[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Hilary Clinton was washing the feet, so-to-speak, of an undocumented Illegal immigrant this morning.


It is an ancient Christian custom to wash the feet of those of a lower caste than yourself on Maundy Thursday (last night)or Good Friday. Try not to morph that into something that it probably isn't.

The custom may be ancient in source but it is current in practice.

Yes ... well aware of that. I have sung it two churches of two different denominations, today starting with an 8:30 rehearsal for one of them. It was a long day and I am massaging my larynx with beer as I type.

[N_Fiddledog]

I posted it to relate to John: 14-17

$1:

Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

So when Christ...er pardon me, Hilary figuratively washes the lawbreaker's feet, she figuratively accepts the lawbreaker as equal, and the illegal act we are pointing at is shown as an acceptable act among equals. She is in effect authorizing the lawbreaking. The lawbreaking is after all the priority thing being pointing at. It is almost the lawbreaking whose feet are really being washed here.

However, if you happen to be one of those people who doesn't deal well with abstract thought there's a way to connect it directly to reality.

Pelosi was recently doing a Pope imitation, washing immigrants' feet. So when Hilary is fawning over the illegal immigrant we can say it's like Popess Pelosi washing immigrant feet. You're one of us see. We wash your feet.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04 ... -thursday/

Anyway you look at it though what I'm really saying is Hilary is suggesting lawbreaking is fine by her when she doesn't like the law, and I'll bet it's fine by a lot (most) of these outrageously outraged people who all of a sudden have forgotten their big thumbs up for the occupy movement and no longer have tolerance for any sort of civil disobedience. "OMG he broke the law," they say now.

Shall I bring up Harriet Tubman, or Rosa Parks. How about Alice Paul who got the right to vote for women hunger striking in jail.

[rickc]

andyt andyt:

Well, if I understand Rick's argument correctly, the BLM has no right to do it's job because the head of the BLM is not an elected official. Apparently they are just a rouge government created organization with out of control with nobody willing to rein in in. Except Bundy and his fellow defenders of freedom and the non-American way (since he doesn't believe in America).

That is not what I meant. I am not saying that government agencies cannot do their job. I am saying that when it comes to depriving Americans of their freedom, property, livelihood, etc, we like to see some separation of powers. The FBI cannot just kick in my door, go through my property, and arrest me. They have to go before a judge first. The judge has to grant a search/arrest warrant for the FBI to act. After I am arrested, the FBI does not the final say in my future. A court sets bail, a jury determines guilt/innocence, a judge imposes sentence. Many different agencies are at play here. Its not just up to the FBI to arrest me with no reasonable suspicion, and decide my fate. Generals do not get to start military adventures on their own, just to play with their new toys. Presidents have the power to send U.S. troops in an emergency, but they come home after 60 days without a declaration of war by Congress. If Congress feels that the military adventure was bullshit, they can impeach the President. If my city wants to take my property by imminent domain, they have to go to court first. They cant just show up at my door and say "pack your shit asshole, your out of here".

On a side note: the Supreme Court of the U.S. has stated in Kelo v. City of New London that imminent domain can be used to transfer land from one private party to another private party to further economic development. How scary is that? The Salvation army can have a huge facility that employees disabled people, homeless people, recovering addicts, etc. A local sports team owner may feel that the site of the Salvation army facility would be a prime location for his new stadium (paid for by the taxpayers of course). If he does not get his way, he will move his team to another city. The build or move scenario has been played out numerous times in North America. We almost always kiss his ass. The fact that the Salvation army is a charity, it pays little or no taxes. The sports team is a business that pays a lot of taxes. The fact that the stadium will bring in a shitload of tax dollars for the city, makes it a perfect example of using imminent domain to take the Salvation army site. Lets throw the riff raff out of what little they have. Is it legal? Oh yeah! Is it ethical? 99.9 per cent of us would think that it sucks big time! Just because something is legal, does not make it right.

We like separation of power. Its how we roll. We have a few agencies who think they are above the law. The IRS can seize your property without a court order. You then have 30 days to appeal in tax court. What if they made a mistake? What if there was an accounting error, or someone stole your identity and was working under your S.S. #? It happens all the time. You lose the use of your vehicle for over a month, mabey lose your job with no means of transportation. Your credit gets shot to hell because they were seizing your income. Later they say: "oh we fucked up, sorry. Have a nice day". You are out of a job, your credit sucks. Their apology does not fix any of that. The NSA seems to think that they can do whatever they please. They cannot be bothered with trivialities like warrants. They think they are above courts, or legislators overseeing their activities. If someone gets in their way, they might just disappear. Never to be heard from again. Why do you think Americans are so pissed off about the NSA? Why do you think that so many people think that Snowden is a hero? We do not care for government agencies being a law unto themselves. Someone in this thread was stating how they do not understand the American distrust of government. How they do not feel that the Canadian government is "out to get them". Well that may be. But what happens when the American government has a problem with a Canadian citizen? Mabey one who has never set foot in the States. I say ask Marc Emery. He got a firsthand taste of what happens when you piss off an American government agency. I am surprised he was not bunk mates with Manual Noriega.

The BLM did not have to go before a court, or third party when they made their decision to permanently put 53 CLark county ranches out of business forever. If I am reading the story correctly, the only court dates that these men have had is in RESPONSE to actions, like lawsuits filed by the government. These men have been on the defensive from day one. No government agency should have the power to permanently put someone out of business without some oversight by a third party. No one government agency should have that much power by itself. That is my two cents worth, and it is pretty much how the vast majority of people in the west feel about the situation.

[PluggyRug]

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches ... land-grab/

[N_Fiddledog]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches-federal-investigation-obamas-involvement-clive-bundy-land-grab/

Thanks. Good one. And I guess Harry was right. This isn't over.

[PluggyRug]

This from that same source, but cannot validate it.

$1:

Bureau of Land Management(BLM) is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it’s
own private business charter Neither the BLM, nor any other federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.
BLM, is actually classified as an: “Agent of Foreign Principle”, under the intergovernmental Personnel Act.
In other words, they don’t represent the Constitutional Republic or the interests of the American People but rather, a foreign owned principle i.e., the international banking/military corporate cartel of London City, England known as Crown Corporation as their supreme authority.
This has been openly admitted and exposed through Supreme Court cases since and even before 1938.

Short story: BLM has no authority to do anything in Nevada.

[N_Fiddledog]

Yeah, I don't know about that one. Starting to sound a little bit like those guys that sit around and develop conspiracy theories about the federal reserve. Not that they're necessarily wrong, and they can be pretty entertaining.

Here's one concerning a letter a congressman sent to Barrack Obama though.

$1:

“I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/congre ... VhvbOD5.99

So yeah, the more we learn the more questions there are concerning the legality involving the actions of the Feds. It just plane does not make sense that a paramiltary force of hundreds would be necessary to collect on a debt.

[N_Fiddledog]

These guys...

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

are ready to die, and Harry Reid is ready to kill them.

Can't end well.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

These guys...

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

are ready to die, and Harry Reid is ready to kill them.

Can't end well.

The dude has Robbed the US Taxpayer of $1million+. He is no "Patriot".

[PublicAnimalNo9]

sandorski sandorski:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

These guys...

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

are ready to die, and Harry Reid is ready to kill them.

Can't end well.

The dude has Robbed the US Taxpayer of $1million+. He is no "Patriot".

Either is Reid. I gotta wonder how a lifetime civil servant, born into poverty, who in his best years earned $193,000/yr, became worth an estimated $10 million.

When Reid became Senate majority leader he managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides.

That land he owned by the way he got for a literal steal. Despite the recent assessed value of the land prior to his purchase, he only paid one tenth of its value, a whopping $166/acre for land that was worth at least $1600/acre at the time.

To put it this way, Harry Reid spent $18 million in taxpayer dollars to build a bridge no one needed so that he could sell land he paid around $10,000 for, for over a million dollars.

But yeah, Bundy is the real thief here.

right back at ya.

[xerxes]

Yes, yes he is.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Gunnair]

[Gunnair]

[sandorski]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

The dude has Robbed the US Taxpayer of $1million+. He is no "Patriot".

Either is Reid. I gotta wonder how a lifetime civil servant, born into poverty, who in his best years earned $193,000/yr, became worth an estimated $10 million.

When Reid became Senate majority leader he managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides.

That land he owned by the way he got for a literal steal. Despite the recent assessed value of the land prior to his purchase, he only paid one tenth of its value, a whopping $166/acre for land that was worth at least $1600/acre at the time.

To put it this way, Harry Reid spent $18 million in taxpayer dollars to build a bridge no one needed so that he could sell land he paid around $10,000 for, for over a million dollars.

But yeah, Bundy is the real thief here.

right back at ya.

moot