Clark County (Vegas) commissioner tells lawful Americans to make funeral plans

Hannity's response to Stewart.
Just for the purposes of equal time.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/0...anch-ta/198984

Keep reading the article, tranny fuckee. Including ALL the reasons listed for grazing fees.

And read the quote above about Bundy NOT recognizing the federal government.

You have been maintaing all along that the federal government was acting "arbitrarily" by "pretending" to protect the torsoise by raising grazing fees. Then you threw in some stupid shit about grazing for 500 years not harming the tortoise - as if you (or the ranchers) really had a clue.

Bundy's non-payment of fees has NOTHING to do with the desert tortoise and EVERYTHING to do with a deadbeat refusing to pay for use of federal lands. If the federal government had NEVER mentioned the tortoise and just cited water resources or foliage protection, this STILL would have happened.

But you and every anti-gummint mouth-breather are claiming the desert tortoise is not endangered (you have NO idea if that is true) and the federal gummint is using that as a "cover" operation (you have NO support for that) for their REAL motive, which is a land grab.

Of course, you cannot explain how the government can grab its own land. So, then you start lying about "perceptions" - because you LOST the discussions about legal claims.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Bundy paid his grazing fees until the BLM refused to take his money, you potato-headed Yankee mick. The BLM refused to take Bundy's money for grazing fees because Bundy wouldn't contract with the BLM to reduce his herd size as the BLM demanded in the name protecting the desert tortoise, you DNA challenged Yankee retard. Nevertheless, the BLM quite willingly allowed Reid and his moneyed, politically connected associates to proceed with plans to permanently destroy -- with bulldozers and other heavy equipment -- the same desert tortoise habitat the BLM CLAIMED it was protecting from cattle that have historically coexisted with the desert tortoise for some 500 years, you moronic Yankee jackass. That has all of the hallmarks of arbitrary enforcement of the law, you dumb-fuck Yankee retard.

you potato-headed Yankee mick Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why don't you explain that one, asshole.

(...and don't forget to use "breechclout" in your explanation ...you don't want to ruin that modern day record you've got going of using obsolete terms ....keep the streak alive ...right dummy?)

Why don't you explain that one, asshole.

(...and don't forget to use "breechclout" in your explanation ...you don't want to ruin that modern day record you've got going of using obsolete terms ....keep the streak alive ...right dummy?) Originally Posted by JCM800

You're all about sniffing the streaks in your shorts, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout.

really, getting con into doing red dirty work?

Hannity's response to Stewart.
Just for the purposes of equal time.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/0...anch-ta/198984 Originally Posted by boardman

My player would not play it so....

Bundy paid his grazing fees until the BLM refused to take his money, you potato-headed Yankee mick. The BLM refused to take Bundy's money for grazing fees because Bundy wouldn't contract with the BLM to reduce his herd size as the BLM demanded in the name protecting the desert tortoise, you DNA challenged Yankee retard. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Tardboy tranny fuckee:

Stop trying to explain the law when you clearly don't know what it is.

Bundy doesn't have the option of refusing to accept the terms and conditions of the BLM contract, but continuing to graze anyway. If you refuse to sign a contract, you don't get to accept the benefits of the deal. That would be like refusing to sign a lease renewal on your apartment (because you don't like the increased rent), but then continuing to live in the apartment without paying the landlord.

And the BLM wouldn't accept payment, because if they did, there is a good chance that a court would construe such an action as acquiescing to Bundy'a demands.

So you either accept the deal in its entirety or your walk away.

And you don't get to questions the motives of the BLM. Bundy's opinion of why the BLM is doing it is irrelevant. Re-read the Salon article.

It lists a BUNCH of reasons why the BLM and Forest service use grazing fees that have nothing to do with tortoises. There is nothing arbitrary about implementing fees.

And the increased fee was trivial. The only reason he owes over $1 million is dues to penalties, late fines and interest.

Was there something that prevented Bundy from relocating part of his heard - other than his desire to free load, that is?

If he couldn't live with the reduced herd size, why didn't he graze the excess cattle somewhere else? If the feds wanted to cut his herd from 1000 to 700, why didn't he graze the other 300 somewhere else?

The answer is OBVIOUS. He would have to pay a grazing fee to the property owner if he moved them to private land.

He figured he had a better shot at free loading on government land.

Nevertheless, the BLM quite willingly allowed Reid and his moneyed, politically connected associates to proceed with plans to permanently destroy -- with bulldozers and other heavy equipment -- the same desert tortoise habitat the BLM CLAIMED it was protecting from cattle that have historically coexisted with the desert tortoise for some 500 years, you moronic Yankee jackass. That has all of the hallmarks of arbitrary enforcement of the law, you dumb-fuck Yankee retard. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Liar. That is horseshit and you know it.

It has already been pointed out numerous times that the plot of land for the NEVER implemented solar plant was about 180 miles away from where Bundy grazed. It was NOT the same habitat, but you are repeating the BIG LIE.

Also, you keep saying that the tortoise and the herds have co-existed peacefully for 500 years, but do you have any proof of that other than your own assertions? For all you know, the cattle have killed off 95% of the toroises over the last 500 years. Provide some links liar.

Also, can you provide ANY link at all to some requirement that the BLM or any other agency must treat ALL habitats equally? You seem to think - inaccurately of course - that if the BLM protects one tortoise habitat, it must protect ALL tortoise habitats. That is horseshit of course. It would be entirely permissible for the BLM or EPA or some other agency to provide one level of protection for a species in one area (e.g., the grazing area used by Bundy) and a different level of protection to the same species in another area (e.g., the solar farm area).

Those are judgment calls that agencies are permitted to make and - contrary to your idiot beliefs - they are not arbitrary.

Hypothetically speaking, the BLM could determine solar panels are not a threat to tortoises because: 1) unlike cattle, they can't walk so they won't step on tortoises; 2) they are confined to a small area and, since they can't walk, they won't kill the vegetation across a wide area where they might roam; 3) they can't consume water; 4) they don't have to be fenced in; and 5) etc. YOU GET THE IDEA.

So, NO, disparate treatment of the Bundy grazing area and the solar farm - 180 miles apart - is NOT evidence that the BLM was being arbitrary in saying they were protecting the tortoise.

Your stupidity not withstanding. If you have proof to the contray, provide a link, IBLying.

This is about ONE thing only and it isn't desert tortoises. Bundy did not want to pay increased grazing fees, whether to the federal government or to a private land owner. He wanted to continue to pay only what he had been paying in the 1980s.

He is a freeloader and has the same thieving mindset that tenants in rent-controlled apartments in NY and elsewhere have. They never want there to be any increases and want OTHER people to pay their freight.

The cries by Bundy and his supporters about alleged government lies regarding the tortoise are a lying distraction. If the government had never mentioned the tortoise, it would have been something else instead - like accusing the goverenment of lying about water shortages because they weren't doing anything to shut down Las Vegas.

He isn't an American hero. He isn't some rugged individual. He isn't even "the little guy" fighting about the "cruel oppressive government" and their black helicopters.

He is a welfare queen who wears a cowboy hat.

Tardboy tranny fuckee:

Stop trying to explain the law when you clearly don't know what it is.

Bundy doesn't have the option of refusing to accept the terms and conditions of the BLM contract, but continuing to graze anyway. If you refuse to sign a contract, you don't get to accept the benefits of the deal. That would be like refusing to sign a lease renewal on your apartment (because you don't like the increased rent), but then continuing to live in the apartment without paying the landlord.

And the BLM wouldn't accept payment, because if they did, there is a good chance that a court would construe such an action as acquiescing to Bundy'a demands.

So you either accept the deal in its entirety or your walk away.

And you don't get to questions the motives of the BLM. Bundy's opinion of why the BLM is doing it is irrelevant. Re-read the Salon article.

It lists a BUNCH of reasons why the BLM and Forest service use grazing fees that have nothing to do with tortoises. There is nothing arbitrary about implementing fees.

And the increased fee was trivial. The only reason he owes over $1 million is dues to penalties, late fines and interest.

Was there something that prevented Bundy from relocating part of his heard - other than his desire to free load, that is?

If he couldn't live with the reduced herd size, why didn't he graze the excess cattle somewhere else? If the feds wanted to cut his herd from 1000 to 700, why didn't he graze the other 300 somewhere else?

The answer is OBVIOUS. He would have to pay a grazing fee to the property owner if he moved them to private land.

He figured he had a better shot at free loading on government land.


Liar. That is horseshit and you know it.

It has already been pointed out numerous times that the plot of land for the NEVER implemented solar plant was about 180 miles away from where Bundy grazed. It was NOT the same habitat, but you are repeating the BIG LIE.

Also, you keep saying that the tortoise and the herds have co-existed peacefully for 500 years, but do you have any proof of that other than your own assertions? For all you know, the cattle have killed off 95% of the toroises over the last 500 years. Provide some links liar.

Also, can you provide ANY link at all to some requirement that the BLM or any other agency must treat ALL habitats equally? You seem to think - inaccurately of course - that if the BLM protects one tortoise habitat, it must protect ALL tortoise habitats. That is horseshit of course. It would be entirely permissible for the BLM or EPA or some other agency to provide one level of protection for a species in one area (e.g., the grazing area used by Bundy) and a different level of protection to the same species in another area (e.g., the solar farm area).

Those are judgment calls that agencies are permitted to make and - contrary to your idiot beliefs - they are not arbitrary.

Hypothetically speaking, the BLM could determine solar panels are not a threat to tortoises because: 1) unlike cattle, they can't walk so they won't step on tortoises; 2) they are confined to a small area and, since they can't walk, they won't kill the vegetation across a wide area where they might roam; 3) they can't consume water; 4) they don't have to be fenced in; and 5) etc. YOU GET THE IDEA.

So, NO, disparate treatment of the Bundy grazing area and the solar farm - 180 miles apart - is NOT evidence that the BLM was being arbitrary in saying they were protecting the tortoise.

Your stupidity not withstanding. If you have proof to the contray, provide a link, IBLying.

This is about ONE thing only and it isn't desert tortoises. Bundy did not want to pay increased grazing fees, whether to the federal government or to a private land owner. He wanted to continue to pay only what he had been paying in the 1980s.

He is a freeloader and has the same thieving mindset that tenants in rent-controlled apartments in NY and elsewhere have. They never want there to be any increases and want OTHER people to pay their freight.

The cries by Bundy and his supporters about alleged government lies regarding the tortoise are a lying distraction. If the government had never mentioned the tortoise, it would have been something else instead - like accusing the goverenment of lying about water shortages because they weren't doing anything to shut down Las Vegas.

He isn't an American hero. He isn't some rugged individual. He isn't even "the little guy" fighting about the "cruel oppressive government" and their black helicopters.

He is a welfare queen who wears a cowboy hat.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your POV about Bundy being wrong doesn't mean the BLM is right, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass: it never equated as such, and it never will.

Further, you moronic Yankee buffoon, the area Reid, et al, was trying to develop was designated a desert tortoise habitat just like the area Bundy's herds are grazing on, and your asinine attempts to claim otherwise are as obviously ignorant as they are wrong. The BLM's picking and choosing to allow Reid and company to destroy the habitat of the desert tortoise while choosing to deny Bundy, and other ranchers, the right to continue using the habitat of the desert tortoise as it has been used for almost 500 years has all of the hallmarks of arbitrary law enforcement, you retarded-fucking Yankee.

Your POV about Bundy being wrong doesn't mean the BLM is right, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass: it never equated as such, and it never will. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ah, but who says the BLM was wrong - about ANYTHING? You?

Further, you moronic Yankee buffoon, the area Reid, et al, was trying to develop was designated a desert tortoise habitat just like the area Bundy's herds are grazing on, and your asinine attempts to claim otherwise are as obviously ignorant as they are wrong. The BLM's picking and choosing to allow Reid and company to destroy the habitat of the desert tortoise while choosing to deny Bundy, and other ranchers, the right to continue using the habitat of the desert tortoise as it has been used for almost 500 years has all of the hallmarks of arbitrary law enforcement, you retarded-fucking Yankee. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Clearly you cannot read and do not know what the term "arbitrary" means when referring to government actions. You just pretend you do.

As I noted above, there is NO requirement that the government treat every habitat equally, since no two are identical and no two threats are the same.

That is why you can go hiking in Yellowstone National Park, but you cannot strip mine there or build a landfill like you can on other federal lands. Now do you get it douchebag?

The bald eagle is an endangered species and cannot be hunted at all. But Grey wolves are also an endangered species, yet they are protected in SOME areas and are hunted in others.

Explain why that "picking and choosing" is "arbitrary" and should be prohibited, pseudo-intellect.

Tardboy tranny fuckee:

Stop trying to explain the law when you clearly don't know what it is.

Bundy doesn't have the option of refusing to accept the terms and conditions of the BLM contract, but continuing to graze anyway. If you refuse to sign a contract, you don't get to accept the benefits of the deal. That would be like refusing to sign a lease renewal on your apartment (because you don't like the increased rent), but then continuing to live in the apartment without paying the landlord.

And the BLM wouldn't accept payment, because if they did, there is a good chance that a court would construe such an action as acquiescing to Bundy'a demands.

So you either accept the deal in its entirety or your walk away.

And you don't get to questions the motives of the BLM. Bundy's opinion of why the BLM is doing it is irrelevant. Re-read the Salon article.

It lists a BUNCH of reasons why the BLM and Forest service use grazing fees that have nothing to do with tortoises. There is nothing arbitrary about implementing fees.

And the increased fee was trivial. The only reason he owes over $1 million is dues to penalties, late fines and interest.

Was there something that prevented Bundy from relocating part of his heard - other than his desire to free load, that is?

If he couldn't live with the reduced herd size, why didn't he graze the excess cattle somewhere else? If the feds wanted to cut his herd from 1000 to 700, why didn't he graze the other 300 somewhere else?

The answer is OBVIOUS. He would have to pay a grazing fee to the property owner if he moved them to private land.

He figured he had a better shot at free loading on government land.


Liar. That is horseshit and you know it.

It has already been pointed out numerous times that the plot of land for the NEVER implemented solar plant was about 180 miles away from where Bundy grazed. It was NOT the same habitat, but you are repeating the BIG LIE.

Also, you keep saying that the tortoise and the herds have co-existed peacefully for 500 years, but do you have any proof of that other than your own assertions? For all you know, the cattle have killed off 95% of the toroises over the last 500 years. Provide some links liar.

Also, can you provide ANY link at all to some requirement that the BLM or any other agency must treat ALL habitats equally? You seem to think - inaccurately of course - that if the BLM protects one tortoise habitat, it must protect ALL tortoise habitats. That is horseshit of course. It would be entirely permissible for the BLM or EPA or some other agency to provide one level of protection for a species in one area (e.g., the grazing area used by Bundy) and a different level of protection to the same species in another area (e.g., the solar farm area).

Those are judgment calls that agencies are permitted to make and - contrary to your idiot beliefs - they are not arbitrary.

Hypothetically speaking, the BLM could determine solar panels are not a threat to tortoises because: 1) unlike cattle, they can't walk so they won't step on tortoises; 2) they are confined to a small area and, since they can't walk, they won't kill the vegetation across a wide area where they might roam; 3) they can't consume water; 4) they don't have to be fenced in; and 5) etc. YOU GET THE IDEA.

So, NO, disparate treatment of the Bundy grazing area and the solar farm - 180 miles apart - is NOT evidence that the BLM was being arbitrary in saying they were protecting the tortoise.

Your stupidity not withstanding. If you have proof to the contray, provide a link, IBLying.

This is about ONE thing only and it isn't desert tortoises. Bundy did not want to pay increased grazing fees, whether to the federal government or to a private land owner. He wanted to continue to pay only what he had been paying in the 1980s.

He is a freeloader and has the same thieving mindset that tenants in rent-controlled apartments in NY and elsewhere have. They never want there to be any increases and want OTHER people to pay their freight.

The cries by Bundy and his supporters about alleged government lies regarding the tortoise are a lying distraction. If the government had never mentioned the tortoise, it would have been something else instead - like accusing the goverenment of lying about water shortages because they weren't doing anything to shut down Las Vegas.

He isn't an American hero. He isn't some rugged individual. He isn't even "the little guy" fighting about the "cruel oppressive government" and their black helicopters.

He is a welfare queen who wears a cowboy hat.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Fuck, if I needed to hire a bulldog you are an unstoppable mo fo!!!
However, accusing him of liking trannies assumes facts not in evidence, so please retract that.
You gotta admit, a "moronic Yankee buffon" is kinda entertaining....

Fuck, if I needed to hire a bulldog you are an unstoppable mo fo!!!
However, accusing him of liking trannies assumes facts not in evidence, so please retract that.
You gotta admit, a "moronic Yankee buffon" is kinda entertaining.... Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

If you saw the now-expired pictures of the providers he reviewed in New Orleans, the facts would most definitely be in evidence.

Fuck, if I needed to hire a bulldog you are an unstoppable mo fo!!!
However, accusing him of liking trannies assumes facts not in evidence, so please retract that.
You gotta admit, a "moronic Yankee buffon" is kinda entertaining.... Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

you first



http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=39223

Ah, but who says the BLM was wrong - about ANYTHING? You? Once again you are wrong, you ignorant Yankee jackass!

"Both Gov. Brian Sandoval and Sen. Dean Heller have condemned the BLS for what they characterize as heavy-handed actions involving Bundy and other Silver State residents.

'I told him very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM,' Heller said."

... oh, and btw, there is Bundy and company to consider. Fucktard!


Clearly you cannot read and do not know what the term "arbitrary" means when referring to government actions. You just pretend you do. For your edification, you ignorant Yankee jackass:

ar•bi•trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
2
a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

As I noted above, there is NO requirement that the government treat every habitat equally, since no two are identical and no two threats are the same. What you are describing is the very definition of being "arbitrary", you dimwitted Yankee fool.

That is why you can go hiking in Yellowstone National Park, but you cannot strip mine there or build a landfill like you can on other federal lands. Now do you get it douchebag? Another of your straw man arguments, you Yankee jackass.

The bald eagle is an endangered species and cannot be hunted at all. But Grey wolves are also an endangered species, yet they are protected in SOME areas and are hunted in others. Even though this is another of your straw man arguments, notice how you distinguished between one area being a preserve and the other not being a preserve, you ignorant Yankee retard. In this case BOTH areas are considered PRESERVES; hence, you once again ignorantly undercut your own fucked-up POV, moron!

Explain why that "picking and choosing" is "arbitrary" and should be prohibited, pseudo-intellect.

ar•bi•trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

When the BLM was approached by Reid's politically connected and moneyed interest group, the BLM conveniently forgot about protecting the habitat for the desert tortoise.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

If you saw the now-expired pictures of the providers he reviewed in New Orleans, the facts would most definitely be in evidence. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're still wrong, you dimwitted Yankee moron, you are obviously suffering from a psychological condition known as "transference":

trans•fer•ence noun \tran(t)s-ˈfər-ən(t)s, ˈtran(t)s-(ˌ)\
: the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object (as a psychoanalyst conducting therapy)

That wasn't your mama's nipple you were sucking on, you moronic Yankee buffoon.

THURSDAY 24TH APRIL, 2014 AT 1 PM AN
IMPORTANT PRESS CONFERENCE IS SET
TO BE HELD AT THE BUNDY RANCH IN NEVADA



ATTORNEY LARRY KLAYMAN, WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE BUNDY FAMILY WILL ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD WHAT FUTURE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THE NOW INFAMOUS BLM STANDOFF AT THE BUNDY RANCH.

All legal options are being explored, and every legal remedy available to the Bundy Family on behalf of the We The American People are on the table. The current issues which must be dealt with through law enforcement and the judicial process are as follows:

1) Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th? Was Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in violation of his oath of office, and did he violate the trust of the people who voted him in office? Did Sheriff Gillespie put lives in danger as a result of his alleged gross negligence and unconstitutional conduct?

2) Was Special Agent In Charge Daniel P. Love grossly negligent or at least negligent in a reckless way during the time leading up to, as well as during the Bundy Ranch standoff April 12th?Did Daniel P. Love inform Sheriff Gillespie that the BLM was going to “stand down”; release the land and cattle which he unconstitutionally seized under the authority of a fraudulently obtained court order? Did Daniel P. Love evade and impede a law enforcement investigation initiated by the local residents of Bunkerville, NV when they had reason to believe that the BLM was allegedly killing cattle and maliciously destroying private property owned by the Bundy Family?

3) Did Daniel P. Love personally benefit from issuing no-bid contracts to Utah cattlemen who were hired by the BLM for the specific purpose of stealing cattle from the Bundy Family?

4) Is the BLM a private corporation, or a government agency? If the BLM is a privately held organization, do they have the power of arrest, or to use deadly force with the use of AR-15’s and other lethal weapons against peaceful American citizens?

5) Can the U.S. government be restrained, or can an injunction obtained prohibiting them from taking any further action against the American people, particularly the Bundy’s, before a complete and thorough investigation is completed?

6) Can a formal legal investigation be conducted to review possible evidence and to hold Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Daniel P. Love legally accountable, as well as, and others who may have committed crimes and violated their oaths of office? If so, can citizens make arrests once indictments have been issued and served?

7) Should Harry Reid and his son Rory be investigated and tried under the Racketeering Influenced and Corruptions Act (RICO)? Are the threats from Harry Reid and his son related to their possible attempts to profit from removing the Bundy’s from the disputed land. Does this rise to the level of Civil RICO liability?

These, and other questions will be addressed by the Bundy Family and their representatives after their private meetings with Larry Klayman and Assembly Woman Michele Fiore on Thursday April 24, 2014. Join us for the presser at the main “checkpoint” (flag poles on Riverside road, 15 freeway to exit 112; make a right and proceed approximately 8 miles just prior to the Virgin River.) Mr. Klayman, Ms. Fiore, and other dignitaries will be making some historic announcements and commentary regarding the Bundy Ranch Crisis.

Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is an American attorney and activist. He is known as the founder and former Chairman of Judicial Watch, a public interest and non-profit law firm, which initiated 18 civil lawsuits against the Clinton Administration, and later a lawsuit against Vice-President Dick Cheney in order to obtain information about the White House’s energy task force.Klayman formed the organization Freedom Watch to “protect civil liberties [and] rights of all persons, whatever their ethnicity, race, religion, sex or otherwise.” He says the name originated from an NBC episode of The West Wing in which he was caricatured as Harry Klaypool.

Klayman wrote the books Fatal Neglect and Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, and writes a weekly column for the conservative news website WorldNetDaily.

During the Ronald Reagan administration, Klayman was a prosecutor in the Justice Department and was on the trial team that succeeded in breaking up the telephone monopoly of AT&T.

Klayman is representing families of members of Navy SEAL Team 6, the elite special forces who killed Osama bin Laden, who died after their helicopter was shot down by the Taliban three months later. Klayman contends the Obama administration put the Navy SEALs at risk by disclosing their identity.

In June 2013, Klayman sued the Obama Administration over the National Security Agency‘s collection of phone records. A federal judge agreed with Klayman that the program is likely unconstitutional, but stayed an injunction that would stop it pending an appeal by the U.S. government.

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore represents Clark County Assembly District 4 (Las Vegas) and is serving her first term. Michele was born in Brooklyn, New York, and has lived in Nevada since 1993. The only child of a single mother, Michele was taught to be fiercely independent and to value hard work.

Michele has over 24 years of business and entrepreneurial experience. She owns a company that deals with healthcare issues, providing care to the sick and elderly. Since 2003, she has created jobs for more than 1,800 Nevadans. As a CEO, she made decisions that impacted policies and procedures, and utilized a solution-focused approach to issues as they arose.

She is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, Michele has been interviewed on a range of subjects involving gun ownership and regulations, including school safety. She asserts that it takes a person, armed and trained, to use a gun to stop a gunman intent on doing harm to the public, and that the crime rate has gone down wherever people have been sufficiently armed to defend themselves. Her position on gun rights aligns with current Supreme Court interpretations, including the intent and purpose of the Founders’ words and writings on the subject.

Michele’s primary areas of interest are children, the elderly and animals.

The following is a message from the Bundy Family April 22, 2014

Today is a beautiful day at the Bundy Ranch here in Bunkerville, Nevada. The birds are singing, the roosters crowing, the cowboys and cowgirls are working hard to feed all the baby calves that have been left behind from their mothers being driven mercilessly by the helicopters etc.

I guess all of us here at the ranch have been deemed by Harry Reid as “Domestic Terrorists”. What exactly does that mean? According to the new Patriot Act:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “”domestic,”” as opposed to international, terrorism.A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “”dangerous to human life”” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Harry , I would like to ask, who had the guns pointing at whom?

We were not carrying weapons, only using our 1st Amendment Right. We were not in the 200ft by 200ft fenced in “1st Amendment Area” they made for us.

Who were the civilians being intimidated?

Dave was only taking a video from his I-Pad standing by the State road side. Thrown down, beaten up and arrested by threat of Attack Dogs, Tasers, and guns.

Margaret was demanding to know why the BLM needed to use a dump truck pulling a trailer with a backhoe to gather cattle? Ammon was hollering at the man who just threw his aunt to the ground and they tased him 3 times, and sent their attack dog after him.

2 young boys were only taking pictures of helicopters pushing the cows and leaving behind the poor little calves who couldn’t keep up with their mothers when they were completely blocked up and surrounded by a dozen or so BLM vehicles. When the family, friends and neighbors ran to the rescue and hollered at them, the men threw back the boys drivers licenses at them and pulled out.

Who was being kidnapped?

Dave was arrested and taken to jail overnight bloody, dirty, and injured. Then taken to a federal court to see a judge but after a few hours of waiting to see the judge suddenly they come into the room, hand him two citations, unchain him and release him through the door into the streets of Las Vegas.

Did this occur in the U.S? Really? Is Nevada not a State of the Republic?

So Harry Reid, are you suggesting that every American who challenges Federal Governments Authority is a Domestic Terrorist?

May God Bless this Nation and all those who have the desire to stand up and take back your country using the US Constitution to restore our individual rights. Your God Given Rights. Please read the “Bill of Rights” and Pray for those who don’t even know them.

Bundy Family Secretary

Media Inquires: Contact Shawna or Ashley at press@gmn.is or newsdesk@gmn.is 828-738-6588

Source: http://patriotsbillboard.org/bundy-r...ediate-release

As I noted above, there is NO requirement that the government treat every habitat equally, since no two are identical and no two threats are the same. What you are describing is the very definition of being "arbitrary", you dimwitted Yankee fool.

That is why you can go hiking in Yellowstone National Park, but you cannot strip mine there or build a landfill like you can on other federal lands. Now do you get it douchebag? Another of your straw man arguments, you Yankee jackass.

The bald eagle is an endangered species and cannot be hunted at all. But Grey wolves are also an endangered species, yet they are protected in SOME areas and are hunted in others. Even though this is another of your straw man arguments, notice how you distinguished between one area being a preserve and the other not being a preserve, you ignorant Yankee retard. In this case BOTH areas are considered PRESERVES; hence, you once again ignorantly undercut your own fucked-up POV, moron!

Explain why that "picking and choosing" is "arbitrary" and should be prohibited, pseudo-intellect.You're still wrong, you dimwitted Yankee moron, you are obviously suffering from a psychological condition known as "transference":

trans•fer•ence noun \tran(t)s-ˈfər-ən(t)s, ˈtran(t)s-(ˌ)\
: the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object (as a psychoanalyst conducting therapy)

That wasn't your mama's nipple you were sucking on, you moronic Yankee buffoon. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent diversity practices for all the different variations of "Yankee" insults!