View Full Version : Armstrong: Those who call Bundy “outlaw” same type of people who said George III was right

04-18-2014, 06:18 PM

You can tell a REAL journalist from a propaganda artist by their characterization of Bundy as a tax cheat who breaks the law. Congress can pass a LAW that says you must kill your first-born. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent Congress from passing ANYTHING that crosses their mind. So to simply justify the massacre of Bundy and his supporters in Nevada based upon the fact they have broken a LAW is totally outrageous and they had better understand the government structure we have.

What is UNLAWFUL is the fact that we have a pretend tripartite government where Congress can enact absolutely anything its member think of or are paid to do corruptly and it is the Judiciary’s job to say it is lawful or not - but only if it wants to hear the case. Yes, we have the circuit courts of appeal sitting on top of district courts. But did you realize what that TRULY means? The Second Circuit can uphold the old common law Prima Noctum and allow the governor of New York to demand the “first night” with any woman who gets married because that was the English tradition for a governor. The Fourth Circuit in Virginia can disagree. It is then the Supreme Court that is supposed to resolve differences in the LAW among the circuits – but only if it WANTS to hear the case.

The Supreme Court’s ability to declare a Legislative act of Congress or Executive act of the President to be in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). However, when exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

The Rest... (http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/18/reid-call-his-opponents-domestic-terrorists/)

tod evans
04-18-2014, 07:09 PM
There is no caste system in America...:rolleyes:

04-18-2014, 07:47 PM
This issue needs to be understood in it's larger context. I think that larger context is urban vs. rural. It's no coincidence that Nevada is one of the--if not thee--fastest growing state in the country, and that 52 other ranchers in this area are out of business.

I suggest that people understand the Reid-ENN plan in a much larger context. Development means displacement. Urban is displacing rural. It's an economic fact and one of the primary paradigms of our time. Annexation is the name of the game. It becomes quite pronounced and nasty when resources are scarce. Los Angeles did not become the country's second largest city by natural development.

The question that people need to keep repeating is Why are 52 other ranchers out of business? It's far too coincidental to say that all of these people simply have a bad attitude.

The name of the game is transferring ecological and other fallout from the urban to the rural. In this case--it's called "secondary mitigation." Developers place their business in an urban area. The ecological fallout and responsibility is transferred to adjacent areas, often to the rural dwellers. The rural dwellers have nothing to do with the development, but they're the ones who conveniently get displaced. They rural dwellers object and they are painted as misfits.