Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy

There will be no way to hold our government or any of its agencies accountable for anything.

Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy

Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy

By Paula Hart

Here is why every American citizen should care about the Federal case against Cliven Bundy, et al. Whether you believe it or not, this case DOES affect you.

The government wants you to believe that this whole case is about Cliven refusing to pay his grazing fees. It wants you to believe that the Bundy’s are anti-government . It wants you to believe that they are a bunch of crazies that keep picking fights with the Government for no reason. It now wants you to believe that they are domestic terrorists simply because they had the courage to stand up to the Government.

What the Government does NOT want you to know is that EVERYTHING the Bundy’s have done is protected by the Constitution. They broke NO Constitutional Laws.

The Bundy’s believe that the Constitution always has been the Supreme Law of the Land, which it is, no matter what the Government tries to tell us now. The Bundy’s do believe in the need of a Federal Government, but the kind that our Founding Father’s established; a LIMITED government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Not the government we have today, where the People have no rights and no say.

The government does NOT want you to know that Cliven paid his grazing fees for years, until one day the government changed the contracts, effectively putting his livelihood in grave danger. Cliven tried to negotiate the terms but the government refused.

It doesn’t want you to know that Cliven was not allowed to pay his fees until AFTER he agreed to the new contract, which he didn’t agree with. Still, they refused to negotiate the terms in order to come to some type of compromise so that he could pay them.

THAT is when Cliven refused to sign the papers and made his payments to his County instead. Cliven tried, after being screwed over by the government, to still do the right thing.

This is what led to the incident in 2014 in Nevada.

When they saw the very same tactics being used against another family in Oregon, they stood up for that family and came to their aid. That is what the incident in 2015 in Oregon was about.

The government does NOT want you to know that, for years, it has been doing the same thing to landowners all across the west. The Bundy’s tried to open the Nation’s eyes as to what was going on behind the scenes. The Bundy’s tried for decades to go through the proper channels, to work things out with our elected officials, but got no response at all.

So, this case is not so much about land and grazing rights and unpaid grazing fees as it is about a government that has gone completely rogue.

What it means for YOU

If these men are found guilty, here is what it means for YOU, personally. Here is what’s REALLY on trial…..

The US Constitution- the very one the judges take an oath to uphold and defend, the one that protects We the People- will no longer be allowed in a court of law. Not even mentioned in a court of law. Let that sink in. We will have NOTHING to protect us from our corrupt government!! Nothing.

No more First Amendment rights. No more protesting or disagreeing with the Government or any of its agencies or employees. . If you and one other person says something the government doesn’t like or agree with, you can be charged with conspiracy and sent to prison.

Any comment or “like” on Facebook or other social media platforms can and will be used against you. Media (network or independent) who covers a story that the government does not want covered, will be arrested and sent to prison. If the government wants something you have, you no longer have any right to tell it no or you will be sent to prison.

Your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is all but gone. If you are legally and lawfully carrying a weapon and a member of law enforcement is nearby, you will be charged with threatening an officer. Let’s face it, since we now live in a police state, there is law enforcement everywhere.

You will no longer be allowed to defend yourself in court. You will no longer have the right to face your accuser(s).You will no longer be able to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth. If others show up to testify on your behalf, they will be threatened with arrest for speaking up for you.

A government witness who wasn’t even a witness to the crime’s testimony is more valid than that of a “lay” witness that was there to witness it first hand. Basically, if the government decides you’re guilty, you are guilty.

No more right to bail or a speedy trial.

No more being presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

There will be no way to hold our government or any of its agencies accountable for anything.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. The bottom line is, if these men are found guilty, we will no longer have the safety and security that the Constitution gives us. We will no longer be in charge of the government but it will, once and for all, be in charge of us and there will be no turning back.

The Bundy’s, and all who stood with them, have told the truth. They have done everything out in the open. They have been begging for public attention to this case and their grievances. They are doing all they can to uphold our Constitution.

On the other hand, the federal government has lied, repeatedly. They don’t want media coverage and won’t allow cameras in the courtrooms. They won’t respond to any grievances. They are blatantly disregarding the Constitution and want you to believe that if you support it then you are committing a crime!!. And, yet, who’s on trial? Who, really, is fighting FOR us all ,here? Who has YOUR best interests at heart?

Someone said it best (I believe Sandy Anderson III) …”If not now-when? If not us-who? If not this-what?” Out of millions of American citizens, a handful of people had the courage and integrity to stand up. It’s truly heartbreaking to see the majority leaving them to stand alone. To fight for people who can’t be bothered to fight for themselves.

What is it going to take for American’s to wake up and see that we are about to lose everything that matters?!!! When will *YOU* finally stand up and get involved ??? What is it going to take to get you to start caring about what’s happening?!!!

Your time is seriously running out to decide which side you’re with: Those fighting FOR your rights or those doing all they can to take them away.

 

6 Comments on Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy

  1. Victory ! The STATE OF NEW MEXICO. VS . nii nee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5VHKhfCVDc&feature=youtu.be your welcome nii nee,,, long nights writing for you,,,,David invited you to join us Monday… Every Monday Read the information below could educate you 4/17/17 The Disclaimers talk show by Dave and edward johnston
    http://new.oregontrackers.com/home.html
    Also on youtube oregon trackers Live Stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bq4H_m_pJA
    5pm oregon ,6, Mountain 7pm,central 8pm eastcoast Call in 712 775 7035 228627
    Constitution lawful Bloodline American Republic V Legal Democracy. “PEOPLE COMPELLED TO FILE INCOME TAXES VIOLATES THE 5TH AMENDMENT” Supreme Court ruled that income taxes constitute the compelled testimony of a witness: “The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness.” “Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels,for example, the appearance of a ‘witness’ before a grand jury.” Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1975). :. Established that wages and income are NOT equivalent as far as taxes on income are concerned. “Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies. Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21(1978); Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967); Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971); Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971); Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; (4th Cir. 1973); Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967). Supreme Court ruled that: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970) (a) not effectively connected with the conduct of a “trade or business” (public office per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) in the United States (government),
    (b) not earned from sources within the geographical federal 5 territory. See Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10),
    (c) not subject to reporting per 26 U.S.C. §6041 because not connected to a statutory “trade or business” (public office)
    (d) not subject to withholding because not statutory “income” per 26 U.S.C. §643(b) and earned by a “non-resident non-person non-taxpayer http://new.oregontrackers.com/home.html

    lawful bloodline Americans only..,,,…Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) original 1774 do you research
    http://www.americanpatrol.com/…/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.…

    Because artificial entities cannot take oaths, they cannot make affidavits. See, e.g., In re Empire Refining Co., 1 F. Supp. 548, 549 (SD Cal. 1932) (“It is, of course, conceded that a corporation cannot make an affidavit in its corporate name. It is an inanimate thing incapable of voicing an oath”); Moya Enterprises, Inc. v. Harry Anderson Trucking, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 39, 290 S.E.2d 145 (1982); Strand Restaurant Co. v. Parks Engineering Co., 91 A.2d 711 (D.C. 1952); 9A T. Bjur C. Slezak, Fletcher Cyclopedia of Law of Private Corporations § 4629 (Perm. ed. 1992) (“A document purporting to be the affidavit of a corporation is void, since a corporation cannot make a sworn statement”) (footnote omitted).ROWLAND v. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY•506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993)PENAL CODE

    TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

    CHAPTER 31. THEFT

    Sec. 31.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

  2. “What is it going to take for Americans to wake up and see that we are about to lose everything that matters?”

    Answer: “He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I (the Lord) will come and strike the land with total destruction,” Mal. 4:6
    God makes good neighbors. If there is no God taught to upcoming generations, then there will be no good neighbors who work for the government “god.”

  3. They did the same to me, changed decades old agreement regarding hay cultivation. Delayed harvest until well after appropriate time to harvest.Excuse was after hatching birds were hatched. That was July 1st.Any birds I know of are hatched in May, no later than June 1st. Lack of common sense displayed.

  4. The federal district court in Nevada has, over the last 2 years, won 95% of its cases. If that seems somewhat lopsided, you must realize that (1) the federal government writes the charges, (2) the feds sets bail (unless they decide no bail will be set), (3)schedules the trial in (4) a federal court building, (5) uses a presiding federal judge, (6) uses federal prosecutors, (7) uses federal law enforcement as its witnesses, (8) then sentences that 95% of defendents to federally controlled prisons. (10) And when the judge decides that the jury (if there is one) should not hear some of the court procedings? Am I missing somthing here? Especially when ALL the preceding list of 10 facts are patently unconstitutional? Especially when the federal judge sustains nearly every prosecution objection during this kangaroo court trial and overrules the objections from the defense? When the defendant’s witnesses are barred from testifying?

    Folks, only when the feds make a mistake will the defendent have the slight chance of being the 5% deemed not guilty. When was it that this United States became part of the USSR? Or were we simply annexed to Cuba? The next sound you hear will be the gurgling of our country going down the Socialist drain!

4 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy – Redoubt News « BLM Range War
  2. Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy – Redoubt News « The Free Constitutional Republic of the United States of America
  3. Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy – Redoubt News « War On Liberty
  4. Pie N Politics » 2014 Bundy Ranch: DeLemus Sentenced to Over 7 Years for Bunkerville

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*