Are those militia dudes on there way to Nebraska to stand up for the farmers being forced to give up their land for the Keystone Pipeline? They didn't show up in Texas or any of the other places that fought having their land taken away for a pipeline. Guess it's OK if big oil and big business is taking the land.
BREAKING: 200+ Militarized Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada
- Thread starter Lovebears65
- Start date
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
They are getting paid for the land use.
The pipe is buried 4 ft into the ground.
They can still use their land.
What they are fighting is possible oil spills.
Last edited:
Meh... I have power lines over my property where's my "risk" entitlement check?
The ones that got told they didn't have control of their property and their wishes were being over ruled and ignored because big business with help from the government had the right to use their land the way they wanted. Hence, they have been and are being forced to give up their private property rights.
Some of the ones in Texas are Julia Trigg Crawford and Michael Bishop. In Nebraska, Randy Thomson and Ronald Weber.
No I'm not and it's too bad that you don't understand that.
I can see why you would think that. I tried to explain why that isn't so but you missed something in the translation.
It would take a great deal of time and space to make things plain to you because you, like most people have been indoctrinated all your lives with the Politically Correct fare coming out of the media, Hollywood , and promoted in public schools. That is what you are familiar with and mistake the familiarity with some form of immutable truth.
Not true. Jews are traditionally "left wing". I can show you or you can look it up yourself provided you are interested more in the truth than merely conforming to public consensus of opinion.
The "left, right" paradigm is losing it's meaning in the US as far as practical politics.
There is only an illusion of a two party system as far as what gets done. The people in office more or less work for the highest bidder.
A truly principled person like a Ron Paul or a Pat Buchanan doesn't stand a chance in the present system. That's because it is mostly controlled by the wealthy oligarchs, a majority of whom either are Zionist banksters or in bed with them.
Nazi rhetoric fails to support your claim that you're not a Nazi...
There is nothing "Nazi" about what I said if it happens to be true.
You are failing to see the difference.
If a thing is true then it is true regardless of who says it. Therefore a person does not have to be a "Nazi" in order to state the truth just because some aspects of the truth happen to correlate with some things that some people once said who were called by others by that name.
"Nazi" originally was shorthand for National Socialist and was coined by those who intended it to be a derogatory term. Now days it is used as a slur to discredit those who are critical of Jewish/Zionist activities and is used to preempt any discussion or debate which might shed light on those activities or discourage others from mindlessly following the Zionist agenda.
That's what the Socialist/Communist Party said about many of their political enemies and they used that "diagnosis" to send them to "institutions" (gulags) where they would be out of the way and punished for their mental and vocal transgressions against the state.
Psychiatry has been called "the Jewish Science" in honor of one of it's founders in chief, Sigmund Freud.
If you really believe that Jews are not political you are grossly mistaken. This can easily be discovered by anyone with eyes in his head and the willingness to see what is in front of him.
There is an interesting relation between Mormons and Jews. For starters they both recognize Saturday as the day in which they are supposed to worship God. The Mormons use a scripturally unauthorized book as the definitive authority of God. The Jews do also, only not the same one.
It is noteworthy that Sheldon Adelson, one of the US biggest political contributors, a "Jew", and interestingly enough also an owner of some of Las Vegas's prime Casinos, which you appear to know have traditionally been in hands of gangsters happens to be a good bud of Reid!
So it is incorrect to say there is no Jewish connection.
Harry Reid?s Curious Soft Spot for Sheldon Adelson - The Daily Beast
It should go without saying that Jews are never into anything for the money. They are in it mostly because they have strongly held ideologies.
If you are unfamiliar with Judaism, it is at this point that you should take it upon yourself to investigate what Jews believe and whether those beliefs influence their decisions in other areas of their lives.
Then you should ask yourself whether a "Jew" would be more likely to place his Jewish values over any others. If so, then you should learn what those values are and all that they entail.
Now Mr Adelson claims he is a "Republican". Jews are notorious for altering the meanings of terms to suit their own purposes. What is meant now days by "Republican" is really NEO-CON.
The Neo-Cons have usurped the GOP just as they did the Democratic party.
Look up who are the biggest financial contributors to both parties. If you think this money comes with no strings attached then you are a bigger fool than I am.
And you will notice that Harry Reid stated from his own "liberal" mouth, not only his affection for the Casino magnate, but also that Adelson's politics are remarkably similar to his own.
So is Reid soft on "Republicans" or exactly what did he mean by this?
The take home lesson here is nothing new. Politics makes strange bedfellows. What may come as a surprise to you is that often what goes on behind public view is not always announced by the players in question, and for good reason.
There are some things which these folks would rather the public not be privy to.
Their relations and connections may be hidden because to make them known would defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.
There is one face a politician presents to the public and another which is seen only behind closed doors.
The appearance of things do not always betray their true nature. In the affairs of men, this is often deliberately so.
The Jews have used non-Jews many many times in order to carry their agendas. In this way they present a face to the public to represent causes which may be unpopular or which they do not wish to be identified with.
Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve is one. FD Roosevelt and "the New Deal" is another.
Drop what "Nazi shit"? Be specific! I only write what I believe to be true. If someone calling himself by any other name happens to agree or something I say happens to elide with something someone else has said, that is only by coincidence.
Believe it or not, there are many things which many Jews may have said which I would agree with. In fact, there is probably not a man or woman alive with whom I would be in total disagreement on everything , no matter how hostile they were towards me or how much I might dislike them myself. By the same token, it is just as doubtful that there is a many or woman alive with whom I would always totally agree on everything no matter how much I may even love them.
This is simply because no two people are exactly alike. We should all learn to accept that fact and learn to work with it rather than always immediately reacting to every disagreement as though it required that we square off into opposing teams and try to do away with each other.
I have no personal animosity towards "Jews" per say, anymore than I do anyone else in particular.
But I am forced to identify them collectively as the political entity which they themselves represent. Should I include a complete roster of every man, woman, and child among them with whom I "approve" or "disapprove" every time I use the term "Jew" or Jewish to refer to the sum total of them?
That would be a little ridiculous aside from prohibitively cumbersome. To be forced to do so would prohibit making any reference to them at all, now wouldn't it?
And the inability to mention the name they have chosen for themselves would make it impossible to refer to them in a political, religious, or social sense whether it was to criticize or praise now wouldn't it?
You, like so many others, have been conditioned to think that anytime you hear someone speak of the Jewish Lobbies or Judaism in any other context than to talk about how great they are or how they have been oppressed above every other people on earth, he just has to be some disciple of Hitler who is plotting to reinstate the third Reich and send all the Jews to death camps.
This is ridiculous. The only thing that prevents you and others from seeing how ridiculous it is is the years brainwash you've been forced to endure on TV and in movies.
What?!
Where in hell did THAT come from?
I don't think I said a word about Muslims.
This is just another premature conclusion you jumped to which clearly indicates the extent to which you have been indoctrinated.
Who is getting off track now?
Should I go into a discussion on the nature of the Israeli government now just to deflect your accusations? Or would that be required in order to substantiate my contentions about Zionist influence in the US?
In order to answer this question, you need to know more about the varieties of Jews there are. This takes time to learn. But it would help you to understand more about Israel if you understood Judaism itself. The situation in Judaism is similar but not exactly analogous to "Christianity" in that there are many "denominations" of it.
For the time being, suffice it to say that the religion of "Judaism/Zionism" has far more influence over the nation of Israel than "Christianity" does over the US.
Of the two, Israel would be much closer to the definition of a theocracy.
Marxism, you may know, was founded by Karl Marx, whose Father was a Rabbi as I recall. At any rate, he was a Jew. If you look in Jewish literature, you will discover the leftist and Socialist leanings of the Jews as a people and the role they played in the Bolshevik Revolution which led to the establishment of the former Soviet Union.
Nothing of the kind. If anything, I could say that it is YOU who are denying reality, except that I am not sure that you are even aware of many of the things I have been trying to tell you. There is a difference between honest ignorance and willful denial.
You could discover these things yourself if you took the time to study a little about Judaism and delve into their history in Europe and the US.
They claim to be descendants of Abraham in the Old Testament.
Do you believe that?
If not, would it be "anti-Semitic" of you to say so?
They would say you were!
The simple truth is that they would call you "anti-Semitic" for refusing to believe that they are "God's Chosen people". They would call you "anti-Semitic" if you believed that the US should stop sending Israel billions or allowing them to sell US technology and weapons to places like CHINA!
They say that the only reason that Jonathon Pollard is in prison is because he is a Jew!
They would call you "anti-Semitic" for literally HUNDREDS of other reasons, among them :
That Israel is the worst spy on the US
That Israelis deliberately tried to sink the USS Liberty and kill all it's occupants
That Jews occupy an inordinate number of seats on the Supreme Court, in positions of power, lucrative careers, in the Federal Reserve, in the World Bank, the IMF, and Wall Street
That Judaism is a Supremacist religion
That Jews run Hollywood
That Jews have profited from bootlegging and pornography more than anyone
That Jews have led the fight to do away with US restrictions on immigration
That Jews lead the homosexual lobby
That Jews seek to destroy Christian iconography and remove the mention of it from public venues, including symbols of Christmas
That Israel is an apartheid state
That they are in violation of UN mandates
That they are stealing land which does not belong to them
and etc
You ask about Cuba and Korea. Why aren't the Jews running those countries?
I can tell you for certain that they would if they could. They've played a larger role in Mexico and other South American countries than you might think. Many people do not realize that many Jews left Spain during the inquisition and settled in Mexico posing as Catholics. This is called "crypto Judaim' or 'hidden' Judaism. A similar situation within the Catholic Church in Spain had much to do with the Inquisition. The Inquisitors were trying to flush the imposters out by discovering who they were.
Fortunately Jews are not the supermen they purport to be. But if you are unfamiliar with Judaism as you appear to be, you should look up Jewish eschatology.
This refers to the beliefs that Jews share about the end times. In short, the Jews believe that at some time a "Messiah" will come which will establish the Jews as the rulers of the world. They call this "the Mashianic Age". All Jews are instructed to work for it. Unlike Christians, the Jews believe that they can cause this to come about.
I've take a great deal of time and space to introduce you to these subjects because you put the problem to me.
As I explained before, I would not have made any mention about our creeping Socialist Totalitarianism or the Jewish/Zionist role in it if I did not see the conflict Nevada ranchers are embroiled in as being related to a national agenda.
I have attempted to point out that there are far more serious problems this country faces than the few missing tax dollars which Bundy is alleged to owe.
That money is not a pittance of what has been stolen from the US treasury by the Bankster Cabal courtesy of the Federal Reserve.
It should be of greater concern to us that a US Senator is trying to sell US lands to the Communist Chinese and is using the force of the BLM to do so.
The fact that the Mexican army is making frequent incursions into the US to take pot shots at US Boarder Security on behalf of Mexican drug Cartels should bother any US citizen who isn't an avowed Marxist himself.
Last edited:
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I'm not going to address your whole post. While I don't usually redact backquotes, your rambling leaves little other choice.
Left wing like Murray Rothbard? Like Ayn Rand?
Pull away from Stormfront and educate yourself, you look like a fool spewing such idiocy.
Left v. right is more divided than anytime in this nation's history. The parties may not mean much, but if you can't grasp the divide between the capitalist, liberty minded right, and the collectivist authoritarians on the left, you are truly clueless.
Ron Paul points to Murray Rothbard, a JOOOOOO, as the foundation of his political and economic views - you display your ignorance by spewing Nazi shit while claiming to support Paul.
Uh, quotes from "Mein Kampf" are Nazi by nature.
No, you ignorant fool, that is not at all true.
Nazi is an acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the German National Socialist Workers Party. Your little god Hitler was a socialist, a collectivist. Deal with the horror.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
You know nothing about either religion.
You read moronic shit from hate sites and think it's all true.
You are bigot - thus you lack the wits to examine the facts before you.
Your stupid notion of monolithic "JOOOOOOOness" is the stuff of retards, i.e. bigots. I grew up as a Christian kid in a Jewish neighborhood. There was sure the hell no unity. The Orthodox hated the reformed. The conservatives thought the reformed were radicals and the Orthodox were nuts. Even among the conservatives, there were a dozen factions. Jews are no more unified than Protestants are.
Actually, why don't you try learning something legitimate? Turn away from Stormfront and the other Nazi websites and actually learn what Judaism is? You make Archie Bunker look informed.
You should ask yourself if a Christian would.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Okay, but that doesn't show eminent domain or other infringement of peoples land. Opposition to the Keystone XL isn't very similar to the Bundy situation.
What do you mean it doesn't show infringement of peoples land. That is exactly what it shows. In the case of Bundy, his land wasn't being infringed upon. The issue is with public lands that he has had access to and is now being denied. But the land in question was never "his" land. Other than the threat of the loss of his land in a legal battle, no one has told Bundy how he could or couldn't use his land.
In the case of the pipeline, the governments (STATE AND FEDERAL) have stepped in and are demanding these people give up certain control of the land they own. They drew a map where they wanted the pipeline to go and pushed the wishes of the landowners aside.
Bundy and his cause was a scam. The supporters were scammed into fighting for a deadbeat over public lands that the taxpayers are supposed to be paid for. Our employees were abused by people who didn't really give a crap about property rights. They were just using the issue for their own political agenda, even it it did't really fit.
The place to fight over government intervention in property rights is wherever the pipeline wants to go and the people who own the private property object to it infringing on their property. But the people behind the pipeline are the same people who finance the the folks who supported and continue to support Bundy. Tea Party = Big Oil.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
You didn't read your own article. The issue is concern of leakage into the Ogallala aquifer. An easement to run the underground pipes has no impact on anything.
{TransCanada says it will submit a new proposal to the U.S. government next year. The proposed route, the company says, won't go through the Sandhills.}
Seriously dude, you're trying to fit a stapler in a hole made for a marble...
It explains why private property owners don't want the pipeline crossing their lands.
http://landownersagainstthranscanadapipeline.org
Are you seriously trying to make an issue that landowners aren't protesting the pipeline or that they don't have an issue, but Bundy does?
Last edited:
Jews contribute the most money to both Democratic and Republican parties than anyone.
You are the fool if you think that this money comes with no strings attached.
The NEO-CONS do not represent the same interests or principles of the "Paleo-Conservatives. Where do you think those terms come from?
It was Jews who formed the Neo-Con Party.
The Jews have positioned themselves to play both sides of the fence. A Do Do should be able to see the advantage to this.
Socialism
The amount of material available to support the thesis that the Jews over-all have been Socialists and "leftist" is too extensive to post.
I don't associate with Stormfront. The information I have learned about the Jews can be derived from Jewish sources alone.
While it is true that there are still Blue Dog Democrats who believe that the Democratic party hasn't changed since the Civil War and Republican who likewise are ignorant of the parties new management, the fact remains that Jews dominate both parties.
This helps to explain why no matter who gets appointed to the White House, national policies have continued on their present course since Papa Bush 'til now.
Despite the great shuckin' and jivin' show which simulates fierce rivalry, this appearance is created for mass consumption.
While the masses may be sincere in their political ideologies, the decisions of the ruling class are not based upon the will of the people. That is something they have to work around.
I consider Ron Paul to be the closest thing to a man who is what he represents himself to be that I know of on the national stage. While I do not consider myself a Libertarian, I was drawn to him because of his determination to expose the Federal Reserve and his opposition to the unending campaign of war in the mideast and his frank refusal to genuflect before the Zionist political machine.
You saw how they shut him down didn't you, despite his overwhelming popularity in various places? And you saw how the Neo-Cons stuck their Stooge Bush in the White House to take the flack for 9/11?
The last I heard, the two most viable candidates to run for office after the reign of King Yomamma runs it's course will include yet another member of the Bush dynasty and Hillary Clinton.
If you think that either of those "choices" would make a difference as far as pushing the "Project for a Jew American Century" to it's next stage, you are fooling yourself, not me.
If you can find any quotes from Mein Kampf then post them. Otherwise you are making more false allegations. Once people realize that you are deliberately misrepresenting me, then it is YOU who will lose credibility, if they are fair minded at all.
Let's check and see........ "N", "D", "A".
Hmm. Either "NDA" does not equate to "N", "A", "Z", "I" or one of us has his definition of acronym wrong.
But enough with the "Nazi shit", OK? I've answered that charge twice already and you refuse to accept my answer. That's if you even read it at all.
I beg your pardon. I've learned quite a bit about Judaism. I know a great deal more about Christianity though.
There is one thing certain about both: Judaism does NOT equal Christianity.
There is nothing Christian about Judaism other than the false claim by Jews that Christianity owes it's existence to them.
Before I what?
There is an old saying that if you want to destroy the Jews all you have to do is leave them alone.
This may be true but we will never find out because the Jews won't leave us alone.
People are ever making mistakes over the confusion they have when attempting to go from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular. The difference is similar to that between inductive and deductive reasoning.
This perennial dilemma reminds me of the fits that concept of limits give some people in trying to resolve Zeno's paradox.
Basically you are accusing me of making "blanket statements" and then pointing to what appear to be exceptions in an effort to discount the rule.
All the while you are making sweeping generalizations about various people yourselves, so called "liberals" for starters.
It is you who are the one making the argument that "left" and "right" have some real meaning other than the notions which are generally agreed upon in defining them.
You have called me "ignorant" of this and "ignorant" about subjects which I have scarcely commented on. Aside from the little I have, you have nothing else with which to measure with. So you are not in a position to make that determination.
You have accused me over and over of being a "Nazi" without realizing that the Germans didn't apply the term to themselves which shows a little of your own ignorance.
I have nothing to do with Stormfront and I HAVE looked into Judaism more than most people.
So, what do YOU know of it?
I'm not asking you to describe the personal attributes of your childhood pal, Schlomo.
What I am interested in is the main thrust of the prevailing doctrines of Judaism and the effects they may have over mass behavior.
You seem to understand that principle when it comes to Muslims, or "Nazis". I don't see why you should encounter so many problems making the same types of generalizations with regard to Judaism.
Everyone is familiar with cases of people who called themselves "Christian" or by one of it's many derivatives, who proved themselves by their words and deeds to be anything but an adherent to the doctrines of Christ.
Many people falsely conclude that the ability for charlatans and hypocrites to assume serves to disprove the validity of Christ's teachings themselves. Whether they are actually unable to make the distinction clear in their own minds or they are seizing upon any means available to excuse themselves from having to deal with the issue may be known only to God himself.
But it makes no more sense for the Jews or anyone else to make blanket indictments of "Christianity" or "Christiandom" on the whole than it would for me to make similar generalizations about Judaism.
If you are going to demand that I enumerate all possible variations and exceptions to the rule every time I use the term, then I will have to make the same demand of you whether you are referring to "Democrats", "Republicans", "Christians", "liberals", "conservatives", the "left", the "right", or even "Nazis".
That's unless you can give a comprehensive definition for each of those terms which covers all the bases in each and every instance.
Last edited:
Fed's next land fight: New Mexico ranchers angered over water fenced off to cattle - Washington Times
The government hasn't been too keen on fencing out the illegals and drug dealers from Mexico.
It doesn't seem to bother them that drug cartels occupy large portions of Arizona parks .
Eric Holder doesn't want to talk about the guns he sent them in Operation Fast and Furious and has defied Congress request to view records concerning it.
Not to change the subject BUT...
Exactly what does the Dept of Agriculture need with 40 cal submachine guns?!
Meanwhile the Dept of Agriculture now has some need for 40 cal machine guns while Neo-Con talking head Beck warns his audience that anyone getting too rambunctious will be shot.
Do any libs or Zionists out there care to take a crack at this?
All we need is a simple explanation that makes sense. So there's no need to go sounding all conspiratorial on us.
The government hasn't been too keen on fencing out the illegals and drug dealers from Mexico.
It doesn't seem to bother them that drug cartels occupy large portions of Arizona parks .
Eric Holder doesn't want to talk about the guns he sent them in Operation Fast and Furious and has defied Congress request to view records concerning it.
Not to change the subject BUT...
Exactly what does the Dept of Agriculture need with 40 cal submachine guns?!
Meanwhile the Dept of Agriculture now has some need for 40 cal machine guns while Neo-Con talking head Beck warns his audience that anyone getting too rambunctious will be shot.
Do any libs or Zionists out there care to take a crack at this?
All we need is a simple explanation that makes sense. So there's no need to go sounding all conspiratorial on us.
Last edited:
Fed's next land fight: New Mexico ranchers angered over water fenced off to cattle - Washington Times
The government hasn't been too keen on fencing out the illegals and drug dealers from Mexico.
It doesn't seem to bother them that drug cartels occupy large portions of Arizona parks .
Eric Holder doesn't want to talk about the guns he sent them in Operation Fast and Furious and has defied Congress request to view records concerning it.
Not to change the subject BUT...
Exactly what does the Dept of Agriculture need with 40 cal submachine guns?!
Meanwhile the Dept of Agriculture now has some need for 40 cal machine guns while Neo-Con talking head Beck warns his audience that anyone getting too rambunctious will be shot.
Do any libs or Zionists out there care to take a crack at this?
All we need is a simple explanation that makes sense. So there's no need to go sounding all conspiratorial on us.
Clearly the sub machine guns are for shooting cows, I'd be looking for them to also be buying or leasing lots of backhoes so they can
the evidence.Similar threads
New Topics
-
As I think most of you know part of trump's recent screed against the Pope included the accusation he..- Started by berg80
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Zone1 Income inequality can be a a real thing.....
- Latest: The Sage of Main Street
