TRUTH: Did Bundy Ranch Protesters Put Women Between Themselves and Armed Federal Agents?

By: Ben Swann
246

During his exclusive interview with Sheriff Richard Mack on Monday, Ben Swann asked the sheriff about a soundbite running on Fox News in which Sheriff Mack said protesters put women on the front line directly across from armed federal agents so that if those agents opened fire, the brutality of their actions would be shown to the world.

A soundbite with Sheriff Mack was played multiple times on Fox News as well featured on The Blaze. That soundbite which is all of 10 seconds explains a strategy of placing women in the line of fire if necessary.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

During his exclusive interview with Sheriff Richard Mack on Monday, Ben Swann asked the sheriff about that soundbite. Did protestors place women where they could be in the line of fire?

“It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.

“I would have been next. I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here, I’m willing to die here. But the best ploy would have been to have had women in front because one, I don’t think they would have shot them. Two, if they had it would have been the best thing to show the rest of the world that these ruthless cowards will do anything they are told. If they are told to shoot they will shoot. Just like when they shot Vicki Weaver when they blew her head off in front of her little girl while she was holding a baby.” says Mack.


Sheriff Mack says several women he personally knows who were on the scene volunteered to move to the front of the line. Video from Infowars, which we have shown you gives a very clear picture of exactly what was happening. It is important to note for the purpose of clarity that no formation of women and children in the front line actually took place.

Still Mack says, as brutal as he believes these agents can be, they would not have made the mistake of firing on women, had that tactic been used.

“I know they are willing to do it but because of all the press we had out there watching, that they would not have done it. It was a tactical ploy on my part. I didn’t get my suggestion in on time but I told it to plenty of women including a lawyer friend of mine who came up to help. She told me that she would have moved to the front of the line and she thought it was a good idea.” says Mack.

You can listen to the full interview here:


  • Death to Tyrants

    He’s right that they may not have opened fire on women in front of the cameras, but when there are no cameras, these cowards will shoot their own mother, if they were ordered to do so.

    Let’s not forget that the paper targets of American citizen’s purchased by DHS are of women holding children, grandma, grandpa, and small children. That is who these cowards are being told “not to hesitate” to fire on.

    Anyone who thinks that women will not be murdered in large numbers if there’s a civil war is not living in the real world.

    The feds like to murder women and children – case in point – Oklahoma City.

    • Sprax

      With no camera they most likely would. I would love to say that they wouldn’t but human history has proven this to not be true for centuries and while we have more technology, we really haven’t changed in our actions.

      • Kara

        Ya they domt care about killing woman or even children if the camera isn’t rolling. Case in point every country we have bombed.

      • FalconMoose
        • David Wilson Rowley

          Megan says the idea that the Feds are planning on a hit of Bundy’s home is “BS”. How does she know?

          • FalconMoose

            Good point. It will be awhile I think. The trained militia leave and patriots leave. No rotation….. then what? I am privy to AZ Militia. They may be in charge of security there. These are Sp Ops vets. BTW I am in SECOM, Southeast Constitutional Militia. Standing by in reserve.

    • More4les

      Not Oklahoma but rather WACO.

      • Death to Tyrants

        The courthouse in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by the feds – research it.

        You don’t get to choose what to believe and what not to believe.

        Facts are facts and you need to face the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

        The truth is that Oklahoma City Federal Courthouse was bombed by the feds.

      • FalconMoose

        See below post by Death to Tyrants.

    • FalconMoose

      THIS!

  • Cliff Wilson

    I don’t agree with hiding behind women but the Sheriff raised valid points none the less.

    • Deva Bryson Winblood

      Other than no one was hiding. If they open fire everyone is going to get shot at. The concept was to make the first shot fired “hopefully” very difficult to be fired. They were not planning on using women as any kind of a body shield. Also when it comes to bigotry (whether racism, sexism, etc) do people truly want equality, or do they think someone should be treated superior? As long as people don’t go for equality in that choice bigotry cannot be stomped out.

      • FalconMoose

        Hear ya bro. “We” had back-up on the overpass with scary black rifles with too many rounds in their big, big mags. The mercs likely got real time intel from drones.

    • Robin Palmer

      No one is hiding when everyone is standing together. I am a woman and I will stand where necessary for the cause of my country.

      • FalconMoose

        We so called men are right behind you. GOD bless you sister.

  • Julius Henry

    Why doesn’t the BLM have female agents in the field? Does the federal government discrimate?

    • FalconMoose

      Great Avatar!

  • Angry at the lies

    So why did this go from being women on the front line to a bolded line that stated women and children? They never had any intention of using children…why did you add children into that line? Shock value? “Truth in Media” means not adding extra crap!

    • Alex Parsons

      ya Ben quit it

    • Baladas

      It was because some people misconstrued Sheriff Mack when he was trying to justify his “ploy”. He said that he would have “put his my own wife and daughters there”

      When people hear daughters they think of children, so people must have been asking Ben if children were put up in front.

  • Brian Hawkins

    I recognize that this is an information war, and tactics have changed considerably, but I still couldn’t bring myself to this. For one thing, I simply don’t have that much faith in the compassion or humanity of brain-washed government yes-men.

    • FalconMoose

      Good post. However the mercs did not fire. There were people advancing toward them that looked “familiar”.
      Just like Uncle Bob.

      • 7LibertyForAll

        Au contraire, they DID fire their tasers several times at several people, one a pregnant woman.

        • FalconMoose

          The patriots were unarmed when tased. I Plead the Second, Bro!
          I love how things changed when hundreds, many armed, showed up as a result of this police state crap!

          • 7LibertyForAll

            NP; your posts have been pretty darned good!

          • FalconMoose

            Backatcha, Bro! I have been watching your posts.

  • Vance

    This fake goverment will lie kill cheat steal and even rape you. They will shoot wemon and children I think most know it but wish it were not true. Soon they will come for someone closer to you if not stopped.

  • Kara

    That’s a great idea! Bringing out children would be vile, but in this age with equality….I don’t know why people would think its dirty. They are adults and if women want to go in the front line because the world would view it as more horrendous than great! Especially unarmed lol. Its not like oh I’m a helpless woman and putting in the front is cowardly. Lol children would be cowardly, or forcing people who do not want to be there… sticking women in front to manipulate is awesome lol. Btw ya I’m a woman and I would totally have volenteered. My hubby and I were debating driving out but it ended so quickly :)

    • Alex Parsons

      it’s not over

    • Robin Palmer

      I’m with you. Fox pisses me off for the way they are making this look. If my service to my Constitution is best served on the front line, so be it. If it’s in the back, well, let me up front. No child should even be there.

  • Darkness Dragon

    May as well put one of every minority, ethnicity, etc. in a line because that’s exactly the meaning of these tyrants trying to take over our lands with their militaristic agencies: every single individual is a threat to government; the government is the enemy of the honest human.

  • Zionistout

    Silly goys these paid mercenaries of your Jew overlords would have no problem firing at women and even children.

    • mikec711

      AntiSemite much? Reid and the Chinese (and of course our Fed) are behind this land-grab. And Reid “awarded” this corrupt sheriff who was simply doing the bidding for Reid who is … by the way … Mormon, not Jewish. But don’t let facts get in the way of your seething hatred.

    • Jack Johnson

      love how the chi comms become the jews , whats you drama heindrick ? mental lock , “da jooos dun it” no mate folks like you done it .. fascists..

      • FalconMoose

        Check the Fascia on each side of the Speaker of the House in the House of Perp…er, Representatives. The uS has been hijacked.

    • Dana King

      Your message gets lost in your blatantly disgusting racism.

      • FalconMoose

        The truth hurts. They are mercs.

  • Brett Greshko

    Women are equal, right? They fight in the military now, right? So what’s the problem?

    • Brittany Bruce

      Seriously, I don’t get why these people on here are bashing him. If you don’t want women in the line of fire, don’t allow them to be out there in the first place, but then that takes away women’s rights. If women are to be equal then they shouldn’t get treated any differently than a man especially when it comes to protecting this nation. When they sign up for the military, or choose to go to a stand off with the feds, they go knowing they might die ( or they should) and they go knowing they won’t be treated any different than the men, they in a sense become one of the boys. If they don’t know this or go with the attitude, “they should be treated with special protection”, they don’t belong out there. If all hell brakes loose they need to be able to protect themselves, even if that means their in a group with men leading. They need to know how to contribute to the team, not just stay in the back out of the line of fire and sometimes contributing to the team means taking a bullet.

      • Baladas

        Most people who are bashing him are attacking “strawmen” or points that he never even made, because they either didn’t listen to the interview, or misinterpreted his words. Others are carefully considering his EXACT WORDS and critiquing him based on that. I like to consider myself in the latter category.

  • Baladas

    Mack did not say several women on the scene volunteered to go to the front of the line. He said, “and I talked to other women who told me that they WOULD HAVE GONE to the front of the line, and it was a good idea.”

    The main point is that Mack was strategizing in his mind, and for some reason thought it would be a good idea to stack the front line with women in front of BLM thugs aiming ar-15s from behind their barricade in a choke point.

    Is he so naive that he doesn’t know that the gov has been caught numerous times infiltrating protests to provoke violence? All it takes is one agent to fire a pistol round into the ground at the right moment and EVERYONE IN THE FRONT IS SLAUGHTERED. If he thinks the feds are so ruthless, then why risk untrained women by putting them on the spot and requesting they be guinea pigs?

    Just the suggestion to put women and “daughters” on the spot to make such a decision is why God didn’t let Mack make it there in time to suggest such nonsense. Bundy and the militia commanders allowed everyone to do as they were inspired, and the women that made it up to the front lines did so of their own bravery without peer pressure. Bundy’s son Mel and Cope Reynolds (az militia commander) were careful to keep an eye on those protesters who were out of hand and inciting violence, including Mel threatening one and removing him from the mix. They managed nicely without Mack’s “tactics”.

    • FalconMoose

      “BLM thugs” were mercs.

      • BajaDreamer

        The one with the scraggly beard who was talking to a couple of the cowboys on camera at the fence sure looked like a merc!

        • FalconMoose

          Some posters have him ID’d in Afghanistan.

      • Baladas

        oh, I know, Lt Col Roy Potter reported from the scene that many of them were middle eastern and spoke broken english. Which is why you gather intel on your enemy before using peer pressure on your untrained wife and daughter to stand in front a bunch of known low life foreign mercs for hire with itchy trigger fingers who couldn’t care less who they shoot.

  • MartinJeffries

    I thought Obama wanted women on the front lines since they are making the preparations for women to be on combat ships and in combat in general?

  • FalconMoose

    The work by this FOX reporter is chilling. Great presentation!
    “…answer my question! Are you going to shoot me?”
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/index.html#/v/3469281317001

    • KellyKAFIR

      that was Dennis Michael Lynch and he is an independent film maker and a great patriot

      • FalconMoose

        Thanks patriot.

  • BajaDreamer

    >>”It is important to note for the purpose of clarity that no formation of women and children in the front line actually took place.”<<

    It would have been nice if you'd have said so up front.

    So the good sheriff wanted patriotic Americans to use the disgusting low life tactics of terrorists?! That's real nice right there!
    I've seen comments here about "infiltrators" trying to cause mayhem. Did it occur to anyone that the sheriff may have ulterior motives for trying to get the cowboys, militia, and others to do this?

    The only place I've seen these people called "terrorists" was on an imbecilic website fdor people who don't like the TEA Party. Some of the stuff I saw there was absolutely vile, and the author of the article that led me there was lying through his teeth with what he wrote.

    But think about this for a sec. What better way to make all of those who showed up to support and protect Bundy look like the terrorists that the ultra left wingers want them portrayed as being, than by having them use women and children as human shields! Real men, and especially AMERICAN men just don't do that!!!

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Sheriff Mack might have said so up front but all the yellowstream media did was give a 10-second sound bite, as they always do. What do you expect from these lying weasels?

      • BajaDreamer

        I don’t trust the lamestream media any further than I can spit, and probably not even that far!

        But for him to have even suggested it and then follow it up by saying he “would be the next to die” sounds pretty bad to me.

        • Abe

          I bet I could “Hersey squirt” 10 times farther than I could trust the lame Stream (bought & paid for whores) Media!!

          • BajaDreamer

            Now there was a mental image I just didn’t need.
            Thanks.

    • Bob Loblaw

      What people need to understand is that it’s you family, children and country that they are levying war on. When they assault us they assault us all. It doesn’t really help to protect the women if the protectors get killed anyway and then you have defenseless women and children being rounded up.

      • Baladas

        You need to tailor the response to the situation. Mack made his statements about the ideas he was entertaining AFTER HE KNEW HOW THINGS WORKED OUT. After he knew (or should have known) that the militia had things well in hand and didn’t need to resort to such measures. To keep a drastic and desperate option on the table is one thing. But to suggest it should have been used after you know for a FACT it was not needed, is simply sensational and provocative.

        • Bob Loblaw

          Are you saying Mack suggested this after BLM backed down? It’s my understanding that he was trying to get them to do this as the BLM was preparing to shoot them but I haven’t been seriously following it all as there’s a lot going on there.

          • Baladas

            That is why it is important to listen to the video wherein Ben interviews Mack and here the entire thing in context from his own mouth. Then make an analysis. Otherwise you are liable to take second hand interpretations as facts when you read opinions of others who haven’t done their homework either. This happens all the time on forum discussions like this.

          • Bob Loblaw

            I did listen to the video and he said he didn’t get the suggestion to them until after. At the time, nobody knew if they would fire or not, so I don’t see what the problem is in saying that they should have used that tactic. Simply because it turns out to have been unnecessary doesn’t mean anything as it may be necessary next time (and arguably necessary then for illustrative purposes to show who the BLM is fighting- the people).

          • Baladas

            But he was speaking to Ben after the fact. He was telling Ben about a thought he had on his way there. A ploy. One that he would hopefully not have deemed necessary once he had eyes on the situation. So why, after the situation was handled in an exemplary manner, bring up your extremely controversial idea which frankly was no longer relevant?

            And when Ben asked him about his earlier statements, Mack certainly did his best to use emotionally charged rhetoric to justify his “ploy” that was both unnecessary to use, and useless to even mention to the public after the fact.

          • Bob Loblaw

            He brought it up because it is relevant, and necessary despite your failure to understand why. It’s important to mention after the fact because they should do that any time government cronies come saying they’re going to kill everyone and take your land. Stand united or fall separate.

          • Baladas

            Who is “they” and what should “they do” any time gov. cronies come to take one’s land?

          • Bob Loblaw

            They are WE THE PEOPLE and what they should do is stand together rather than hang separately. They should all stand against the cronies else their families be torn apart. They should stand together else the cronies win and go on to the next target that may be you or your neighbor.

          • Baladas

            Ok. I understand your general thrust, but we were discussing something very specific, and I think you failed to make your argument. The fact that you stand against Fascist totalitarianism is our common ground and in a real time scenario I am sure you would know your capabilities and lead or follow as was appropriate. God bless.

          • Bob Loblaw

            Well I think I made my point pretty well and I’m sorry you fail to see Mack’s suggestion as appropriate any time it’s the feds vs the people like this, but I share the last sentiment and I’m glad we have that common ground. God bless you as well.

          • BajaDreamer

            Don’t tell him he failed in his argument. he doesn’t like to lose and gets real pissy if he does.

          • BajaDreamer

            You’d get better results and more sense out of arguing with a stone post.

          • BajaDreamer

            Who made sheriff Mack the general there?

        • BajaDreamer

          Well said.

      • BajaDreamer

        I completely agree with that, but that is beside the point I was making. I said……

        “What better way to make all of those who showed up to support and protect Bundy look like the terrorists that the ultra left wingers want them portrayed as being, than by having them use women and children as human shields! Real men, and especially AMERICAN men just don’t do that!!!”

        I’d also point out that what you said about what the BLM assaulting law abiding citizens and families has little to do with what the sheriff said at all. This is a despicable tactic in my opinion, a tactic of cowards and terrorists. What the government faced instead was a representation of the American ideal……..the cowboy. They didn’t back down and the BLM blinked.

        Another thing; if we were to use women, (And children), as human shields it would be just the sort of propaganda the government would be able to show to the world to say “See how these people are?”, and that would be all the excuse they’d need to do whatever they wanted.

        The VC in Viet Nam used their kids as soldiers and armed them. That is a little different than hiding behind them. If a woman wants to pick up a weapon and stand, I have no problem with that, because that too is an American ideal!

        If we resort to tactics like the sheriff proposed, we then lose sight of being Americans, and we will be lost.

        • Bob Loblaw

          Using people as human shields is despicable and so is characterizing Mack’s tactic as using women and children as shields.

          He wasn’t suggesting they ‘hide’ behind women and children but that they stand together at the front with the men. If you characterize that as using people for human shields, you lose sight of what it means to be united against tyranny.

          Simply because the media characterizes it as such doesn’t make it that. If you want to confuse standing united with being cowardly then you show you just buy propaganda, and just because they use that propaganda and fools can’t discern the difference, doesn’t change the fact we should all stand together and make them face the people AND the families they want to destroy.

          • BajaDreamer

            Yeah yeah, whatever. He said…….

            “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

            ……which certainly looks to me like they were not just going to be “up at the front”, but out front. I haven’t seen the media characterize it as anything. I said what I did of my own accord, not because some talking head on one of the ever %#&$ing alphabet channels told me to.

            You said: “If you characterize that as using people for human shields, you lose sight of what it means to be united against tyranny.” Neither the sheriff nor I said “people”, the point was about women and possibly children. I know what standing united means. We were never more united as a nation against tyranny than we were in WW II. In WW II women were the ones who stayed home building and supplying the machines and materials of war. They were indispensable in this role. But we never resorted to using women in the fashion suggested by the sheriff, nor have we done so in any other war or conflict we ever fought. I see no reason to do so now either.

            In any case the people who were there did the right thing, the women were never put in harm’s way other than those who chose to be. So any point you or I make now is moot.

            I will say this plainly though. It is my opinion that to do as was suggested takes us down to or below the level of those we would oppose, and it defeats a large portion of a just cause.

          • Bob Loblaw

            This wasn’t a war or conflict it was a protest, and if you think his statement means they are going to hide behind them, you are too busy listening to what it sounds like in your head to think about what he’s saying- that if they’re going to shoot people and break up families and take their rights you shouldn’t let them paint it as the BLM vs old men and you should have the rest of the families up front too..

            When/if they fire on *the people*, and not just the men, then it’s a war and you ought to know damn well that once that first shot is fired a some lady/kid is hurt/killed the men will then step ahead of the rest.

            It is my opinion that your characterizing Mack’s suggestion as ‘using’ people(women and children or not) as shields as Glenn Beck did is despicable and misses the entirety of what he was suggesting, it’s purpose, and reasoning.

            If they come for your land and your husband tells you to come “up front” with him and your neighbors to confront them in defiance, I hope you don’t treat him like he wants to use you as a shield.

          • BajaDreamer

            My “husband”? Oh that’s real cute smartass. My “WIFE” I would rather have behind me loading for me!

            But I’ll tell you something else right up front. The way you’re acting as though your words and opinions are the only ones that matter sounds like the attitude of those who sent the BLM and others to harass and threaten the Bundys, not those who came to protect them.

          • Bob Loblaw

            Ok so if your “WIFE” asked you and the kids to confront them with her would you think she’s asking you to be a human shield or that she wants everybody together?

          • BajaDreamer

            My wife wouldn’t have to ask, and I’d still have her get behind me.

          • Bob Loblaw

            I wouldn’t until they started firing. That said I’d rather they kill us all than just me and force the survivors into submission so maybe I’d still want them with me rather than behind me.

            And you still didn’t answer the question- if she asked you all to stand together would you think she wants the kids and you to be human shields?

            Seems to me that you wouldn’t tell people if you wanted to use them as a shield like that. You wife would just hold the kid up and run behind you if that was her aim.

          • BajaDreamer

            I didn’t answer your question directly because it was silly to begin with. But in fact I did answer it in a way.

            First off, as I already said, my wife wouldn’t have to ask me to stand with her as I said. I’d already be there ahead of her.
            Secondly, that is what my wife would expect of me, to be in front of her and our daughter to protect them as best I could.
            Thirdly, my kid is bigger than my wife and she couldn’t possibly do what you suggest with your asinine comment.
            Fourth, no I would not ask ANYONE to stand in front of me like that!

            By your logic, why not just shoot your wife and kids yourself so they wouldn’t have to suffer if you went down? That’s what they used to do when surrounded by indians.

            And finally, since your hero Mack didn’t even mention any of that until after the fact as has already been pointed out to you, this conversation is getting sillier by the minute.

          • Bob Loblaw

            It’s not silly, and you still haven’t answered in any way- what your wife or you would do is irrelevant to whether you would think your wife wants to hide behind you using you as a human shield if she wanted everyone to stand in front together.

            YES or NO, would you think your wife wants to hide behind you when she asks you to stand with her?

            When Mack mentioned it doesn’t make this silly; what makes it silly is that you are dodging the question and acting as though tactical advice isn’t needed or is inappropriate simply because ONE battle of many to come was won without it. THAT is silly.

          • BajaDreamer

            Now you’re just being a blowhard and an @$$h073.

            The question was answered, you just didn’t like the answer you got because it doesn’t fit what you wanted to hear. My wife would not want or be allowed to be up front in the first place because that is not her job, it’s mine

            You sound more and more like some overbearing punk with an over active imagination and glands. I hope you and Mack have a nice time together.

            This conversation is over.

          • Bob Loblaw

            An answer would be yes or no- if you think you answered it you need help. What you wife would do, or ‘her job’ is has absolutely no relevance to what you would think if she asked you to stand up front with her. I didn’t ask if she’d ask you or want to or be “allowed”.

            You failed to answer the question and lost the debate. Let’s just hope you not as big a failure to your family as you are at answering a simple yes or no question.

          • BajaDreamer

            The only thing I lost here was my mind for arguing with a shitforbrains mouthy asshat like you in the first place.
            But hey, you win. Happy?

            Good! Now piss off.

          • Bob Loblaw

            Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          • BajaDreamer

            UNSUBSCRIBE!!!

            This Bob Loblaw  imbecile is getting on my nerves.

          • Bob Loblaw

            Run away coward. God forbid you recognize when you’re wrong and learn from it.

          • BajaDreamer

            Do you eve realize what you just said and exactly how stupid it sounds?
            You must pity yourself because you’re the biggest and most argumentative fool on this board from what I’ve seen so far!

          • Bob Loblaw

            Right- that sounds stupid to you. Did you learn that on the debate team in high school or something? When they asked a yes or no question, you thought you could dodge the question, walk off and then come back with “you sound stupid” when they call you out? Man you really are a character.

    • KellyKAFIR

      I would not have my children there. Period. But I would stand in the front. I have gone nose to nose with terrorists and won… Was I scared? HELL yeah I was but I did it anyway. This is a brilliant and ruthless tactic and I would do it. You don’t have the stomach for war… stay home dreamer…

      • Abe

        I understand why you wouldn’t have your kids there. The apple doesn’t fall from the tree with me. I’d do what my old man would do, I’d let them rat bastards know they were there, but I’d be between them. I’d say thats why I am, who I am. Semper Fi and Death Before Dishonor type. But then I didn’t have a normal childhood. But then my kin weren’t normal either!! If you know who Capt. Bill Anderson (Bloody Bill) is, you’ll catch my drift. I just wish I was 40 years younger.
        I thank God we still have women like you!!

        • KellyKAFIR

          and thank god we actually have real men like you… I’m soooo tired of the metrosexuals like “dreamer” who is afraid to break a nail.

      • Baladas

        No one doubts your courage and fortitude, but a good leader saves ruthless tactics for the most desperate of situations, which this proved NOT to be. And Mack made those statements AFTER he saw how the whole thing went down and should have been fully briefed as to the superior power of the Bundy supporters.

        The men on the ground were no pansies. They knew they had the upper hand and didn’t need to resort to such drastic measures. And they also knew (if you had listened to the testimony of the militia leaders on the ground like I have) that they discovered provocateurs in their midst, who they immobilized at the scene of the underpass standoff. But they didn’t know how many others there were.

        You have to understand there are elements who want to start a revolution. If the decision was made to place a couple dozen women in the front of the line who approached that fence, this might have been exactly what the spooks were waiting for, and one pistol shot into the ground would have scared the BLM into firing and you would have your ugly civil war. Since the spooks on the scene did not get such a photo op, they may have just held back. The men I know who were on the ground understand this modus operandi is real, and they don’t want to give any fuel to these psychopaths. They managed the situation perfectly by allowing inspiration to guide the day and the few women and young people who were up close naturally gravitated there without peer pressure or crafty design, as it should be.

      • BajaDreamer

        You’ve gone “nose to nose with terrorists” huh? Since women aren’t allowed in front line combat units, where did this take place, hmm?

        The fact is that you don’t know me any more than I know you. Right now all you are is a big mouth with a keyboard. And if you’d have bothered to see anything else I’d posted here, you’d know that I said real men, especially American men, don’t USE women as shields in battle like that! On the other hand if you WANT to be up front you may think that is your business. But you might also consider that you may get men killed who because of their nature think they should protect you over and above themselves!

        Read Baladas’ response to your overblown comments to me. He’s right on the money! Chomp down on that and stomach it lady!

  • Anthony Bouchard

    “It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. WOW!

    • KellyKAFIR

      You apparently don’t have the stomach for war. Stay home. We women will take care of it. And yes, I have been in 2 war zones.

      • Anthony Bouchard

        Not worth commenting…

        • KellyKAFIR

          then why are you opening your c*ck holder?

          • Anthony Bouchard

            You’re a skank mouth huh?

      • BajaDreamer

        Yeah yeah, “nose to nose with terrorists”. We heard you the first time. Regardless, you don’t get the point here at all.

        • KellyKAFIR

          pussy. Time for you breasteeding

      • Mary Martin

        Blood thirsty little creature aren’t you? I’ve never seen sooo many people willing to die for greed. If anybody else were not paying their bills you’d have a problem with them. You should stand in front of all the other ladies. I bet you’re religious too. Go to church on Sunday and convince God that you’re a Christian.

        • KellyKAFIR

          How about you kiss my ass Mary! Not blood thirsty and you can just stay home since you are not woman enough to do what needs to be done. What does religion have to do with anything? You must be a bigotted little creature, aren’t you.

  • dan

    equality is a ‘bitch’ sometimes….women stand proud and concerned just like any man and in some cases more so….as we have seen from Nevada….Semper Fi

  • Abe

    If this is true, it’s a brilliant ploy! My hat is off to the gals too!! You don’t need a dick to be a patriot!!
    God bless the American Woman!!

    • KellyKAFIR

      Amen Abe!! and there are women like me who will do it!

      • Abe

        Shades of Molly Pitcher Kelly!! You got that piss & vinegar I call MOXY!!

        • KellyKAFIR

          What’s funny is that my husband has seen me take on Islamists face to face so he knows I will!

  • HOLYMASSOFHUMANITYBATMAN

    I take issue with the tactic as it is not gentlemanly in the least

    • sputnik1

      I would take exception if the woman were forced. I think all these woman would gladly volunteer, as would I.

      • Mary Martin

        Go ahead, you’re stupid and don’t have anything good to do with your life anyway. Go trhow it away for some greedy moocher.

        • sputnik1

          Sorry you’re a sniveling coward Mary.That’s o.k. we don’t want your type anyways, you’d just tuck tail and run.

  • Daniel Ros

    This is exactly how to deal with thugs!!!!!! This is not cowardly. This is right out of Gene Sharps From Dictatorship to Democracy 3rd ed

  • http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/ Mark Fox

    The police would have gladly shot the women if given the order. They always prey on the weak and defenseless.

    • Mary Martin

      Weak and defensely my ass. Did those men not have gun? When’s the last time you even heard of police shooting a group of defensely women? That guy IS a Thug and a Punk for even thinking about putting women in harms way. Why can’t this loser pay his bills like everyone else.

      • http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/ Mark Fox

        Were you paying attention when they attacked the unarmed 50+ year old woman who was also recovering from cancer?

  • Daniel Ros

    Gentlemanly is not dieing for chivalry. These armed thugs need to know who they are firing on. They are destroying families children mothers women. U put the women in front cause that’s who’s at risk. U don’t put some pusses off adult male who wants to escalate. Women and children are out saviors and they have a power us men do not. Brilliant tactic right out of Gene Sharps From Dictatorship to Democracy 3rd ed

    • KellyKAFIR

      yep

    • Ignatz

      [ These armed thugs need to know who they are firing on.]

      The “armed thugs” didn’t fire on ANYBODY. In fact, they are STILL compromising with a guy who has refused to pay fees for TWENTY YEARS.

      Enough with the “thug” crap. They aren’t even throwing him in jail, and they should.

  • Constitution101

    I as having served honorably for over 30 years in the Army Reserve I affirmed an oath. That oath is alive and active in my disability retirement. I will fight the men to get to the front. And I won’t be defending myself with a sling-shot and some stones.

  • KellyKAFIR

    I would have done it! Brilliant move as long as it is seen as the women do it voluntarily… think of the PR nightmare if they were to shoot at women! I would say that if it did happen, the women need to be backed up by some snipers and good shots! I know that this is abhorrent to the men and may be an affront to their masculinity but Jihadis do it and are very successful at it.

    I am with Constitution101 and served Active Duty for 20 years… She and I and other brave women would stand in the front… My husband is pissed and says no way… We’ll see about that.

    • David Wilson Rowley

      Kelly,
      Your husband just loves you…..give him a break.

  • amommamust

    I was proud of Sheriff Mack for that decision. It has to be the women at the front line.
    In a way, we women screwed this up – we gave birth to, and raised, violent men. If this species is to come into balance, the women must be restored to a place of reverence. We have to earn that respect, and we have to put our lives on the line for it.
    Men will enjoy killing other men, we have sunk that low. If they enjoy killing the women, too, then perhaps it would be best if our species ceased.
    If Mack calls for women to be human shields, I will try to get there. Better than sending my son or grandsons to war.

    • Mario

      Harsh words for a grandma… I say the problem is political, since Obama won’t spend money on the U.S., we find ourselves with an inadequate system, where what the big government says goes. He’d much rather send all the cash overseas and send the boys to get killed to win other countries’ wars. And when I say “Obama”, I mean the big corporations controlling our big government, because everyone knows presidents are script reader bubble heads. Heck! Bush couldn’t even read, they had to show him drawings so he remembered what to say. The only way america will get better is if we sterilize Israel’s lobby.

      • JohnZ

        Almost what I talked about the other day and I was attacked and called a bigot. Many Americans who claim to be so patriotic have no idea and dare not discuss the power of AIPAC and others of its kind. Far too many Americans are living in a vacuum.
        Yes, we need to sterilize that lobby.

  • FalconMoose
  • EndCorruptCorporatocracy

    My guess is that the women “put” themselves on the front line, as this is what bad-ass patriot women would do (versus a bunch of poose domestic terrorist “federal agents” hiding behind cars)!

    • FalconMoose

      I see what you did there! Excellent!

  • sputnik1

    I am a woman and I would have volunteered in a heartbeat. I’ve seen woman that have stepped up to the plate in regards to the marches on Washington, willing to be at the head of the line. Either we are willing to die for our cause or we’re not. I for one am totally willing. There are some things in life worth dying for, my kids are number one and my freedoms are right behind.

    • FalconMoose

      Without liberty we are dead anyway, right, sister?

    • fine1956

      Me too sputnik1. Me too.

    • The OGS

      Thank you so much, all you fine ladies. You’re the best!

  • http://www.realultimatepower.com/ Chucky Arla

    Only one party uses threats of violence to force people to obey. Any women who stood on the front lines of the civilian resistance would have been volunteers. The Feds have kidnapped people to serve in wars, although not women. This is an important difference between the two sides.

  • Robert Zraick

    This is a pretty clear case of citizens vs. government thugs. The government wants to take the guns away from the people so that when the time comes, their thugs will have the only weaponry.

    I understand that we have a tendency in a society to want to protect the women and children and to have men do the battling. While this is deeply rooted, it is a throwback to a different age. In primitive societies, the women were protected because they were necessary to the survival of the species. They bore the children and breast feed them. Two thing the men could not do.

    Then as civilization progressed, the battles were left to the men because they were larger and stronger physically than women, and battles were won by physical strength using heave swords and sheilds in many cases.

    But in today’s world, with today’s weaponry, women can be just as effective as men in the confrontational battles.

    That being said, there are two things these coward thugs working for the government are fearful of. One is armed opposition, and the other is bad publicity.

    Engaged in brutal and unethical behavior, and shown to the world, support for the governments who promote this type of action would dry up.

    The cowards did not leave because they had a change of heart. They did not leave because they suddenly grew a brain, or a sense of ethics, morality or an understanding of right and wrong.

    They left because they did not want to make their masters look bad. Shooting woman does not play all that well in the media.

    So they retreated to regroup. The government propaganda machine is busy vilifying those who are standing up to their tyranny, and they think they can come back at a later time and commit the murder, protected by barring those who would support their victims and stand together against the government tyranny and use of force.support, and keeping the media out.

    The real reason for the no fly zone is to stop aerial photography of their intended crimes. It is the same reason they try the “free speech zones” madness in a country where every square inch is a free speech zone.

    Everything about this entire event is about a blatant disregard for the rights of the individual, and the unbridled use of lethal force by the criminals in government under a false flag of “laws” which are unconstitutional, and entirely self serving to the tyrants.

    They will block the roads so that they can kill fewer people in secret and still accomplish their goals.

    They are counting on controlling the people’s knowledge of what is really happening. They will attack these citizens with lethal force because they want to take from them what is theirs and they want them silenced in the aftermath which they will spin into something justifiable. This is what they always do. Always.

    The only thing that matters is for the people to stand up to the tyranny.
    Sooner or later this will come down to a fight. Personally I ask, if not now, when?

    • Ignatz

      [This is a pretty clear case of citizens vs. government thugs.]

      The “government thugs” haven’t even put him in jail.

  • Ignatz

    The Government has been telling this guy to pay the same fee everybody else pays for TWENTY YEARS now. He has lost every single court case. The Government is completely within their rights to seize his property. And they still DIDN’T They are actually STILL trying to compromise with this lunatic! And the right keeps calling them “thugs” and “tyrants”! When they AREN’T throwing this nut in jail where he belongs!

    • Brian Hawkins

      Governments don’t have rights, people do. Please rethink some of your conclusions with that fact in mind.

      • Ignatz

        [Governments don't have rights, people do.]

        Where did you get THAT shit from?

        • Brian Hawkins

          From the Declaration of Independence, primarily, with the same thread of thought continuing through both the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. As stated in the DoI: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

          Thus, stated quite clearly, people have inalienable rights, and government is formed to secure the rights of we the people.

          Where did you get any other idea?

          • Ignatz

            From the fact that Governments can invade countries and lock people up, and you can’t. Government entities also have the right of speech and press. You might want to play semantics with the concept to make yourself feel better, but that’s all you’re doing.

          • Brian Hawkins

            I could invade countries and lock people up too, but that doesn’t make it a right. Just because governments do certain things doesn’t mean they have a right to do those things.

          • John

            No, you couldn’t.

    • Baladas

      Do you know why Bundy is the last cattle rancher in Clark County Nevada? Because over 50 others paid for their annual permit to the BLM and were forced by the terms and conditions created by the BLM to go out of business. Livestock management, BLM style. Don’t forget to pay your fees to your destroyer IGNATZ. Is that just a funny way of abbreviating Ignorance?

    • The OGS

      For goodness sake Ignatz, stop watching CNN, put down your remote-control and educate yourself.
      His family has been on that land since the 1870s (long before any federal BLM existed) and out of 53 ranchers he is the only one left!
      They don’t want his ‘grazing fees’… they want him gone.
      Because Harry Reid has promised the Chinese they can build a huge solar power farm there…
      The U.S. Constitution is quite clear. The federal government can own no land. Only the ‘seat of government’ (D.C.) and any land with federal facilities upon it (ie. forts, armories etc.)
      It is STATE land. Nevada. And Mr. Bundy has offered to pay fees all along… to the state of Nevada.
      But as mentioned, that’s not what Harry Reid and Beijing really want…

      • Ignatz

        [His family has been on that land since the 1870s]

        He has no evidence beyond his word that he has any right to use the land, and he’s lost EVERY SINGLE court case.

        Maybe he’s full of shit.

        [The U.S. Constitution is quite clear. The federal government can own no land.]

        Tell that to a court. The first Federal Land office was in 1801. Thomas Jefferson was President, Apparently, the courts have missed your private interpretation of the Constitution for 213 years, including the Founding Fathers. They actually own more than 2 billion acres.

        [Because Harry Reid has promised the Chinese they can build a huge solar power farm there...]

        And this is just galloping paranoia.

      • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

        The purported deal between Senator Reid’s son and the Chinese isn’t happening after all. Sorry to disappoint those trying to divert attention to another boogyman.

  • Death to Tyrants

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ36h_TlKSs

    Take a look at the paper targets purchased by DHS for their henchmen to use for practice when they go door to door for gun confiscation. This is no joke, it’s not satire, it’s a cold hard fact that even Ben Swann, the “truth in media” guru, to my knowledge, won’t touch with a ten foot pole. The MSM sure as hell won’t, because they don’t get paid to tell you the truth.

    The solution is simple, legal, non-violent and is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Upwards of 60 million people are already doing it, (most of them are what you people call the dumb sheeple) and I would be willing to bet, that most of you so-called enlighten ones, are still paying this extortion that is destroying America and the world.

    Don’t be a an accomplice to your own destruction – stop giving these criminals your money before it’s too late.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ36h_TlKSs

  • Jester

    Lt Col Roy Potter was there from the time Bundy’s children were attacked and is still there. He was interviewed yesterday and gives his accounting of his observations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnCRqSrV_u0

  • Brad Davis

    BLM guys are cowards yet you hide behind your women, sheriff? Also ruby ridge happened under poppy boosh’s administration

    • shasta

      It’s you who is the coward. Women have just as much at stake. And many wanted to be at the front lines.

      Would the media dramatize women being shot at more than men? Yes, they would. The cowards have shown to shoot down women and children before in this country. If they even remotely attempt it again, it will be these thugs who pay.

      No ones hiding you ignorant troll. This isn’t 1945, maybe you think women should be off doing something else, but that isn’t reality.

      • John

        You are defending people who strategized to put women in the front line to be shot at first in order to maximize the political effect.

        There is no way to defend that statement. It is indefensible.

        • Maria Teresa

          No, it was the women there who VOLUNTEERED, but the organizers did NOT permit them to do so. It never happened. As a woman, I would have been one of those defending the constitution and others who feel the same. I would also be willing to die for liberty, and freedom. Or I can bake cookies in the kitchen, too. I’m capable and willing to do both. Are you?

          • John

            The quotes are there in black and white. Why are you denying this was said?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            yea black and white. The Sheriff was describing a ploy that he’d use in Bundy’s position to gain sympathy in the public eye. No one used it, No one said they wanted to. He said it because it would have deterred people from shooting and if they did shoot would cast them as villanous

          • John

            “No one said they wanted to.”

            You mean other than Richard Mack? Yes, I know why he said it. He said it because he was fine having women shot in order to gain the maximum political effect. He even said he would be the next one in line, what a swell guy! That’s what he said. His wife and daughter get shot first, for political effect. And you are defending him. Why? Why not just say he’s an idiot and doesn’t represent you? You could easily do that, but instead, you defend him.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            He didn’t say he was fine with it either moron

            “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

            “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would have gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

            “But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”

            Deliberately trying to goad the agents into shooting people to instill an emotional response, Yea I have an issue with that. He doesn’t represent me. My personal opinion of his character is separate from the tactical (and bad) advice he gave. He himself said he would be screaming bloody murder if they did start shooting.

            I really doubt anyone wants this to end in a gun fight.

            You are short sighted to think that voicing an unfavorable political ploy makes a person bad, because the long term effects can be enormous

          • John

            You’re right, it was just an unfavorable political ploy. He’s not a bad person. It’s not like he said he would have put his own wife and daughter up front to be shot so he can advance his anti-government agenda. Right?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Separate issues. Willingness to sacrifice one’s own family and self for political ideals is one thing, discussing a ploy for political leverage is another. Clearly he should not be the highest authority in a small town for his views, but in this case it is whatever because he isn’t the highest authority

          • John

            Except they aren’t separate issues as you can see by the quoted material.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            -.- they are separate issues, within the same situation.

            Dense, aren’t you?

          • John

            How do you think these are seperate issues? He says 1. to put the women up front for political gain and 2. he is so committed to this idea that he would be willing to put his wife and daughter up front to be shot. These are not separate issues. Try and think.

            But yes, please, keep on defending him and calling other people dense.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Sigh alright let me walk you through the logic, John.

            Putting women in front of a camera is an emotional tactic to instill emotion. This is done in a number of situations, like after bombings in Iran, putting a face to people in need like those affected by storms that destroyed cities and coastlines, etc. Guess what, it works and it works well unfortunately.

            Being committed to one’s ideals, like willing to sacrifice their wife and daughter, and oneself should they die, is not uncommon. It is selfish and stupid yes, but it is not uncommon for a radical

            You are demonstrating that you don’t know how to put yourself in another person’s shoes, and I can understand if you are incapable of doing so and not being able to think like them. There are probably others like you around the world with such a narrow minded point of view.

            With that said, I am not defending him, because I dislike both of these practices. Calling you dense on the other hand is an observation, that you have demonstrated

          • John

            I don’t think you could walk yourself through your logic.

            “Putting women in front of a camera is an emotional tactic to instill emotion. This is done in a number of situations, like after bombings in Iran, putting a face to people in need like those affected by storms that destroyed cities and coastlines, etc. Guess what, it works and it works well unfortunately.”

            You forgot to include “putting women in front of a camera TO GET SHOT” as an emotional tactic. And no, that is absolutely NOT like what you claim:” like after bombings in Iran, putting a face to people in need like those affected by storms that destroyed cities and coastlines”. The comparison is absolutely wrong and stupid. Comparing those affected by the storm to purposefully putting women at the front line to be shot for political gain? Really? You are comparing those two situations? Hahaha

            And yes, you have been defending him with all of your posts.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            -.- have you seen bodies mutilated by a US bomb? Imagine, if you would, a woman crying over her son or grandson who literally lost his legs within minutes because of a bomb to hit a suspected terrorist. Imagine, if you would, a Woman kneeling nonplussed at a destroyed building where her house once stood.

            Yes I am comparing these to a woman volunteering to stand at the front of a conflict because they work. It is cliched and effective way to gain sympathy. It may not be political gain, but it is to make one the victim, even if there is more to the situation. This is why I dislike this is because it is selectively showing information.

            His personal beliefs for sacrifice are stupid, but I can understand them even when I don’t agree with them.

            That in itself is not defending him, that is trying to educate an idiot like yourself of his position which I understand, but do not agree with.

            Are you done with your lack of thinking?

          • John

            Your entire first paragraph is nonsensical. What does it have to do with this situation? You at least need to making some minimal amount of sense in order for me to respond to you.

            ” that is trying to educate an idiot like yourself of his position which I understand, but do not agree with.”

            Why are you trying to tell me what his position is when he very clearly explains his position with his own words? What exactly have you explained here? I seem to have missed it.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            What do those situations have in common with a woman getting shot? That is instills an emotional response of sympathy and anger in the viewer. Forgive me for assuming that you’d be able to think critically enough to connect those dots.

            I am explaining why propaganda based on emotional images works, and that his position (Regardless of how I feel) pushes for that kind of propaganda because it works.

          • John

            None of those situations involve putting women at the front line to be shot. They are not comparable. Why can’t you understand that?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            This is why I said it is ‘Like’ and not the ‘Same’. Both are exploiting a woman in pain and/or someone’s death. Would it make a better analog if I said the woman was mutilated by the bomb blast or the husband was standing outside the destroyed out with the tattered remains of his wife?

            Do you see the similarities? Your deliberate attempt of non association of instances is 1) aggravating and 2) non productive to a discussion

          • John

            A better analogy would be to say that the people mourning their relatives DECIDED TO PUT THEM IN DANGERS WAY in order to politicize them. That would be a better analogy.

            You seem to always miss the most important part here, that the men are choosing to put the women at the front, so they are shot first, for public effect.

            Non association of instances doesn’t make any sense outside your head. What discussion is there? You started responding to me trying to defend the Sheriff. And this is how far you’ve gotten: NOWHERE.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            -.- Kinda like ignoring an evacuation order for a tornado and a photographer exploiting that pain for propaganda?

            You failed to read the article. One man suggested it, Others of the group shot it down because it was stupid. You equate voicing an idea with committing the idea’s act.

            You happen to think there is no progress in this discussion, but that is from your perspective. From my perspective, there is a slow crawl of teaching a dense person like you the motivation for such an ploy, how it is used already and how it is a separate issue from his character as a person.

          • John

            No, not like that. Did the photographer order the people in there? To die? For political effect? No? Then it wasn’t like that. Again, what does this have to do with Richard Mack’s statements? I know – NOTHING! So why are you bringing it up? I know! To defend his statements.

            Where in this article does it mention “Others of the group shot it down because it was stupid.” Hint: IT DOESN’T. And if it was stupid, why are you still responding to me when you could have said “this man was stupid” from the beginning?

            ” From my perspective, there is a slow crawl of teaching a dense person like you the motivation for such an ploy,”

            Wait, a second ago you said the idea was shot down because it was stupid. Make up your damn mind. What are you teaching me? The man said everything there is to know. I can read his words for myself. There is no motivation in the world that excuses what this man said. But please – keep trying to bring up excuses while saying you aren’t defending him – I promise it doesn’t make you look like a fool.

            “how it is used already and how it is a separate issue from his character as a person.”

            Really? You think that someone who wanted to put his wife and daughter up front to be shot in order for the media to cast the government as evil – that doesn’t speak to his person? What does it speak to if not his person? Does it speak to the cactus? The desert land? Because that sure sounds like you’re defending him. Maybe you don’t realize that you are? Could that be possible? That you are so confused you don’t realize what words you are using and what they mean?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            … ok he never said he’d be the one to take the picture, the news crews would be. That much is obvious. He was planning the Law enforcement officers would be shooting like, I dunno, the People’s park Incident, or the Kent State incident back in the 60s.

            His statement was Stupid, yes, I have said this, but I can understand it. I also can direct you the the 5th paragraph

            ““It was a tactical ploy that I was trying to get them to use.” says Mack. Mack goes on to clarify that the ploy was not adopted and that he was not on the scene during the standoff. He continued by saying that he would risk his own life as well in taking a stand.”
            Second sentence.

            Understanding the motivation for a ploy isn’t agreeing with it or defending it. I am at least attempting to (with some sucess) to understand him, while you make a snap decision and refuse to change with more information

            Again there is a difference between actually doing something and saying to do something. If this idea was adopted, the government would look like ruthless killers, or Bundy’s group would be cast as cowards depending how they decided to break the story. Since the plan is known, they would most likely be cast as cowards now. It speaks of his determination, yes, but it also speaks of what he values. These two things do not, however describe his entire character. So he might be a good person in all other respects, he might be a completely despicable person, but he probably is more along the lines of a good person since he was a sheriff.

          • John

            Please, explain. What are the motivations that you seem to understand which would explain lining women at the front, including his daughter and wife, in order to be the first ones shot.

            You don’t explain those motivations. What motivates someone to put his wife and daughter at the front line to be the first ones shot? And why are you trying to understand a person who said that? What is there to understand when the words are in black and white?

            And yes, they would be cast as cowards, just like you say. So why are you defending them? I still don’t understand. I don’t think you do either.

            ” but it also speaks of what he values.”

            Yes, he values casting the government as evil more than he values his wife and daughter. That is disgusting, yet, you defend him.

            “So he might be a good person in all other respects,”

            Sure, he might, he might not. What information do you have that he is a good person? None I’m sure. What information do we have that he’s a bad person? Well, that’s easy enough. Do you see that you’re trying to defend him?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Because knowledge is power and to defeat your enemy, you must know them better than you know yourself.

            I did explain the motivations. Propaganda to use against the Government as I stated, and to victimize their position as I also stated. I attempt to understand because I want to know what made him this way and how to avoid turning people into him in this aspect.

            They would be cast as cowards, now. ‘Now’ being after the fact since they did not adopt the ploy and it was revealed to the general public. Had it not been revealed, and was used, it would have had a different effect, Manly Polarizing people against the government and achieving martyrdom for those that were killed. This mindset is dangerous and it is actually one of those grey zones of morality in the long term.

            He values his wife and daughter less than himself and himself less than his cause. On the other hand you are like a parrot or a broken record with your repetition of ‘Why you defending him?’ and attempting to make the conversation about me when it isn’t.

            Evidence for him being a good people would be that he was a sheriff, someone who swore to protect the laws. Generally, (unless it was a dishonorable departure) being part of law enforcement is a positive for one’s character.

          • John

            “This mindset is dangerous and it is actually one of those grey zones of morality in the long term.”

            There you go again, defending him. There is no gray zone. Putting your wife and daughter at the front line to be shot for political effect is decidedly evil. There is no gray. But keep defending him.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Incorrect, Evil is subjective. There are no absolutes in this world that we can be sure of.

            To borrow from Obi-Wan “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”

          • John

            Everything is subjective. Saying that means nothing. You aren’t saying anything and you are pretending that you are. You say there are no absolutes, but your posts are filled with absolute statements, how do you justify that fact? Just look at your response. Evil is subjective. That is an absolute statement. Yet you say there are no absolutes.

            Being law enforcement, for example, is a good thing to you. You said it was a positive for one’s character. But if you say evil is subjective, good must also be subjective. So how can you say that law enforcement is a positive for one’s character?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            … its a freaking quote you moron from a fictional character chastising his friend for using ultimatums

            Everything, however is not subjective. Everything is relative. Evil is subjective because it is a concept made by humans, just like Good.

            I said being a part of Law enforcement is a positive for his character because he swore to uphold order and the safety of the public more than his own life. That is generally a selfless and ‘good’ thing to most people. While he is supporting a law breaking rancher, he seems to think it is for a logical reason

          • John

            I didn’t reference your quote, I referenced you saying that evil is subjective. So what are you talking about?

            All speech, words, concepts are made up by humans. You aren’t saying anything at all.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            I don’t recognize Evil and Good as something that can be absolutely defined (A lot of things can’t be Absolutely defined and have a margin for error). For example, take Murder, we as a society think of it as a bad thing and it should be punished. Capital punishment of execution as a punishment is somehow also allowed in some places. Based on cultural, societal, and personal experiences (among other factors), Our individual views of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are made.

            In this case, I can make the assumption that the Sheriff is generally a good person outside of this situation, while in the situation he is being either quite stupid, or not very sly.

          • John

            I’m not looking to define it absolutely.

            You said this: ” That is generally a selfless and ‘good’ thing to most people. ”

            And putting women at the front to be shot is generally an “evil” thing to most people.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Yes that is true. A man who has been a sheriff for however long voices an stupid thought suddenly shifts from ‘Good’ to ‘Evil’? I think not, on the whole

            Are you done nitpicking now?

          • John

            Hahaha. Me? Nitpicking? You are the one trying to go off on tangents saying evil is subjective as a response to me saying putting women at the front to be shot is evil. That is classic nitpicking.

            I never said the Sheriff was evil. I said putting your wife and daughter at the front line to be shot for political effect is evil. Read what I said.

            Just further nitpicking by you.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            You brought the tangent of ‘Good’ vs ‘Evil’. Since I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘evil’ I will continue to call his action by voicing an unpopular thought, as stupid.

            You also said there are no grey zones, Therefore he is either, by your perception, only ‘evil’ because he did one thing by suggesting it, or he is ‘Good’. Since you are so against the act of voicing the thought that is, in your perception, ‘Evil’ it is my assumption that you are calling him ‘Evil’ without knowing the rest of him

          • John

            Maybe you don’t know what a tangent is. This is an example:

            “Incorrect, Evil is subjective. There are no absolutes in this world that we can be sure of.”

            “Evil is subjective because it is a concept made by humans, just like Good.”

            But then you say

            “In this case, I can make the assumption that the Sheriff is generally a good person outside of this situation”

            “That is generally a selfless and ‘good’ thing to most people”

            You say that I can’t use the term evil, but you can use the term good, even though you say it’s made up, just like evil. You seem confused and contradict yourself constantly. Maybe it’s time to give it a rest.

            “You also said there are no grey zones”

            No, I said that in the statement of putting women and children at the front to be shot, there is no grey. Like I have said in the post you just responded to, I am responding to the comments made by him:

            “I never said the Sheriff was evil. I said putting your wife and daughter at the front line to be shot for political effect is evil. Read what I said.”

            Maybe you will read it this time? Probably not.

            If you don’t like evil, what adjective would you use to describe what the guy said. Caring? Loving? Fatherly?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            ‘Good’ with a capital G and ‘Evil’ with a capital E are made up concepts for two sides. good and bad being another way to use good in a sentence

            “In this case, I can make the assumption that the Sheriff is generally a good person outside of this situation”

            in this context I am describing the Sheriff in a good vs bad situation not Good vs Evil situation. good vs bad is not contradictory.

            If you want to bitch about the English language That is a whole other conversation. That is a tangent

            As for grey zones. There is in this case depending on the motivation. In this case it is stupid to suggest the idea.

            I’d describe it as dedicated, stupid, and misguided

          • John

            “f you want to bitch about the English language That is a whole other conversation. ”

            You are the one doing it. You are the one making up rules and going on tangents. There is no such thing as good with a capital G or evil with a capital E. You are literally making stuff up now. You’re saying there is a difference between good and Good? Yea, the difference is that good is only capitalized at the beginning of the sentence. There is absolutely no difference in meaning. You really don’t make much sense, hard as you might try.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            No actually I am not making up rules, these are established ones. Good vs Evil are sides used to justify their position and make their opponents villainous. The difference between Good and good is that Good does terrible things trying to make the world a better place while good is not.

            I suggest reading the Nightwatch series It is a better example of how Good and Evil are not very different from each other.

          • John

            You are truly lost.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Uh huh, sure. I am lost because you can’t (or choose not to) think abstractly or philosophically.

            Food for thought

          • John

            There is no such thing as Good vs Evil. The only times those words are capitalized is at the beginning of a sentence because those are the rules of grammar, which you seem to ignore throughout your posts. Since there is no such thing as “Good” with a capital G, there can not be a difference between Good and good. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. I’m sorry you don’t understand this.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Wow you are even more stupid then I thought. Good and Evil can be used as a nouns as well as an adjectives. When it is capitalized it us being used as a noun.

            The difference as I have already explained is the Good does terrible things

          • John

            If you are going to insult me, at least do so with correct English. It is more stupid THAN I thought. The word “than” is used for comparisons and “then” is used to describe time. Here are some examples. I am smarter than you. I will finish this post and then I will eat some dinner.

            You seem to have a poor understanding of the English language. If you were speaking German, you would capitalize all nouns. But you aren’t, and you are selectively capitalizing whatever words you want to. If your are German, my apologies.

            Here is a resource to better understand capitalization rules in the English language:
            http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

            You haven’t explained anything. You have just said that “Good”, whatever that is, does terrible things. That is a statement, it isn’t an explanation. Either way, I’m not interested in your explanation, so no need to elaborate. Best of luck to you.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            -.- I have a poor understanding of the English language from a typo? Congratulations on being an asshole in conjunction to being an idiot.

            If you took a look at the English language history, you’d be able to tell many of the words are Germanic rooted and structured as Romanic.

            I am capitalizing Good and Evil because they are proper nouns in this context. Example ‘The forces of Evil are at work here’

            Good, perhaps you would better understand it as The Greater Good, while it’s intent is for a positive cause, often does harm with it’s methods. On the other hand, a good person will do positive things whenever possible and minimize or refuse to harm others in any situation.

            However, since you clearly don’t give a shit about what I have to say, and are not open minded to even consider a different point of view, this discussion is over until you are open to another point of view.

          • John

            No, you have a poor understanding of the language because you capitalize words randomly and not in accordance with the rules of the English language. Although I could also point out that when you insulted me, again, you made an error. It should be been “in conjunction with”, not “in conjunction to”.

            Our language being Germanic has absolutely no bearing on our rules of capitalization. See, our grammar and their grammar are different, did you know?

            Good and Evil are not proper nouns in any context. Ever. At all. Period. I am open minded, just not to people making stuff up and claiming it as fact.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            >.> Capitalizing proper nouns is against the English language rules? You are side tracking this discussion from the main point because you don’t have any more arguments to make. Yea you are right, it should be with rather than to, but that doesn’t quite flow right with my speech patterns.

            Hence me saying it was Romanic in structure?

            Good and Evil are sides in a war, albeit a fictional one if you take them from the bible. Both their means are identical in many cases, but with different intents. why else would the phrase ‘He was Evil incarnate’ and others like it where Evil and Good are proper nouns?

          • John

            The main point of the discussion (the reason why I posted) is that the remarks by the Sheriff were monstrous.

            Then you came in and started to respond to me making arguments that what he said wasn’t as big of a deal as I made it out to be. That “he didn’t mean it”. Or that you think women are used for this purpose in other cases. Or that I just don’t get it because I can’t “put myself in his shoes”. All of which are completely irrelevant to the fact that any man who says he is willing to put his wife in daughter at the front line, so that if they are shot he can use it for political gain, is a monster. Bottom line. The end.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Good and Evil are proper nouns, look it up in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.

            I remarked that you clearly didn’t understand the motivation behind making such a ploy. The idea was to make the oath keepers look like martyrs. Stupid yes, Bad yes, but understandably desperate. You consistently take things out of context, proving you jumped to conclusions before you read through clearly.

            My point in trying to understand the motivation is to understand how they are formed and what can be done to prevent such idiocy from occurring again. Something you have expressed that you do not care for.

          • John

            “I remarked that you clearly didn’t understand the motivation behind making such a ploy.”

            The motivation is spelled out in the quote. Understandably desperate? There you go defending him. Enough so to sacrifice your wife and child? No. Absolutely not.

            Why do you call such idiocy “understandable”? Then explain what I took out of context.

            What have you learned in order to “prevent such idiocy from occurring again”?

            ps: bad is not a proper noun, no need to capitalize it. Neither is good or bad. Show me what dictionary you found evil and good as proper nouns.

            Why are you pretending these people are mythical creatures worth hours of study to understand? They are simply anti-government with a mixture of pro gun rights people. There is nothing to study or understand. How to prevent such idiocy? DON’T DEFEND STATEMENTS LIKE THE ONES MADE BY THE EX-SHERIFF. That would be a good start. Because your posts are actually contributing to such idiocy.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            ‘What is the motivation for this quote?’ voice a ploy to make themselves into martyrs. I said this at least twice now.

            ‘Why do you call such idiocy “understandable”?’ because while it is stupid it is logical within the mindset of the one who voiced it. It also makes sense in the broad scope of effects that ploy could have. I have said this three or four times now.

            ‘What have you learned in order to “prevent such idiocy from occurring again”?’ don’t let people think that religion trumps the law for one. Do not let people who are unfit to be responsible with a weapon.

            I am not pretending they are mythical creatures. They do merit study, however, because to defeat an enemy you have to know them. I haven’t defended his statements, I have pointedly said that I don’t agree with them, just that I understand them.

            Did I say bad was a proper noun, ever? Evil and Good are because, if you read the bible or another work of fiction that has a ‘devil’ or some such Evil One is capitalized. Consequently Good is also capitalized when referring to various Gods or supernatural forces that are of the equivalent level that are for positive aspects

          • John

            “Did I say bad was a proper noun, ever? ”

            You said: “Stupid yes, Bad yes, but understandably desperate”

            I assumed you thought Bad was a proper noun, since you have said Good and Evil was.

            Who gives a hoot whether it’s logical in their minds. obviously it is or they would not do it. you don’t offer any valuable information.

            I agree with your conclusions:

            “They do merit study, however, because to defeat an enemy you have to know them. I haven’t defended his statements, I have pointedly said that I don’t agree with them, just that I understand them.”

            Except for the defending. You did defend him and try and tell me what he “meant” by his quotes. The words speak for themselves.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            By that logic anything I capitalize is a proper nouns. Capitalizing in that context was for emphasis, however it could have also been the start of the sentence.

            I am not sure you know what you are implying when you say I was defending his statements. It is almost as if you are trolling because each of my responses haven’t been from the point of view that I know his thoughts, just the intent from my perspective.

          • John

            No. There are rules to what is or isn’t a proper noun. Just capitalizing it doesn’t make it so. Capitalizing the first letter is not recognized as a sign of emphasis. If you capitalized the whole word, you would be right. No, it couldn’t have been the start of the sentence because “Bad” was in the middle of the sentence. Anyway, this is getting silly.

            ” It is almost as if you are trolling because each of my responses haven’t been from the point of view that I know his thoughts, just the intent from my perspective.”

            Yes, it is obvious that you don’t know his thoughts because you are not him. You don’t need to explain that. But trying to explain his intent, from your perspective, is defending him. You are trying to say there are reasons, other than this guy being crazy or stupid, that would explain why he said what he did. I disagree. There are not enough reasons in the world to explain why he said what he did. It was indefensible.

            If the entire point of all of your posts is to say that he had his reasons for doing what he did, this was a massive waste of time. Obviously he thinks he does. People usually act for a reason. I am saying his reasons do not matter as none of them would ever excuse what he expressed in those quotes. Again, what he said was indefensible.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Yes people who harp on other people’s grammar and attacking them for a difference in style of expression with in text is silly while also being unproductive.

            If you think a thought crime is indefensible you remain an idiot. The fact you actually though the group took the suggestion and used it shows you do not care about what they think anyway. Probably thinking of the group in an us vs them situation and anyone who disagrees or remotely attempts to understand the motivation and intent of them is against you.

            The reasons nearly always matter because once the reason for how it happens is found, it can be prevented or changed. You say you are open minded, but you continue to shut down any opposition to your opinion like it is personal or something. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that I agree with him for the ploy. I distinctly said I understand it and I will still disagree with him on it on the grounds that the ploy is dishonest, needlessly harmful, and ultimately pointless for this situation.

          • John

            “Yes people who harp on other people’s grammar and attacking them for a difference in style of expression with in text is silly while also being unproductive.”

            Unless the person, you in this case, is making stuff up rules to the English language as he goes. Like the difference between good and Good. Like me not being able to call the guy evil (not capitalized) but you are able to call him good (not capitalized). You just don’t see you’re a blithering hypocrite.

            “If you think a thought crime is indefensible you remain an idiot. ”

            What is a thought crime? That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I said that his statements were indefensible. I never mentioned anything about the group, whether they took the suggestion, or whether they used it. READ MY WORDS instead of making them up.

            Why are you pretending the motivation of these groups is some kind of mystery? They have been holding press conferences DECLARING their reasons. They have been on TV, in the news, everywhere. Their motivations are no mystery, so what are you going on about?

            You never mention in any of your posts what you think their motivation is, you don’t even try and explore it. Then you criticize me for this. I however am not a blithering idiot like you, like I said, these people EXPLAIN their motivations very clearly. Isn’t that great? We don’t have to guess! Heck, you can read a wikipedia article on Richard Mack and know his motivations. He is anti-government in all ways and spends his time going around the country promoting that agenda. WOW! EARTH SHATTERING MOTIVATION! That was so hard to understand where this guy was coming from.

            ” I distinctly said I understand it”

            What does that mean? You understand the words he said? That he wants to use women, even his wife and child, to be shot for political gain? Well that’s great you understand English. Good job! You should definitely pat yourself on the back for that.

            Alright so let’s recap. You understand the words he said. You don’t agree with it. And…..that’s it? That’s why you’ve been arguing with me? All these posts? To say that?

            There’s no disagreement between us. You are for whatever reason arguing with me over who knows what. We both don’t agree with his plan with different degrees of disagreement. So what is your problem anyway? Are you just lonely and like responding with nonsense?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Good and Evil are not different from each other enough to be called a distinction, they are a replacement for Us and Them to make people feel better or superior without evidence of being so.

            He had a thought he expressed that thought, that doesn’t make him a bad person, that makes him an idiot. Acting like he is on trial for something like you are going is either petty or childish.

            Yea, you did assume the group used the suggestion, because two people have had to point out that the quote was him making the suggestion and that it was shot down.

            There is a difference between what they say their motivations are and what they actually are. I did say what I thought the motivations were along with his intent with the suggestion.

            Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing (you idiot). Understanding, in this context, is following the logic he used to arrive at the idea of using a ploy to maximize political and social outrage. Agreeing, in this context, would be condoning it. So jackanage, do you understand these meaning within context or are you going to continue to be a belligerent jerk?

            I am attempting to correct your misinformation, or perhaps trollish, behavior by addressing it.

          • John

            “Good and Evil are not different from each other enough to be called a distinction, they are a replacement for Us and Them to make people feel better or superior without evidence of being so”

            What does this mean in English?

            “He had a thought he expressed that thought, that doesn’t make him a bad person”

            Yes, I know you don’t think so. You are entitled to think that way. Most people would say that putting your wife and daughter at the front to be shot first would make you a bad person. I don’t know why you need this explained to you in this many ways.

            “Yea, you did assume the group used the suggestion,”

            Great, then you can quote the words I used, right? Go ahead. Show me where I said that.

            “There is a difference between what they say their motivations are and what they actually are. I did say what I thought the motivations were along with his intent with the suggestion.”

            So you’re calling them liars and you’re saying that you know their motivations better than they do? Great! That makes so much sense! Why do I care what you think their motivations are again? And why should I believe you over them?

            Like I said, it is not hard to understand their motivations, because they clearly spell them out, but you can keep patting yourself on the back for “understanding” them. Good job. You understand their motivations. Now what? Are you done? Or will you find some way to drag this conversation on further into irrelevancy?

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            Good and Evil both commit atrocities. One is no better than the other.

            He didn’t put his wife and daughter up front to be shot first. He said he was willing to do so .

            20 days ago “You mean other than Richard Mack? Yes, I know why he said it. He said it because he was fine having women shot in order to gain the maximum political effect. He even said he would be the next one in line, what a swell guy! That’s what he said. His wife and daughter get shot first, for political effect.” I don’t have the message before that, but it was generalizing the entire group before that as this Mack.

            I am calling them dishonest, either from not being honest with themselves or by omission. If you never wanted an answer, don’t ask the question with out answering it yourself.

            Now you completely didn’t address the last sentence in my last post “I am attempting to correct your misinformation, or perhaps trollish, behavior by addressing it.” There are a couple of ways you can end the conversation. One is by not responding, another is by conceding to the points I made (Though that is unlikely), Or to try and irritate me with childish tactics like attacking me. There are probably others, but I don’t really care to provide them. I am sure you’d be able to figure them out

          • John

            “He didn’t put his wife and daughter up front to be shot first. He said he was willing to do so .”

            How many times are you going to say the same thing and pretend like you’re saying something new?

            You did not quote me assuming the group used the suggestion. Read my words.

            “I am calling them dishonest, either from not being honest with themselves or by omission.”

            Who are you calling dishonest? The very people who proclaim what their motivations are? How can you pretend to know their motivations better than they do? This is a joke.

            “If you never wanted an answer, don’t ask the question with out answering it yourself.”

            What does this mean? I spelled out their motivations. They spelled out their motivations. The only person who can’t follow that much is you.

            “Now you completely didn’t address the last sentence in my last post”

            What is there of value to address in there? Did you need me to address it and say something like: You’re an idiot? I didn’t see the point in that.

            “another is by conceding to the points I made”

            Which points have you made? You have made absolutely ZERO points this entire time. Seriously. Name one point you made that hasn’t been obvious from the beginning.

          • Nico Prime Ferrise

            -.- It is not the same thing, it is the difference between talk and action. You continually ignore this difference, so I have to repeat this point.

            Read the last sentence of the previous post in the second paragraph.

            I am calling the people speaking to reporters dishonest, because of several factors. They are not claiming their motivation they are stating their intent, these are separate things (if you understood English, you’d understand the difference)

            “You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical”

            Did you not say this? If you ask a rhetorical question, you generally state it is or answer it to make a point. You haven’t made a point by stating this

            You did not spell out their motivations you described them as people based on their actions. You have repeatedly said you don’t care what they think and yet you claim to know their motivations without actually looking or attempting to understand that motivation.

            Yes it is to be addressed because that is your behavior, willful ignorance, or deliberate aggravation

            Really? Zero points I have made? How about he was attempting to become a martyr through this ploy? How about the point of him not being a bad person even though he voiced an unpopular course of action?

          • John

            ” It is not the same thing, it is the difference between talk and action. You continually ignore this difference, so I have to repeat this point”

            Quote me where I ignored the difference.

            “I am calling the people speaking to reporters dishonest, because of several factors. They are not claiming their motivation they are stating their intent, these are separate things (if you understood English, you’d understand the difference)”

            Except they are claiming their motivation. You are talking about the ex-Sheriff’s intent and confusing that with the many, many participants (including the Sheriff) who have been interviewed on TV, newspapers, and everywhere else imaginable and declared their MOTIVATIONS very clearly. They have entire press conferences declaring their motivations. Yet here you are, still trying to tell me that these people are lying about what their motivations are, and you, you know the truth.

            “Did you not say this? If you ask a rhetorical question, you generally state it is or answer it to make a point. You haven’t made a point by stating this”

            You clearly don’t know what a rhetorical statement is. Another English lesson for you today. I said: ” And why should I believe you over them? You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical.” It’s rhetorical because the answer to my question is I SHOULD NOT believe you over them, why? Because they are the people involved and they know their motivation better than you. See, most people can understand this without having it explained in detail like if I were speaking to a child. You obviously can’t, so you need to be spoken to like a child.

            ” You have repeatedly said you don’t care what they think and yet you claim to know their motivations without actually looking or attempting to understand that motivation.”

            I don’t have to care about what they think to know their motivations. It’s called reading the news. Anti government protesters protest against the government. OH BOY! I WONDER WHAT THEIR MOTIVATION IS! You think it might be to protest against the government? Man, that was tough. I’m glad you spent the past how many posts trying to explain this to me.

            “Yes it is to be addressed because that is your behavior, willful ignorance, or deliberate aggravation”

            It is to be addressed? Hahahaha. Or what? You gonna stop responding? Yea, I obviously think the same about you. I don’t need to waste my time writing it and then asking you to respond because that would be beyond stupid.

            “Really? Zero points I have made? How about he was attempting to become a martyr through this ploy? How about the point of him not being a bad person even though he voiced an unpopular course of action?”

            You actually think you are making a point by saying that someone who wants to be shot for their cause is trying to be a martyr? What’s next? Your point about the sky being blue?

            Oh, so ex-Sheriff Mack isn’t a bad person. Based on what do you make this point?

            Putting your women and children at the front line to be shot is barbaric. Not “unpopular”. Barbaric. But please, keep defending him. And then tell me you’re not defending him.

          • ezekiel22

            Hey John this is in Clark County. The police here have specialized in shooting unarmed citizens. Even when they are in the wrong house! So shooting women would have been no biggie. It would have been justified.

          • John

            Do you support the statements made by Richard Mack?

  • Gary_Centrist

    It is surprising how little discussion involves the actual details of the dispute:

    Does Bundy have a deed to the property? If not, has he paid his fees? How many bills and notices has he received from the government trying to collect back payments? What prompted him to stop paying in 1993?

    And there is no detail about what the people who side with Bundy really want or think either. Should all Federal land be free and open to anyone for any purpose? If not, exactly what rules if any should there be? Where are they going with this protest?

    • JTCoyoté

      The origin of Bundy’s refusal to pay a per cow
      fee which had been paid by him and his ancestors to the state via the
      BLM from 1946 until 1993… here’s what happened in 1994..

      The BLM, a branch of the Dept of Interior for “federal land” management used to be a department within the united States government. From their beginning in 1946they were hired as agents under contract to the state governments. The states got the funds for the grazing and other land use fees they collected, and the management agency was paid by the state out of these collections with the remainder going into the state’s general fund.That’s pretty much how it was until early in his first term when Bill Clinton foisted up an “Excreminitive Orderve” (sic) which placed the BLM under UNESCO.

      In 1994 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12906, “Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: the National Spatial Data
      Infrastructure.”(GAP Analysis)…

      and then to settle the deal…

      Because President G.H.W. Bush did not sign the Convention on Biological
      Diversity by the end of his “papacy”. It was later signed by “Slick Willy” Clinton in 1994… although it was never ratified by Congress… with a stroke of a pen 87% of Nevada and a similat amount of the rest of the western states became federal Enclaves in direct violation of Article I sec.8 clause 17 of the Constitution. The president cannot Amend the Constitution with a “stroke of a pen…kinda cool.”

      The GAP Analysis project is a national program dive-tailed to the
      world wide UNESCO Geo-Data collection project… Clinton was merely
      implementing it in the USA by skirting congress through executive order. And by the signing of the operative Bio-diversity “agreement”… moved half of the country to federal status under the UN… all without Congress.

      Search the exec. order and find the text. Read down to Sec. 3, sub-sec.(e) of EO 12906… you will notice that it is to be funded through and managed by the Department of Interior… Now boys and girls, who, or what is the land management arm of the Dept. of Interior? ….. You guessed it…. the BLM!

      Bundy’s non payment was a protest against the transfer of his grazing fees from the State of Nevada, to the UN…This system is a fraud, and Bundy knows it. And now you do too.

      “Good Job Cliven!”

      JT

      • Gary_Centrist

        So the official status of the land is that it belongs to the federal government and is under the direction of the BLM? If several people think that it actually belongs to Cliven Bundy and the other people who grazed cattle on the land, I wonder why no one has challenged it in court. It seems that might be the proper way to resolve this matter, rather than to assemble people with guns.

        • Brandon Magoon

          When did the state of Nevada sell that land to the Federal government? And what armory, arsenal, base, dock yard or other needful building is on that land?

          • Gary_Centrist

            Like I said, if there is a real case for Bundy and others regarding public land in Nevada, someone should take it to court. Miscellaneous people can SAY that the land belongs to Nevada or to Bundy or to someone else, but only a judge has the authority to rule on it.

          • 7LibertyForAll

            And since our court system is totally corrupt and serves the state only via commercial/administrative law, anything they might say would only serve to further the crimes committed by the government.

          • John

            Except when the court rules in your favor, right? You only reject the rulings you don’t like.

          • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

            He has pleaded his case in the courts, and the judges have not bought his ludicrous claims. 3 federal judges over a 15 year span have ordered Bundy to remove his cows. What I expect is that Bundy will be quietly arrested during some trip to town for contempt of court, for violating several court orders.

          • jimmy corn

            Whether their is q law or not granting federal government control of the land or not is beside the point. Sen. Harry Reid and BLM conspired to get bundy off the land (even his own property) so harry reids son or watever could profit. (That is a fact backed by evidence see stormcloudsgathering vid). But if bundy cant graze on the land, then sen harry reid certainly cant sell off public land because its the federal governments right?

          • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

            The 1864 Nevada State Constitution cedes the public domain to the U.S. Government “Forever”. Also, the “Property Clause” of the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the right to hold and manage Public Land. Bundy argued against these facts in court and lost every time, then defied at least 3 court orders to remove his livestock. The logic some of his supporters are using is absolutely ludicrous.

          • JTCoyoté

            To Hold and Manage Ed… not own… they are public lands… the Enclave Clause of the Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 17 sets the limits of federal land ownership… 90% of the state Nevada as a Fort or Arsenal is a bit much… don’t you think… Ed.

            Being public land, it’s ownership can’t be turned over to the federal government… If the state constitution cedes land ownership to the federal government forever, then the US Constitution… forbids the federal government from accepting it.

            This was the essence of Bundy’s argument, and the reason he sought
            remedy in a state court. instead, it was tried at the federal level…
            this whole can of worms will end up in the supreme court, you can bet.

            JT

          • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

            “Respecting the terrirory or other property belonging to the United States”. I certainly disagree with your interpretation that this is limited to forts, magazines, dock-yards, etc.

          • JTCoyoté

            This is because you fail to distinguish or understand which clause sets the law. Namely; the Article I section 8 Constitutional precedent which states the law and its parameters…

            …from the subsequent clause in Article !V section 3, which merely clarifies beyond doubt the extent to which the first clause allows the enumerated power to extend. It doesn’t work the other way around… which would be like reading a book beginning with the last page and ending with the first…. nothing would make sense.

            Hope this helps

            JT.

          • John

            The federal government doesn’t need an enumerated power to make it constitutional for it to own land. By default, the government has owned land since the founding. It has given land in order for states to form, it has given land to homesteaders under the homestead act, it has been given land by states under equal footing doctrine as well as in the interest of settling state disputes over territories.

            The fact that the Property Clause is where it is makes perfect sense as that is where states rights, state formations, etc are talked about.

          • John

            No, you are incorrect.

            The Property Clause is not restricted to the enclave clause. Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17, US Constitution does not restrict the government from owning land. Who do you think the land belonged to since the founding? The federal government. Further, the land in question was ceded by Mexico after a war to the federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids the government from owning land.

        • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

          Bundy has challenged the official land status in several courts, and he has lost every single time, then refused to obey the resulting court orders to remove his livestock. This is a fact.

        • JTCoyoté

          According to the Constitution, the court of jurisdiction is in the State because the contested land is within the borders of the State of Nevada. which is where Bundy went in the beginning from 3 times and as I understand it, it was kicked up to a federal court, a Reid Court…
          http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=257797.msg1470325#msg1470325
          Now it comes out that in some secret deal the “BLM” land around Bundy’s ranch is now owned by Reid Bunkerville LLC… this thing is going to Blow wide open and the 17 western States are moving to shut the feds out and shut the insider land, water, and mineral rights deals that are going on behind the scenes, down.

          JT

      • Edward Bruce Patrovsky

        The BLM has never been an “Agent” for State governments. It is an agency of the U.S. Government under the Department of the Interior. The rest of this post is nonsense also.

        • JTCoyoté

          Ed, I never said the BLM was a state agency. I explained how it worked before 1994, since the most state lands were not transferred to federal control until al “public” land in the us was placed under the ‘Oversight of UNESCO ..

          You might want to read the post before you trash it…Your critique is flawed and your motive is clear.

          JT

  • Jared French

    It’s hard to imagine that Even the Ben Swann page has more coverage of this detail than that of the backroom handshakes which led up to this drawn-out event. Would like to see Harry Reid’s comment to this article, it would sound something like a shart mobile.

  • Reality Check

    Oh sure, where have we heard this crock before?

    Oh, I remember, it was when Osama Bin Laden used females to shield himself from the Seals that savior Obama sent to slay this evil terrorist.

    Forget the fact that Osama was dead in 2002 from kidney failure according to former Secretary of State, Madelyn Albright.

    Now every member of that Seal team is dead, unceremoniously loaded onto a junk helicopter and sacrificed so they could never tell what really happened.

    • Liberalmann

      Whoa, the tin foil hat is on tight tonight!

      • Maria Teresa

        Typical sheep statement. Whenever a person questions the “official story,” they are insulted. Baaaaaa, Baaaaaahhhh!

  • Liberalmann

    Speaking of the Bundy grazing matter, who issued executive order 12548 to extend federal grazing fee indefinitely?

    Hint: Initials RR.

    • Anisha Dunne

      Thank you for passing that on. For 153 years now, U.S.,inc. has been operating under subjugation by Executive Orders since civil war – the constitution never re-instated. The first one signed by Lincoln when the south left congress sine die, put the nation under war powers. Then in 1933 when a bogus bankruptcy was declared by FDR, we see EO declaring a National Banking Emergency. All Amendments since 1861 and all codes/statutes are DRIVEN by Executive Orders! It is our Duty to end these egregious, unconstitutional, unlawful E.O.s that allow the President to breach all 3 branches of government. THAT IS AND CONTINUES TO BE….TREASON!

  • Lisa Breuer

    STOP IT with this story! No one put women anywhere. From what I can gather, this all started when Mack was misquoted on about Tuesday? Friends of mine were in his presence when he angrily said he was taken out of context. Now this misquote has spun an entire series of articles, all wrongly saying women were put in front, etc. I went down there for a bit (yes I am a domestic terrorist LOL) and everyone was in agreement that this story is a fraud, and needs to stop being spread.

    • John

      Misquoted? He said it on TV, then further defended his statements on radio. There is no misquoting, you can hear him say the words himself. I’m sorry that you don’t like what he said but unfortunately there is no denying that he said it and meant it.

      “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

      “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would have gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

      “But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”

      And you think this is him being misquoted? Really?

      • sammy

        Read your own post, idiot. He said it was a TACTICAL PLOT that he was TRYING to get them to use, not something that actually occurred. This nonsense has been the arguing point for anyone in support of the BLM when it’s nothing more than a misleading assumption.

        • John

          A misleading assumption? Hardly.

          Do you or do you not defend the statements made me Mack? Because here it looks like you are defending him.

        • Jimmy Lin

          The point is sane people would not consider that as a tactical plot.

          Bundy support are not sane people, they are delusional idiots. They are not domestic terrorists because they are too dumb to know why their action do fit the bill perfectly.

  • disqus_oajLzmvtVa

    buddy42 Now just where were these women? Now, who was telling this story ad I do mean S T O R Y? They quoted what part of the story?