar panels.

Synonym said:

"Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link."

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

Click to expand...

Not buying a whole bunch of what's said there. a) It's not Bundy's land. b) I'm very, very skeptical of the assertion that solar panels create a bigger impact on habitat than cattle grazing. c) If the guy had just paid his grazing fees all along, he probably wouldn't have a problem. In fact, if he just paid his grazing fees now, he could probably solve it.

There seems to be a bizarre notion that permeates a lot of the rural western states that public land is actually private land, and that ranchers have the right to graze their cattle on with impunity.

It appears the BLM blinked.

Because of safety issues, BLM ends cattle roundup
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news...ds-cattle-roundup/apDCbaO5ykGj9-mBGInDgg.cspx

benbradley said:

It appears the BLM blinked.

Because of safety issues, BLM ends cattle roundup
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news...ds-cattle-roundup/apDCbaO5ykGj9-mBGInDgg.cspx

Click to expand...

If by blinked, you mean "decided not to escalate the situation further which might end up with people dying," I guess they did.

But believe me, no matter how the ultimate resolution plays out, the rancher is not going to be allowed to continue grazing his cattle for free on public lands.

I don't consider the rancher to be 100% right, at all. He claims he's been paying grazing rights to his county. Again, I have no way to check that, or determine if it's a common practice.

What I do know, is that this isn't a new controversy, either. I found this report by the Congressional Research Service. Here's an excerpt from page 18:

[FONT=&quot]The concentration of federal lands in the West has contributed to a higher degree of controversy over federal land ownership in that part of the country. For instance, the dominance of BLM and USFS lands in the western states has led to various efforts to divest the federal government of significant amounts of land. One noted example, the Sagebrush Rebellion, promoted such divestiture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, it was not successful in achieving this end through legal challenges in the federal courts or in efforts to persuade the Reagan Administration and Congress to transfer the lands to state or private ownership.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I do understand the frustration of a man, trying to survive in a family business. He has my sympathies for that reason. As for his land, yes, we seem to be talking about the land he wants to continue grazing (that is owned by the State or the Feds). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's been deemed an 'off-site mitigation area' for the proposed solar manufacturing/array. After some extremely dry reading, the best explanation that I can find for that designation is: an area set aside to balance whatever ecological impact the plant and array will cause. Well, gee. Pick a spot, any spot. I doubt the local flora, tortoises, jack rabbits, lizards, etc., will understand the significance--or pack up and move. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile, questions have been raised about the old technology favored by ENN, and whether it is actually feasible.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
The Weird Story of a Chinese Solar Firm and Nevada Politics.

"The deal is unusual not just for the high amount of promised investment from ENN’s founder and chairman Wang Yusuo, a project that the company said will create over 4,000 local jobs. But for a Chinese manufacturer, a factory in the U.S., would probably require significantly higher production costs.

The project is also oh-so political. It’s being touted by U.S. Senate majority leader and Nevadan Harry Reid, who has been a long time supporter of clean energy and green jobs for both Nevada and on the federal level. And like all politicized clean energy, the ENN project sounds like one of those well-meaning efforts to bring jobs to a depressed community, but that probably just won’t work out as planned."

People are in favor of wind farms too, as long as they don't have to look at them. Solar arrays seem to have the same charisma. I guess Nevada is the best place?

The dispute between Bundy and the federal government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected tortoise and capped Bundy's herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile rangeland allotment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...onal-dispute-rare-tortoise.html#ixzz2yhW097vD


"The dispute between Bundy and the federal government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected tortoise and capped Bundy's herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile range land allotment."

A turtle? The federal government is willing to call in snipers and armed officers over a turtle? People could die because the federal government has to save a turtle? Aren't citizen a little more important that this creature? A rancher has the government tell him how many cattle he can raise over a...turtle.

readmikenow said:

A rancher has the government tell him how many cattle he can raise over a...turtle.

Click to expand...

What do you have against turtles?

And it's a tortoise, not a turtle.

kuwisdelu said:

What do you have against turtles?

And it's a tortoise, not a turtle.

Click to expand...

Tortoise, turtle, what's the difference? You can't make money off of either of them.

The destruction of an entire species is unimportant, unless they can pay their own way.

And certainly the right of a rancher to ignore federal law and to refuse to pay money he owes to the government is sacred, enshrined in the constitution.

As is any individual's right to lay waste to the environment and degrade public lands, lands that belong to all of us, without governmental interference.

I wouldn't worry too much about the money. I'm sure the government will find a way to get it back from his heirs.

Synonym said:

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

Click to expand...

Now, I'm not informed on the full ecological impact of solar panels, but it seems to me that the creation of an immobile array creating large areas of shade, causes less of an environmental impact than a thousand stupid, 400 pound animals bumbling around randomly, crushing nests, eggs, and possibly turtles themselves.

True, it's going to be a bit of a mess while the array is built, but a one-time incursion would be a heck of a lot better than the cows stumbling around day in and day out for years upon years.

One of the early reports I read, stated that the round-up was started due to pressure from environmental groups. I'll have to see if I can find it again amidst all the "Merica" reports.

Shrug. I got no sympathy for the guy.

Go put your cows somewhere else.

Best guess, which I really hope doesn't play out:

Grudgingly allow array to be built.
Cut fence.
Run cattle through array.

BLM Director Neil Kornze said in a statement Saturday, “Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.”

Just afterward, rancher Cliven Bundy demanded that all National Park Service employees working on the roundup operation be disarmed before 10:45 a.m.

He gave Gillespie one hour to comply, and added for the firearms to be brought to him.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Now the asshat is giving orders like some kind of conquering hero? WTF? I was really hoping when I woke up today, it would be on the news that him, his followers and their house was a crater in the ground. THIS is BS.

What's next? I haven't sent in my mortgage payment in ten years and the bank is coming to foreclose on me! Where's my private militia to back me and stop them from stealing what's mine?

BLM backed out apparently because they feared for the safety of their employees. Which sounds to me like "a lot of people threatened to shoot us if we didn't do what they said."

Militias were originally organized because the US didn't have a single, unified army, and people were at war with Britain. I could kind of understand having an army so that you could fight back in case an invading force came in, but this is wholly unAmerican if you ask me.

The guy apparently owed over a million in unpaid grazing fees, and for legitimate reasons they decided to have him stop grazing on land that wasn't even his. It isn't even like the government was forcing him to leave his own land. And essentially because he didn't get his way, he gets to call in people who threaten to kill the government workers?

I hate the whole idea of intimidation through weapons. If he didn't like it, he could fight it in court, go to the media, try to stir up a shit-storm that way. Having people come in and essentially say "we'll kill you if you don't give us our way" is intimidation and bullying, and to be honest scares the hell out of me.

It basically gives permission for these guys to go out and intimidate their way out of any situation they don't like. I'm not saying I think BLM should have gone in shooting. I don't. But I hate that this group was allowed to do this.

I'm pretty sure if I was squatting in someone's house and the cops came to move me away and I pulled a gun and said 'I'll shoot you if you try to make me" that I'd have a hell of a lot to answer for. I don't see how this is any different.