Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bundy Ranch Posts Response to Readers of USA Today
Facebook ^ | April 23, 2014 | Ammon Bundy

Posted on 04/23/2014 11:11:10 AM PDT by ponygirl

Readers of USA TODAY:

Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against...

(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blm; bundy; bundyranch; corruption; government; grazingfees; statesrights
Ammon's post, as well as the comments that follow, pose some interesting questions. The post is public, so you don't need a Facebook account to access it.

If you don't want to go to Facebook, you can view the post at bundyranch.blogspot.com

1 posted on 04/23/2014 11:11:10 AM PDT by ponygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

Secure the border, not the Bundys


2 posted on 04/23/2014 11:13:30 AM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

The federal government breaks the law every day. They don’t pay THEIR taxes in the Western States, which is called PILT. They give us pennies on the dollar and even then they make us beg for it and still don’t pay. Who holds them accountable?


3 posted on 04/23/2014 11:14:50 AM PDT by Hildy (Falling down is how you grow. Staying down is how you die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

Why excerpt Facebook?. Full Text:

Readers of USA TODAY:

Some have asked why didn’t my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800’s they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.

Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.

So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.

Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy


4 posted on 04/23/2014 11:19:45 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

thanks for posting, good to see their explanation.

Also clarifies why they don’t comply with a federal court.


5 posted on 04/23/2014 11:20:07 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
From the comments ...
6 posted on 04/23/2014 11:20:38 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
No such thing as State sovereignty. The communists in Washington have decided no State or Person owns anything. It all belongs to the communists and they will do with anything or anybody what they want. Good by freedom, and they are doing just that. We are now slaves of the communists, made up of both Democrats, Republicans and other parties.
7 posted on 04/23/2014 11:38:12 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land?

Not a good way to put the question, since the land was never state land.

It wasn't state land before the creation of the state, since there was no state. And it wasn't state land after creation of the state, since it never stopped being Federal land.

He needs to find another way of illustrating his point.

8 posted on 04/23/2014 11:44:12 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

A poster commented last week that had Bundy paid the fees, he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.

Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business. That is the real scandal. That is what needs investigating.


9 posted on 04/23/2014 11:44:22 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
Language in the Nevada Constitution has created much misunderstanding:

"That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States …"

This would seem to say that the residents of Nevada were disclaiming all land held by Congress in perpetuity.

Not true. This clause appears in EVERY States' Constitution. Congress needed to ensure that they were delivering clear title to the newly sovereign State. They never followed through, probably because they were busy with the Civil War. And no-one has noticed, until now.

So Congress has a Constitutional duty to dispose of the land they hold to Nevada, a Sovereign State. It wont be easy.
10 posted on 04/23/2014 11:47:30 AM PDT by Duke C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

It is certainly no surprise that a Federal court upholds Federal supremacy.

Sometimes it seems that expanding the scope and power of the Federal government is more important to the Federal courts than any other matter with which they are tasked.

But disobeying an order from such a court, sadly, is asking for big trouble.


11 posted on 04/23/2014 11:48:12 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


12 posted on 04/23/2014 11:57:33 AM PDT by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

I am not clear on the concept of “presumptive right”. Can someone kindly explain what it is an why it is important? Google is not of much help.

Thanks in advance


13 posted on 04/23/2014 12:00:47 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegal aliens, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
It was a territory before becoming a state. Never was federal land.
14 posted on 04/23/2014 12:01:46 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conseravtives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

If the government said he couldn’t use the land 20 years ago, because of a turtle, why would he pay them a grazing fee? Did the government charge him for grazing on land which they forbid him to use?

Mr. Bundy has a deeded right to use the land.


15 posted on 04/23/2014 12:05:08 PM PDT by mom.mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

These same questions, I have raised in earler posts.

I stand with the Bundy’s.


16 posted on 04/23/2014 12:07:26 PM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

It was a Federal Territory.

Of course it was Federal land!


17 posted on 04/23/2014 12:08:08 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

It’s also true that BLM can and does change the terms of the grazing agreements unilaterally, to which the ranchers have the choice of “take it or leave it”. No one could operate a business under those conditions.


18 posted on 04/23/2014 12:17:35 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“...he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.

Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business.”

Bingo


19 posted on 04/23/2014 12:17:43 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

Ping


20 posted on 04/23/2014 12:17:58 PM PDT by fedupjohn (America...Designed by Geniuses...Now inhabited by Idiots..Palin 2016...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; All

I enjoyed reading this article - lean red something from it, actually.

http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/bundys-critics-overlook-west-turf-anywhere-won-first-place/


21 posted on 04/23/2014 12:25:41 PM PDT by jacquej ("It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Duke C.
This clause appears in EVERY States' Constitution.

Would it be possible to demonstrate that without going to too much trouble?

22 posted on 04/23/2014 12:32:04 PM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Duke C.

” forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”

You are missing the ‘unappropriated’ part.

Some of it had been appropriated to ranchers like Bundy. They don’t own it, just the rights to use it for ranching.


23 posted on 04/23/2014 12:32:27 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

So all federal territory is federal land, all federal land is federal territoty?

Puerto Rico and Guam are on the same legal footing as Camp David and Fort Knox? .

Territorys and the people in them can form states to self govern and have rights equal to all other states...

Random federal own land can not form states and do not self govern in any form..its federal private property


24 posted on 04/23/2014 12:34:39 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Territorys and the people in them can form states to self govern — but until they do, it is a Federal territory.


25 posted on 04/23/2014 12:36:43 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

By the way, you’ll notice that Mr. Bundy says that his family has “claims” to the land — but he does not say that they ever claimed to own it.


26 posted on 04/23/2014 12:38:00 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
I am not clear on the concept of “presumptive right”.

It's preemptive Right:
4. Having or marked by the power to preempt or take precedence

----

It was a Right to public grazing that homesteaders received as an incentive to settle the West. Acknowledgment of these Rights can be found in the Library of Congress during the discussion concerning the selling of land for the railroad.

(Sorry for the cut & paste - the Library disables active links)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=040/llsb040.db&recNum=818
40th Congress, 2nd Session, S190, December 13, 1867 (page3, Line12)
Provided, this privilege shall not extend to lands upon which there many be rightful claims under the preemption and homestead laws

These Rights preempt, (or prevent) any government law or organization from affecting the use of the public land as long as the landholder meets his end of the bargain.

27 posted on 04/23/2014 12:38:21 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
"Its also true that the BLM can and does change the terms of the grazing agreements"

Actually Congress does that, and the agency administers.

Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the Grazing Division to administer it. They weren't very successful so they changed the name to US Grazing Service and relocated to Salt Lake City.

Then the US Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office to create BLM.

Then Congress passed FPLMA in 1976 and BLM's mission was changed to Multi-use and tightening control over the lands. The Land Office duties were shifted elsewhere. Homesteading ended at that time.

Congress enacted numerous acts back in the 70s to deal with problems beside over-grazing: OSHA, MHSA, Endangered Species act, Pollution control acts and creating EPA, Logging policies to deal with clearcutting, the Magnussen Act to regulate the ocean fisheries.

28 posted on 04/23/2014 12:39:35 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Did congress also authorize BLM to militarize themselves?


29 posted on 04/23/2014 12:54:18 PM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; All
A poster commented last week that had Bundy paid the fees, he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business. Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business. That is the real scandal. That is what needs investigating.

The pretense of "environmental protection" via Federal authority has created a situation where the government is driving all manner of American producers of food and energy out of business by making them outlaws for doing what humankind has done for the past 5,000 years or more.

The same is happening on both coasts with American commercial fishing. Feds "protect" voracious sea mammals such as seals, otters, sea lions, and other critters. Before said protection, these smart animals learned pretty fast not to mess with fishermen and kept their distance; the critters and West Coast fishermen pretty much co-existed. Once the Feds got involved, the critter populations exploded by about quadruple and ATE FISH, not to mention clambered anywhere they pleased and sunk docks and half-sunk sailboats at anchor in the process, and are still doing so.

But gullible Americans have been bamboozled into blaming American fishermen for "depleting" the fish stocks. Meanwhile, in exactly the same fashion as the Feds clamp python-like with ever tightening "environmental protections," food producers from cattlemen to fishermen are CRIMINALIZED.

Desert turtles and fish have adapted to a lot more intense environmental change over the past hundred million years than anything man can throw at them in the course a few decades or even centuries. But the Federal government has decided that individuals no longer have the right to decide to fish the seas or harvest crops or run livestock on open land, as mankind has done for millennia. The root of tyranny lies in preventing free people from producing their own food and energy.

That's what this is about, and environmentalist "saving the planet" horse manure is its false benevolent pretense.

30 posted on 04/23/2014 12:57:49 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker

The best way I’ve heard it described is as a legally binding easement. My folks have an legal easement for the land the road to their property is on. The actual land owner can never take their right to that road away, not can any subsequent land owner. It seems some of the early agreements to graze land were like legal grazing rights easements.


31 posted on 04/23/2014 1:01:01 PM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

I say put those 250 BLM guys with their tactical gear on the border and let them get some combat experience facing down the drug cartels.


32 posted on 04/23/2014 1:03:03 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I don’t know if it is exactly like homesteading. The land we own was homesteaded, the first entry on the deed is US Government to [homesteader].

I think grazing rights are more like a legal easement, the right to use the land for grazing purposes. The people that held preemptive rights or grazing rights never got a actual deed to the land. If they had got the actual deed like homesteaders did, Bundy’s wouldn’t be having the problems they are having now.


33 posted on 04/23/2014 1:05:32 PM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Karl Spooner
I'm sure they appropriated the money.

That's just one of the things you will have had to live with as more and more people have owned guns. Just like you are going to have to live with school shootings and SWAT teams in every local podunk PD and Sheriffs' office.

That's our culture.

34 posted on 04/23/2014 1:06:01 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States.

Ammon Bundy is a very humble low key man. When he says 'survival' I'm sure that isn't even the half of it. I wonder how many people can appreciate just how difficult it must have been to stay alive much less build a profitable cattle business in that scorching hot nearly barren desert?

Yes, they built that! Not the BLM, FedMob government or even the state of Nevada. The FedMob can't even manage to raise Desert Tortoises in their native habitat. They made a refuge, fenced everything else out, gave the tortoises supplemental feed and still have a tortoise herd so sickly they have to kill half of them.

35 posted on 04/23/2014 1:13:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

It’s easier to go after law abiding Americans than to secure our borders from non-law abiding illegal law breakers.


36 posted on 04/23/2014 1:29:59 PM PDT by tillacum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

HA!!!


37 posted on 04/23/2014 1:37:43 PM PDT by 12th_Monkey (One man one vote is a big fail, when the "one" man is an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Yes and therefore a territory is not federal private property..so are you saying 80+% of the land is Nevada is Federal private property? ..that it was bought from Mexico to be Federal private property? ..how is it different then the Louisiana Purchase? or Florida?...why is it other States and there citizens given the land inside their territory but not Nevada and its citizens

The states and its citizens are to be equal to other states and its citizens so why did some states get the majority of the land in them and other did not?

Two federal land purchases, one from France the other from Mexico..

A State form in each, Nebraska and Nevada.

One State and it citizen own 80 + % of it self and one is 80+% owned by the Fed..why?

How can you say the two states and there citizens were treated equal by the Federal

The land is not private Federal property. .it is land held is common by all US citizens for the benefit of US citizens

...the key is common ownership not private government ownership..

Common ownership and common right to public grazing land and water is a long understood concept...many a public place in older big cities began as common public grazing land...the Commons in Boston for one.

The common citizens had a common RIGHT to its use for its intended use.

But more, in these Federal territory once they became States there was a promise for common federal land in the territory to covert to common State and County ownership not the other way and convert to private Federal land..BLM is treating this as if it were 100% Federal private property...

38 posted on 04/23/2014 1:50:26 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Not sure what you mean by “Federal private property”, but the question is who holds title, and how it is held.

If the Bundys or their predecessors in interest held title to the land in “fee simple” at the time Congress created the Nevada territory, then the land could not have been Federalized. Thus all the old families in New Orleans continued to own their property (to which they previously acquired title under French law) after the Louisiana purchase.

As to why Nevada let the Federal government retain 80% of the land as Federal land — you’d have to look into the motives of the men who formed the first state government.

I have a sneaking suspicion that they were open range cattlemen who wanted to continue their existing arrangements for grazing etc. — never anticipating that the Federal government would change from a protector into a monster.


39 posted on 04/23/2014 1:59:09 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Karl Spooner
this is in Alabama's constitution:

"the people inhabiting the said territory, do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the said territory; and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States …"

And, Nebraska: "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States …"
IDENTICAL to Nevada, and only 1% of Nebraska land is Federal.


more here:
http://nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/how-nebraskas-federal-land-entered-private-domain/

I haven't looked at every state constitution but I'm sure you'll find the same language in some form.
40 posted on 04/23/2014 3:30:18 PM PDT by Duke C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dynoman
The people that held preemptive rights or grazing rights never got a actual deed to the land.

I didn't mean to imply it was an actual deed, but more that its a provision TO the deed, or as you said, an easement.

41 posted on 04/23/2014 3:51:33 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Duke C.

Thank you so much! God bless you. Looks like you got a good mark in the Book of Life. You are the only one who found this very important point that I have seen.


42 posted on 04/23/2014 4:03:55 PM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Again Federal private property is simple..

Camp David is Federally own private property ..

A military base like Fort Knox is Federally owned private property.

It is not going to ever form a State

and you as a citizen are not going to have access unless invited.

Vs Federal territory.

Guam is a territory own by the United States..

There is land there own by private citizens. .there is land own in private by the Federal, like military bases...

And there is public land and assets.. public road, beaches, water supplies, ect. held in common for the citizens common use..

Its own by the Federal because it a Federal territory but it is not privately own by the Federal..

else BLM could kick you off a public beach or road as if it was private property.

Its like the old story about German law..
...if it is not explicitly allowed its always forbid..

That how federal private property works..if your not explicitly allowed on a military base you are forbidden.

In contrast to the German law the American law was ...
if not explicitly forbidden, its always allowed.

That how public property works
Your allowed, its your right to use as a citizen and if your being denied its..the government, not you, need to justify why your being denied your common historical right you had before

43 posted on 04/23/2014 4:07:33 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business. That is the real scandal. That is what needs investigating.

EXACTLY!

How many were targeted by the IRS, EPA, or other rogue agencies! The feds are clearly over stepping their authority. Time to start hanging these bastards!

44 posted on 04/23/2014 4:09:11 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

are his steaks for sale? (to show support)


45 posted on 04/23/2014 4:19:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

.....I continue to be dazzled by the correctness of the writings from the Bundy’s both technically and subjectively and historically.

Good job Bundy’s!!!


46 posted on 04/23/2014 4:26:45 PM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Good post. Right on the mark.


47 posted on 04/23/2014 5:31:17 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
Have a look here: reclaiming-federal-lands

Ms Fielder does well in pointing out the direction western states need to be taking. And, if hostilities can be held in abeyance long enough, I believe they will.

48 posted on 04/23/2014 8:47:10 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats--the party of Evil. Republicans--the party of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
Are you referring to the pig in the White House, ole grunt and snort moochelle, who loves to graze on OUR dime?

The mooch will have the chance to pay her fees at trial time...

49 posted on 04/24/2014 12:33:07 AM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobinOfKingston

Thank you for posting that. I watched the Fielder video last night. Very informative. I’ll try to get to the other two videos tonight.


50 posted on 04/24/2014 10:03:57 AM PDT by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson