Friday, April 18, 2014

Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch; Two Miracles In Less Than A Week



...Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue. In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution. “Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “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.”

In the case of the Bundy Ranch, he continued, “the relevant local law enforcement officials appear to be the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie.” Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff. “Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.” The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. section 1733.”...more

First the feds back down and now a Congressman who actually reads the law?  Or, could it be that either he or his staff read The Westerner.  Maybe, Maybe not.  However, I did post this 4 days ago:

Section 303(c)(1) of FLPMA states, "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." (Emphasis mine).  Was the BLM in compliance with this section of the law?
at

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous6:48 PM

    The corruption in America runs very deep. Keep your guns to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government.

    A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

    Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:
    http://pastebin.com/EgYe4Ef2

    Or read at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/170266922/9-11thology-The-third-truth-about-9-11-or-Defending-the-US-Government-which-has-only-the-first-two

    In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can't build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center's demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

    Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

    Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

    More info:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

    You can watch the 2010 interview at:
    http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html
    Video # 4 - WTC's demolition plan
    Video # 14 - WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
    Videos # 24/25 - chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

    Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:
    http://www.renseradioarchives.com/harris/

    Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/

    An improved English version of Khalezov's 2010 article for Nexus Magazine (German edition):
    http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

    I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called 'Ground Zero'. If you look up the meaning of 'ground zero' in the old dictionaries you have at home, you'll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

    After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of 'ground zero'. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

    For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
    ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

    The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you'll see:
    ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

    Have a look at this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBQuoPi_grw
    At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of 'ground zero'.

    ReplyDelete