Quantcast

Judge Napolitano: Ranch Rebellion Was Americans’ “Line in the Sand”

Transquesta 2014/04/14 22:54:07
Yeah, right. Good would it be if it were.

Caveat lector.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Judge Napolitano: Ranch Rebellion Was Americans’ “Line in the Sand”

BLM feds should have been arrested for theft of private property

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 14, 2014

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to denounce the federal government’s operation against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, asserting that BLM agents should have been arrested for seizing his property and that the case represents a “line in the sand” for Americans who have had enough of big government tyranny.

Napolitano said the feds were forced to back down because they had suffered a public relations nightmare, pointing out that Bundy lost his case in a federal court but that the case should have been tried in a state court.

“The federal judiciary should not be deciding what land the federal government owns,” said Napolitano, adding that the feds should have placed a lien against Bundy’s property to collect grazing fees and not conducted a raid backed up by armed agents to seize his private property.

“The government’s option is to take the amount of money he owes them and docket it, that is file the lien on his property….the federal government could have done that, instead they wanted this show of force,” said Napolitano, adding, “They swooped in….with assault rifles aimed and ready and stole this guy’s property, they stole his cattle, they didn’t have the right to do that, that’s theft and they should have been arrested by state officials”.

Napolitano also chastised the BLM’s ludicrous creation of a ‘First Amendment Area’ outside of which free speech was banned. Protesters completely ignored the zone and it was quickly torn down by BLM officials after being widely derided in the media.

“They established something utterly repellant in America, a First Amendment Zone….the square was three miles away from where these events were going – this is the federal government emasculating the First Amendment rights of the protesters,” said the judge.

Napolitano characterized the resistance shown by Bundy supporters as a clear example of how Americans feel, “enough is enough with the federal government, we’re drawing a line in the sand right here – and it drew people from all around the country who basically said ‘quit your heavy handed theft of property and act like you’re a normal litigant and not God almighty’.”

As we reported on Saturday, around 380 cattle were eventually released by BLM agents who then left the scene after a confrontation with hundreds of Bundy supporters who refused to back down despite facing threats that they would be shot dead.

However, the BLM has still vowed to pursue Bundy legally for the $1 million dollar grazing rights fee they claim he owes. Bundy asserts the land in question has been in his family for generations and has said he will only pay the fee to Clark County and not the feds.

Read More: http://www.infowars.com/judge-napolitano-rancher-r...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Dwight PWCM 2014/04/14 23:00:02
    Dwight PWCM
    +6
    Pretty soon the lines will run trough towns, farms, mountains and highways. GovCo never stops trying to expand it's power.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Billy Smith 2014/04/16 23:21:21
    Billy Smith
    +1
    I agree 100%
  • Razoreye001 2014/04/15 17:45:17 (edited)
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Typical anarchists support this tax cheat, anyone who supports or praises Bundy is an anarchist.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/15 18:16:08
    Transquesta
    +1
    Guilty as charged, oh prejudicial one. I'll take anarchy over your precious, murderous, thieving state any day of the week and be damned proud of it.
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/15 18:21:03
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Well you deserve credit for your honesty, not many would openly admit to being an anarchist. You realize that without government there would still be everything you hate about government. The monopoly of power is a part of our nature, getting rid of a democratically elected state will just put that power in the hands of fewer people who are more likely to abuse your rights.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/15 18:35:02 (edited)
    Transquesta
    +1
    Sigh. Here we go again with the same threadbare, anti-freedom rhetoric of statists everywhere: "Without government the sky would fall, flowers wouldn't bloom, dogs and cats would sleep together," etc. yada yada. "Lions and tigers and [anarchists]! Oh, my!" Should the reader now wet him/herself in fear of the dreaded ANARCHY and his band of Mad-Maxian Heinous Anuses? Do you suppose ANARCHY is any kin to TEOTWAWKI? LOLOLOL!

    OK, now that I've had sufficient fun at a state worshiper's expense, to which form of anarchy do you refer; institutional anarchy (in which there is no institution of government); situational or 'cat flap' anarchy (in which government only exists to suit a particular purpose for a set period of time); zonal anarchy (in which government only exists within certain social or geographic limits/bounds); or absolute anarchy?

    Edit: And why would anyone in their right mind be even the slightest bit reticent about "openly admitting" to a desire for universal liberty? Suppose the world and everything on it/in it governed itself according to two simple rules, and that, beyond those rules, anyone could do anything they wanted:

    1) Thou shalt not forcibly impose thyself upon thy neighbor by any means whatsoever.

    2) Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor by any means whatsoever.

    Follow those rules and no other type of government will ever be necessary. Violate them and no amount of government will ever be sufficient.
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/15 19:09:07
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Anarchy is a fantasy, it is never sustainable and always ends when one group comes out on top of all it's rivals. Your two rules are impossible by our own human nature. We were not born angels, the use of force and fraud will always be with us. It's exactly like I said there is always a monopoly of power no matter where you live, what you do, or who you are there will always be a state of existence where there is going to be someone using force or fraud to make you do things you don't want to do. We can however choose how we distribute this monopoly of power. In anarchy this monopoly is ignored so what happens is the monopoly of power is concentrated into the hands of the people with the most guns and resources. In a democracy we can all collectively share in this monopoly of power because we are collectively the government.

    The idea we can all live in a harmonic utopia without the state is sophomoric at best and a foolish delusion at worst. There are a few things that drive us as human beings, our own self interest and our will to power. We all want power and we all are interested in ourselves first and foremost. However if we invent an institution to bring us together and let our collective will to power compete against each other in the form of politics we can do great things. No city was ever built by anarchy, nor has anything ever been invented or discovered by an anarchist. That's because we need the state for those things.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/15 19:40:21
    Transquesta
    +1
    Great (albeit needlessly condescending) apologia. Here's the problem:

    Most goals for which human beings strive in relative vain are 'fantasies.' Like perfection, absolute anarchy is a GOAL for which to strive. Qualitatively, striving for greater human liberty is a far SUPERIOR endeavor than striving for greater levels of 'order' through state oppression. AS I SAID, I'll take anarchism over statism any day. And so, incidentally, would the framers of what once WAS the extremely limited government of the United States.

    One other thing. Please be more accurate in your phraseology. "We" don't need a damned thing. YOU may need the state, but not all of those from whom you've arrogated the right to express themselves do. Do not presume to speak for all persons whom you've lumped under the pronoun "we," IOW. THAT is at the crux of the issue here. There are way too many people on this planet who presume to have/assert the right to tell other, otherwise peaceful human beings how "we" should live. Here are a few basic concepts for you to ponder:

    1) MY life, rights and property are MINE. What I do with them is none of your business unless I'm interfering with YOUR/OTHERS' life, rights and property. It follows, then, that:

    2) YOUR life, rights and property are YOURS. What you do w...

    Great (albeit needlessly condescending) apologia. Here's the problem:

    Most goals for which human beings strive in relative vain are 'fantasies.' Like perfection, absolute anarchy is a GOAL for which to strive. Qualitatively, striving for greater human liberty is a far SUPERIOR endeavor than striving for greater levels of 'order' through state oppression. AS I SAID, I'll take anarchism over statism any day. And so, incidentally, would the framers of what once WAS the extremely limited government of the United States.

    One other thing. Please be more accurate in your phraseology. "We" don't need a damned thing. YOU may need the state, but not all of those from whom you've arrogated the right to express themselves do. Do not presume to speak for all persons whom you've lumped under the pronoun "we," IOW. THAT is at the crux of the issue here. There are way too many people on this planet who presume to have/assert the right to tell other, otherwise peaceful human beings how "we" should live. Here are a few basic concepts for you to ponder:

    1) MY life, rights and property are MINE. What I do with them is none of your business unless I'm interfering with YOUR/OTHERS' life, rights and property. It follows, then, that:

    2) YOUR life, rights and property are YOURS. What you do with them is none of my business unless you're interfering MY/OTHERS' life, rights and property. It follows, then, that:

    3) What WE have no right to take or with which WE have no right to interfere, neither does government.
    (more)
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/15 20:02:04
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Where do you think your rights come from, rights are not inherent in nature because in nature it is always survival of the fittest. Our rights are a social construct created by our government as protection against the worst of our own nature. It's sorta like how Socrates explained it in Plato's Republic " All men fear injustice but, all men wish to do injustice. So in order to protect ourselves from injustice we invented government." Without government to enforce your rights you have no way to guarantee your rights. You can right as many rules as you want about how the world should be but, it doesn't change the fact that it is against human nature not to use force or fraud. We must always have an institution to enforce such rules otherwise they are merely suggestions with no real authority or legitimacy. Limited government is a misnomer, it is better named a pseudocracy or a fake government. A government with no power is only the illusion of government. This is why Ancient Greece fell, they had a weak alliance of city-states that fell apart because of the lack of cohesion holding the entire country together. That's why Rome surpassed Greece as a global superpower of a thousand years.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/15 20:13:10
    Transquesta
    +1
    Where do you think your rights come from,

    Specify. Which rights? Human or civil? Otherwise, read the Declaration of Independence. It summarizes my position fairly well.

    Without government to enforce your rights you have no way to guarantee your rights.

    See, this is why I asked you above to be more specific as to the type of anarchy to which you were referring. As an anarchist (an anarcho-libertarian, actually) I don't dispute that some form of governance is or will always be necessary in human societies. I definitely DO contend that it needn't be of the institutional variety. There is govern--ANCE (something which human being do themselves on a daily basis), and then there is govern-MENT (the institutional proxy). It is to the PROXY or middle man that I object.

    Otherwise I will concede that all rights are contingent on the force necessary to defend or assert them. That's why I seek to limit the power of government.
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/16 00:22:44
    Razoreye001
    +1
    I was talking about total anarchy not that it really matters, anarchy is a slippery slope. Any of the other types you mentioned would become total anarchy over time. Personally I like the idea of a Unitary Social Democracy. The unitary system is better than the federal system because it avoids regionalism and is more efficient at governing. The unitary system is defined as a country governed by by a central government that is the supreme law of the land. There are no competing or conflicting regional government in most countries with this system. In the ones that do have regional governments those governments are limited in power. As for defining Social Democracy, this video below pretty well explains what it is and why it's a good idea.

  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/16 01:49:46
    Transquesta
    +1
    Just for grins I took a look at your primer on 'social democracy.' My opinion? I don't want to hear any more talk from you about fantasies. :-)
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/16 02:13:26
    Razoreye001
    +1
    What didn't you like about the video?
  • LMA Razorey... 2014/04/16 05:09:14
    LMA
    +1
    Nothing wrong necessarily about the idea only it does not work due to human nature where in a government controlled world will then act as venue for those who seek power, In a libertarian democracy their maybe some in equality, but fair is not equal as depicted by John stossle in a way only stossle can a racist bake sale where the price was adjusted based on racial inequity where nearly everyone was understandably offended.

    Whites payed more which they felt was unfair, blacks paid less, which offended them as if they where some how worth less.

    Fair is not equal,

    here is a video which explains Political left and right farther.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • Razorey... LMA 2014/04/16 05:30:05
    Razoreye001
    +1
    It does work out, look how well Denmark, Finland, and Norway are doing. The Nordic Model works, it's been proven a success.
  • LMA Razorey... 2014/04/16 05:47:02
    LMA
    +1
    Not yet it hasn't those countries have problem that will hit like a hurricane, Like practically open borders, taking on swarms of people their economies can not sustain, Not to mention the types of immigrants many Muslims their now and becoming political, lobbing in favor of sharia, Farther more a declining native population as marriage is falling out of fashion, while Islam grows.

    Norway is seeing a rape epidemic, Denmark is trying to get rid of these radicals and they keep running to the EU complaining about human rights violations.

    Not since the days of the viking have any of those countries seen violent crime the way it is now with these immigrants from violent regions of the world started coming in droves.

    There is also a growing right wing in many of those countries including the mysteriously not mentioned Sweden who take this issue of declining native population and immigration seriously.

    That model may collapse.
  • Razorey... LMA 2014/04/16 06:00:24 (edited)
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Sweden as far as I'm concerned has been demoted from a Nordic style social democracy to an ineffective liberal democracy as far as I'm concerned since it's election of a right wing government, that may change if they reverse the course. It will overcome it's difficulties, the myth of Eurabia is completely irrational and actual immigration from the middle east is on a decline.
  • LMA Razorey... 2014/04/16 06:06:05
    LMA
    +1
    And a part of that decline is the fact the the natives are pissed, The political atmosphere is changing back towards a limited government, A recent Italian election had a candidate who ran on the the slogan "I will do nothing, and i will do it well"
  • Transqu... LMA 2014/04/16 06:09:17
    Transquesta
    +1
    Chit, that sounds like my kind of guy!
  • Razorey... LMA 2014/04/16 06:12:51 (edited)
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Well Italy has been the America of Europe since the 60's so that's no surprise. I am hoping things work out for Hollende in France, the Labor Party takes over in the UK, and Denmark and Norway doesn't follow Sweden's example. A lot of this conservative push is due in part to outside free market lobbyists trying to ruin Europe and turn it into what they did to America. What Europe needs is their own Chavez like character (maybe not to the same extreme) to tell the pro-"free" market lobby to take a hike.
  • LMA Razorey... 2014/04/16 06:25:07
    LMA
    +1
    Oh please labor ruined England, Dug them in to debt, destroyed the economy, and put one form or another of government in to the day to day daily lives of nearly all citizens, That is why the conservatives won, who are beginning to pay down some debt, and are building infrastructure, providing jobs, moving away from foreign manufacture, Labor sucks, and the other Nordic states will either go right or follow Sweden, Sweden started the model it is simply farther down the rabbit hole.
  • Transqu... LMA 2014/04/16 06:30:46
    Transquesta
    Precisely. It would seem as if Europeans have VERY short memories. Those toying around with socialism again have completely forgotten how it took Margaret Thatcher and other conservative leaders/PM's decades to pull their respective economies out of the hellish muck of socialism.
  • LMA Transqu... 2014/04/16 06:40:46
    LMA
    +1
    Oh we can go back a little farther then that, toying with Marxist ideas lead to the rise of the soviet union, communist movements in other countries, In the case of Germany opposition to communism led to the rise of national socialism, In Spain they had a civil war leading to fascism, and the rise of Fascism in Italy, all of which are forms of Marxism in one way or another where the government assumes the role of central planner and leader of a collectivist society where decent is not tolerated. All of which collated into the the second world war.
  • Razorey... LMA 2014/04/16 14:03:22
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Actually Thatcher destroyed the economy and Tony Blair saved the country. The only real threat to Social Democracy is that so many other countries are willing to sell out to sweatshop labor in the third world. Producing cheaper goods that hurt businesses at home. The solution is simple, higher tariffs will make those products more expensive allowing domestic companies to compete. This is the secret to Norway's success.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/16 06:00:23 (edited)
    Transquesta
    I didn't not like it. It just wasn't very realistic. Such utopian visions depend on the very thing which you say doesn't exist in Anarchy: the better angels of our nature. Eventually, funds raised through the 'small' sacrifice in personal property rights which everyone must make (cough. . .income redistribution. . .cough) become insufficient to cover the perceived needs of the least of these--which in turn leads to a positive feedback loop and economic/political cannibalism (i.e., socialism).

    And then who gets to decide what constitutes a sufficient or minimum level of 'education' in order to qualify an individual to 'develop' a socially-acceptable opinion? THAT was funny!

    Put simply, "social democracy" is just a pretty (yet completely transparent) euphemism for socialism, and as every student of history understands, socialism is about as vile, un-sustainable and ultimately suicidal an economic/political system as there is.
    .
  • Razorey... Transqu... 2014/04/16 14:05:07
    Razoreye001
    +1
    Actually it doesn't go against human nature the way anarchy does. Because if the rules are written a certain way you can create a system of checks and balances within Social Democracy.
  • Transqu... Razorey... 2014/04/16 19:17:19
    Transquesta
    LOLOLOLOL!

    You believe your fairy tale and I'll believe mine.
  • Feriin Razorey... 2014/04/15 21:16:59
    Feriin
    +1
    Typical moron.

    Thinks that just because someone says you owe them money that you do.
  • LMA 2014/04/15 04:42:08
    LMA
    +1
    can't say we did not see things like this on the horizon, This and just a few week prior the anti-cop protest in NM, The season is just starting, Get ready for more,some people have been predicting 2014 as being a, let's call it, interesting year.
  • Feriin LMA 2014/04/15 21:18:04
    Feriin
    +2
    Don't forget Operation American Spring is coming up too.
  • LMA Feriin 2014/04/16 04:44:44
    LMA
    +1
    that's what i hear
  • Linda7777 2014/04/15 03:47:45
    Linda7777
    +1
    This guy use to live in Sussex NJ and everyone know he's all about the attentions he gets! The Judge well how can I put it nicely. A Hack! In my opinion!
  • Feriin Linda7777 2014/04/15 21:19:04
    Feriin
    +1
    Yeah, one of the few people who actually knows the Law.

    I can see why a liberal would think he is a hack.
  • Linda7777 Feriin 2014/04/15 21:20:08
    Linda7777
    +1
    He know nothing but attention and spot lights! Sorry I like the guy he's just not a good judge.
  • Feriin Linda7777 2014/04/15 21:26:38
    Feriin
    +1
    He does seem to like the attention, this however doesn't make him a bad judge.
  • Transqu... Feriin 2014/04/15 21:30:21 (edited)
    Transquesta
    Exactly! I honestly don't understand this recent infatuation which liberals have seemingly developed for concretistic, 'black-or-white,' 'all-or-none' thinking. Both statements can be true; Napolitano is an excellent judge/constitutional scholar AND he's an attention whore. :-)
  • Linda7777 Feriin 2014/04/15 21:44:45
    Linda7777
    +1
    He was fired for getting it wrong from Fox. He's all about the lime light, Even when he was seen around town he love the cameras. Is not about the news is more about him. But I still like the guy just don't think he's good.
  • Transqu... Linda7777 2014/04/15 21:46:43
    Transquesta
    I've heard few commentators on the Constitution demonstrate his level of understanding/competence, and I've been a student of politics for a LOT of years.
  • Linda7777 Transqu... 2014/04/15 22:00:30
    Linda7777
    +1
    What gets in the way is when he is more focus on the lime lights then the question at hand. But he is a nice guy. I guess to each his own right. :)
  • exhon2009 2014/04/15 02:16:44
    exhon2009
    +2
    Shooting citizens to help Harry Reid's son conclude a land deal with the Chinese was apparently starting to look like bad optics to this government. While they are busy training assault rifles on innocent men and women illegals and drug dealers continue to cross the southern border with impunity.
  • Linda7777 exhon2009 2014/04/15 03:45:50
    Linda7777
    +1
    First of all no one was shot and it was the protesters who bought Guns to the Protest! So did you expect the Fed to show up with Water Pistols? Second Bundy is the poster child for someone who wants the Government to pay the bill he created. Geez all the facts are right in front of you!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/20 22:59:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals