Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists,” Fed Task Force Being Formed

[kcchiefs6465]

You consider Harry Reid a representative? Where are the members of Congress who would normally support the second amendment? Why are they not calling Reid out on his accusations? The Dems are always the ones who say words have consequences...well Reid's words will have consequences when some law is drafted to stop people from exercising their 2nd and 4th amendment rights and being labeled a terrorist when they do.

http://mises.org/media/categories/238/No-Treason-The-Constitution-of-No-Authority

 

[Carlybee]

Study: US is an Oligarchy

Then there is not much point in supporting any politician then

 

[Anti Federalist]

You consider Harry Reid a representative? Where are the members of Congress who would normally support the second amendment? Why are they not calling Reid out on his accusations? The Dems are always the ones who say words have consequences...well Reid's words will have consequences when some law is drafted to stop people from exercising their 2nd and 4th amendment rights and being labeled a terrorist when they do.

Good questions.

I'm going to assume from their collective silence, that they support and are in agreement with the FedCoat's actions here.

Not like I'm surprised...they all cheer when their Praetorians execute us.

 

[Origanalist]

I heard this on the way home, I figured it would get a reaction here.

Harry Reid just declared war.

 

[Right Wing]

Sen. Reid calls supporters of Nevada rancher Bundy 'domestic terrorists'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes the supporters who rallied around Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his fight against the federal government are “domestic terrorists” and Bundy does not respect his country.

The Las Vegas Journal-Review reported that Reid, D-Nev., made the comments at an event Thursday hosted by the paper called “Hashtags & Headlines.”

Federal land managers backed down in a weekend standoff with Bundy after hundreds of states' rights protesters, including armed militia members, showed up to protest federal officials seizing his cattle. Some protesters had their guns drawn and pointed toward law enforcement, some of whom were also armed. But ultimately, no shots were fired and the Bureau of Land Management reported that officials left over safety concerns.

Reid had harsh words for these supporters, saying the government cannot stop pursuing the issue.

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ers-nevada-rancher-bundy-domestic-terrorists/


Herein lies the problem with the language of the NDAA and the DHS memo. The word terrorist has been used by a U.S. Senator in labelling a group of protesters. According to the language, could the case not be made for these people to be held indefinitely under the NDAA provisions?

 

[DamianTV]

Lets be clear here. The ONLY Domestic Terrorist in this situation is Dirty Harry Reid himself.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Harry Reid relishes blood on his hands. Nothing like escalating tension, Harry you fascist prick.

 

[phill4paul]

 

[phill4paul]

 

[phill4paul]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ic-Terrorists-%94-Fed-Task-Force-Being-Formed

 

[donnay]

I would expect so.

No one.
Absolutely NO One believes this is over..
Getting the cattle back was not the end.

It's about stealing property. Under Agenda 21.

 

[donnay]

And reid calls himself an LDS member. He should be excommunicated ....he is the devil pure and simple.

Kind of like Glenn Beck. These are the Judas goats.

 

[pcosmar]

Lets be clear here. The ONLY Domestic Terrorist in this situation is Dirty Harry Reid himself.

NO.. He may be the leader, but everyone that was working for him. Every BLM mercenary were Terrorists as well.

 

[AuH20]

There are a few progs commenting on Breitbart that the Branch Davidians and the Weavers both deserved to die for their socially odd views. We've entered the "no more talking" stage. They want us dead.

 

[Carlybee]

There are a few progs commenting on Breitbart that the Branch Davidians and the Weavers deserved to die for their socially odd views. We've entered the "no more talking" stage. They want us dead.

I've already seen comments saying that the BLM should have shot Bundy and his family for "squatting on taxpayer owned land". This is the party of tolerance and sites like the Daily Kos and other libtard media outlets have done nothing but add fuel. I think we know who the terrorists are.

 

[acptulsa]

I've already seen comments saying that the BLM should have shot Bundy and his family for "squatting on taxpayer owned land". This is the party of tolerance and sites like the Daily Kos and other libtard media outlets have done nothing but add fuel. I think we know who the terrorists are.

And, of course, the fact that his house sits on land which has been in his family for some one hundred forty years is irrelevant.

If you're a socialist, and at the risk of being redundant, a thief.

 

[Carlybee]

And, of course, the fact that his house sits on land which has been in his family for some one hundred forty years is irrelevant.

If you're a socialist, and at the risk of being redundant, a thief.

Socialists don't believe in property ownership, they want everything to be state owned and by state owned I mean federally owned. They are so concerned with being part of a collective, they have lost all semblance of the importance of the individual as well as any semblance of the intellectual curiosity that is involved in questioning authority which must always be questioned in order to recognize tyranny. To them, tyranny is a vehicle to be used at whim to make the end justify the means. The absolute ignorance, hypocrisy and just plain old immorality involved in the effort to not only label but potentially prosecute and annihilate the individual is staggering.

 

[pcosmar]

We've entered the "no more talking" stage. They want us dead.

Well,,
as long as we understand each other.

 

[AuH20]

Talk about making their heads spin. Kudos to the staffer in Roy Blunt's office for being cognizant of what being an American entails:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1292469/--That-s-how-our-country-was-founded

Next, I called Sen. Blunt's KC office and informed the man that answered that I am a constituent of Sen. Blunt's; I also asked what position Sen. Blunt had taken on this standoff. He first noted that Blunt has not issued a statement, but that there were "property rights issues" involved in the standoff. I asked him what he meant by that, and he responded that Bundy's cattle were his property, to which I responded that Bundy's cattle may be his property but they were grazing and fattening themselves on federal land, which is not Bundy's property. The Blunt staffer then tried to argue that there were "issues" regarding the ownership of the land and, once again, property rights were involved.

At this point, I decided to ask this federal government employee and agent of a United States senator whether it was appropriate for hundreds of armed men to show up in force in an attempt to intimidate federal agents and defy a federal judge's lawful order by show of arms. Without flinching, the person answering the phones at a United States senator's office stated, "Well, that's how our country was founded." I was absolutely floored. I asked him, "did you really just compare these militia members to our founding fathers?" He responded, "I didn't say I was comparing them, you said that." I responded by noting that he was the person who had answered my simple, softball question about whether it was okay for heavily armed men, massed in force, to intimidate federal agents by immediately resorting to the founding of the United States. I asked him the question several more times and he would not disavow what the armed men had done in the desert. I noted the presence of sniper rifles held by the militia men, and he said "there were no sniper rifles there." I closed our conversation by asking him if he was an employee of Sen. Blunt, to which he responded that he was; I then said that we are all in very deep trouble when one of the two major parties in this nation supports armed insurrection and the ignoring of a valid court order, and that his answers to me were both pathetic and unacceptable.

My conversations this morning with Sen. Blunt's staffers shook me to the core. Think about it: employees of a United States senator cannot and will not condemn hundreds of armed maniacs showing up to threaten agents of the federal government who were there to enforce a valid federal court's order. Instead, these staffers blamed the federal government for what happened in Nevada. This way danger lies, ladies and gentlemen--if the power of the courts is subject to who has the most guns, the rule of law in this nation is sunk. And when elected United States senators and their staff either side with the gun-toting mob or are too afraid to challenge them, we are in deep shit. I encourage you to contact your representatives to get their thoughts on this matter, and also to contact your local media to follow up on the politicians' views. I think this standoff and "victory" by the crazies is a really big deal that has not gotten nearly enough discussion in the media.
.

Sounds to me like someone doesn't know what country she's in. heh. We leased the country to you guys for the last 100 years. But by my math, that lease is almost up, darlin.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Man, Harry Reid has been a wheeler and dealer to profiteering for decades, here's a story I dug up. This is how Politician "Lawyers" game the system ans decieve those trying to follow their scams.

http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/20...-from-land-deals-involving-highway-wind-farm/

The AP’s story about Reid’s land transactions with his friend Jay Brown came out in 2006. According to the article, Reid bought what the AP called "undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas’ booming outskirts" in 1998 for about $400,000, and bought a second, adjacent parcel jointly with Brown, a former casino lawyer. In 2001, Reid sold the first parcel for the same price to a holding company that Brown created, AP said. Then in 2004, Brown’s company sold the land to other developers, and Reid got $1.1 million of the proceeds. So according to the records that AP looked at, it seemed as though Reid got his $400,000 back when he sold the land to the company in 2001, and also got $1.1 million on top of that when the company sold the land several years later, even though he no longer owned it.

On top of that, AP reported, Reid never disclosed on his Senate financial disclosure statement the 2001 sale of the land to the holding company, and when he collected the $1.1 million in 2004, he reported it on that year’s statement as a sale of land he owned personally.

Reid’s office, however, said no money changed hands when Reid transferred the land to the holding company in 2001; instead, Reid got an ownership stake in the company equal to the value of his land. If true, that means Reid didn’t get paid for the property until the company sold it in 2004, when he received nearly triple what he paid for it originally. Reed’s aides said he continued to pay taxes on the property and didn’t disclose the change in ownership because he considered it a "technical transfer."
Reid asked the Senate Ethics Committee whether he should amend his annual financial disclosure statements to reflect what had actually happened with the land. Then several days later, without waiting for a response from the panel, Reid did adjust his disclosure statement to reflect the circumstances of the land transfer, and also reported two much smaller land deals that had previously been unknown to the public. That pretty much put an end to press stories about the deal, until the matter was recently revived by the Angle campaign.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4476995

Senate Dem Leader Reid got windfall on land deal

By John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey
The Associated PressPosted:
10/12/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT | Updated: 8 years ago

Washington - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.
The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial over the summer and in prior organized-crime investigations.
He has never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.
Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:
The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright and a second parcel jointly with Brown.
One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.
In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited-liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.
After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers, and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly trip ling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.
They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an understanding between friends. The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.