All hands on deck.
Tactical Firearms needs your help.
Via Guns Save Lives:
Tactical Firearms has prided itself in being honest with our customers from our first day in business. That’s why we are alerting you today to a situation that we believe to be unjust and punitive against Tactical Firearms, and this is a situation that threatens to put us out of business on July 1, 2014.
Tactical Firearms has just been given notice that our loan with Icon bank has been called in. Not because of no payment, as we have never been late or missed a payment, but because the board of directors has chosen to not renew the loan. Deciding to call a loan which has a perfect payment record and is profitable to the bank is almost unheard of in the banking industry. This is why we believe Tactical Firearms is being specifically targeted with punitive actions in an effort to put us out of business.
But there’s even more to this situation that you need to know:
Back in 2012 Tactical Firearms purchased the land next to our existing facility. Icon Bank suggested an interim loan at 7% interest and then to refinance all of our loans together into one loan at a lower rate of 3.579%. At that time we had a fixed, long term loan for the building and the construction of the range. By purchasing the land, it cross collateralized the loans and put us in a situation (unknown to us at the time) that could threaten our entire business.
When it became time to refinance the loans, one of our owners (30%), Steven Coe Wilson, decided to back out. It is our belief based on what we have since learned that Steven wished to seize control of the company. We have substantial reason to believe he recruited some of our longest and hardest working employees to overbuy, to overspend, and to bury Tactical Firearms in debt to the point that we could not pay our bills. His grand plan appears to have been to swoop in and buy up the loan when the bank foreclosed on us for failure to pay. Perhaps to his disappointment, not only have we successfully paid our loan notes, we have also cut the unpaid bills by over half.
Sadly, because Steven did not sign the loan refinance that he had previously agreed to, the short term loan for the land has now matured. By default, our primary business loan is now in jeopardy.
Further complicating this situation, it has also been brought to our attention that a member of the board of directors of Icon Bank, Mark Evans, is the owner of a new gun store in the Houston area. Based on what we’ve learned about this competitor, we are convinced that this bank has the intensions of forcing Tactical Firearms out of business to remove a major competitor from the market of Mr. Mark Evans’ new business, Guns Over Texas. If true, we believe this would constitute unfair trade practices in the State of Texas, and we intend to pursue this matter with the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.
Further connections support our accusations of anti-trade practices. For example, Mark Evans is the Managing Partner for Commercial Finance with the firm O’Connor, Craig, Gould & Evans – the firm that is being used by Icon Bank to proceed with the foreclosure. We strongly protest what appears to be a clear conflict of interest on the part of Mark Evans, who appears to be using his influence at the law firm (and therefore the bank) to engage in destructive, punitive actions with the ultimate aim of destroying his competition and thus ensuring the profitability of his own gun store.
Such behavior is monopolistic, anti-free-trade and un-American. Please contact the Attorney General and urge him to look into this matter.
Email: Attorney General Greg Abbott
At the same time, the bank’s excuse to us for calling in the loan is because the “government does not support loans to the gun, alcohol, or hotel industries” and the banks get heavily audited. This is an extension of the Obama administration’s backdoor efforts to bankrupt the firearms industry and all its supporting retailers and firing ranges. Since the government can’t take away our Second Amendment directly, they make it difficult for businesses to stay open by pressuring banks to close loans. This has already happened to other gun shops around the country. We are fighting to make sure it doesn’t happen to us.
All these factors seem to now be coalescing into a deliberate, well-planned attack on Tactical Firearms with the aim of permanently putting us out of business. The idea of our doors closing is incredibly painful to even imagine. We have over 30 employees, many of whom have children, who depend on our successful business operations to keep their own homes. In addition to our economic contributions to Katy and the greater Houston area, we also donate our time and profits to charities like Oilfield Helping Hands and Texas Sentinels.
Even more, there are 175 NFA items in our possession awaiting approval from the ATF. If we are unable to stay in business, every single one of these items would have to be resubmitted and the year long process would begin again.
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO FIGHT THIS TYRANNY
Today, I am reaching out to YOU, our valued customers and supports, to ask for your help in keeping us out of the clutches of these punitive, monopolistic actions that now threaten Tactical Firearms.
FIRST, we need you to CONTACT THE BANK and urge them to reconsider their intended loan recall, pointing out that all banks need goodwill in the community in order to stay in business themselves:
John Green, President and Vice Chairman of the Board Icon Bank,
SECOND, we ask that you contact Mark Evans, who resides on the Board of Directors of Icon Bank, and let him know that the community is now heavily scrutinizing his actions and that we believe he is engaged in anti-trust violations of state and federal law. We will not hesitate to take this issue to the press if Evans pursues what we believe to be a punitive, anti-trade assault on our business rights:
Mark Evans, Board of Directors Icon Bank and Managing Partner of O’Connor, Craig, Gould & Evans,
THIRD, we ask that you help put out the word that all this could be readily solved if another INVESTOR or LENDER could be identified who would step up to the plate and support this successful business. We are a high-integrity, profitable business with a strong credit history and a perfect record of loan payment. Any lender would be thrilled to do business with a company like Tactical Firearms, and if a lender or investor wishes to help support our operations, it would also be a PROFITABLE venture for them to do so.
If you know of such a lender or investor who is interested in a profitable partnership with Tactical Firearms, please have them contact us at:
Finally, all of us here at Tactical Firearms thank you for your ongoing support, and please know that we are deeply dedicated to finding solutions that will defend us against this punitive and potentially unlawful attempts to destroy our business.
We believe in America. We believe in the Second Amendment. And we also believe that businesses operating in Texas should not be subjected to Gestapo-style tactics from the banking industry and its insiders. What we are fighting for here is the integrity of the entire business infrastructure which obviously depends on lenders to act on good faith when supporting expanding businesses.
What this system is trying to do to Tactical Firearms right now is a travesty of justice, and it’s just one more sign of the kind of punitive insanity we are seeing played out across this great nation by a network of anti-American individuals who are attempting to destroy the fabric of this nation one day at a time.
We refuse to let that happen, and we will fight this with every ounce of effort and breath within our reach. We thank you for any assistance and help you can offer us in this very trying time.
Share this with everyone you know and please keep all of us in your prayers.
The Tactical Firearms Family
Meet the owner Jeremy Alcede:
Linked at Freedom Is Just Another Word……thanks!
OUTRAGE! BofA Freezes Licensed Gun Manufacturer’s Deposits “We Believe You Should Not Be Selling Guns On The
Internet” Update: ASA’s Owner Confirms Update 2: ASA Leaves BofA Opens Account W/ Local Bank
This is dated February 2013, but as you all are well aware the topic remains highly relevant to this day.
Via The Blaze:
Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.
He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlaze interviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
The Regime’s bag of oppressive tyrannical tricks overfloweth.
The Weekly Standard:
Last week, George Will wrote a column about how progressive politics have fomented “rape culture” on college campuses. The column was not well received by some, or even, as a great many of the histrionic responses would indicate, well understood. I received the following press release yesterday, headlined: “87,000 Call on The Washington Post to Address Sexism, Fire George Will.” A group called UltraViolet was touting the success of an online petition they’d whipped up over the controversy. From the release:
“The past week has seen the Washington Post devolve to violent and shameful rhetoric that normalizes rape and violence against women. In the face of a national epidemic of sexual violence, The Washington Post should take a stand against rape– starting by firing George Will, said Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet. “From mocking survivors to misleading the public on demands for college sexual assault reform and blaming women for violence against them– the Post has left the realm of honest debate and entered the realm of hate-speech and dog whistles.”
Chaudhary is also the wife of Jesse Lee, the White House’s director of progressive media and online response. In fact, Valerie Jarrett helped Lee propose to Chaudhary at a State Dinner. In past administrations, positions such as the one held by Lee charged with partisan media strategies and rapid response were outsourced to the party organizations, so as not to politicize the presidency. Alas, this White House lacks that kind of respect for the office.
I think we can safely conclude that Chaudhary and Lee don’t believe in the meaningful kind of free speech. Certainly, the demand to fire George Will and otherwise pressure the Washington Post is punitive and calculated to enforce conformity of thought on a difficult and contentious topic, not promote understanding. And when the common response to disagreeable opinions becomes political organizers unleashing social media lynch mobs, it opens a backdoor to total oppression.
Whether you agree with George Will or not, something all American’s who believe in “constitutional liberties” should agree on is that any Administration with ties to anti-free speech campaigns as UltraViolet’s Fire George Will campaign opens itself to accusations of oppression.
Not that I think they care. I’m just saying.
There is the possibility that George Will got under Barack’s thin skin on another matter and ‘they’ have been lying in wait. Will’s article which addressed such an emotionally charged issue as rape gave UltraViolet the perfect opportunity to launch an assault against him (progressives are all about emotional blackmail). It did not hurt their anti-free speech mission that Will skewered the Obama Administration in his article. Making the Obama Admin./Jesee Lee/ UltraViolet Nita Chaudhary ties all the more suspicious.
Link to Nita Chaudhary’s profile on UltraViolet: http://www.weareultraviolet.org/staff
Link to Jesse Lee’s profile on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/author/Jesse%20Lee
Hillary Compares Bergdahl Desertion To Drunken Sailor Falling Off A Ship, Taliban 5 Not A Threat To US [VIDEO]
Oh the inanity! Oh is it insanity? Close call.
CYNTHIA MCFADDEN: Clinton writes in her book, the U.S. was involved in negotiations with the Taliban while she was Secretary of State, and even then, getting Bowe Bergdahl back was part of the equation. I think an awful lot of people think that we’re less safe today than we were a week ago because these five guys are out.
HILLARY CLINTON: These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.
Keep talking Hillary, maybe someday you’ll say something intelligent.
— Vigilant Veteran (@VigilantVeteran) June 4, 2014
Oh the hubris! Just who in the hell does he think he is?
Via Allen West:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: On the subject of Bowe Bergdahl, there is real confusion and we’re hoping you can clear up this one point that arose last night and today. What was the reason for not informing the eight members of Congress who would customarily be informed by this? And did he, indeed, serve this country with distinction and honor?
BARACK OBAMA: Brian, I have to tell you the same thing that I’ve been saying for the last several days, which is we have a rule, a principle, that when somebody wears our country’s uniform and they’re in a war theatre and they’re captured– we’re going to do everything we can to bring ‘em home.
That’s a promise that we make to the families of those who serve. That’s a promise I make every time I meet moms and dads all across the country whose kids are serving in our military. Bowe Bergdahl was one of those individuals. And regardless of whatever circumstances there are, it is our obligation to bring them home.
We saw an opportunity. It was a difficult piece of business because of the fact that you’re dealing with an untrustworthy adversary, not a normal state actor. And we saw an opportunity and we took it. And I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government and a view that was shared by my– the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And this is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity, if I have a member of our military who’s in captivity. We’re going to try to get ‘em out. [...]
Defected …captured “what difference does it make” it was “five years ago”?
Note: Obama sidestepped Williams’ question: “And did he, indeed, serve this country with distinction and honor?”
Obama’s lawless rogue actions regarding his decision to swap Bergdahl for the GITMO Taliban Five consisted of much more than his outright refusal to give Congress 30 days notice.
Bryon York on the law Obama broke (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014), and his personal dictatorial reasoning why spelled out in a signing statement. Creating a loophole you could drive a Mack truck through.
We’ve all heard that the law requires the administration to give Congress 30 days notice before releasing prisoners from the U.S. terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — a provision the White House willfully ignored in the recent release of five Taliban commandos in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
But the law — specifically the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 — requires much more than that. Congress did not intend for the president to give lawmakers a simple heads-up. Instead, the House and Senate ordered that any such 30-day notification must include:
1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or release.
2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in the national security interests of the United States.
3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released…
4) A copy of any [review board] findings relating to the individual.
5) A description of the evaluation [of conditions in the country to which the individual would be transferred].
Of course, the Obama administration did none of that in the Bergdahl/Taliban case. And the specificity of the law — it is certainly not a casual requirement — makes that decision more consequential.
In addition, it’s safe to assume that Congress meant what it said — the Defense Authorization Act passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 84 to 15 in the Senate. In passing the notification requirement, Congress was speaking with very nearly one voice.
Back in December 2013, when Obama signed the Defense Authorization Act into law, he issued a now-famous signing statement in which he argued the notification clause “would violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
“The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” Obama wrote.
The message was clear: The president will act as he chooses, no matter what Congress wants. The next Guantanamo release could make the Bergdahl battle seem tame.
Obama: ‘Sure I’ll sign that into law but I will attach a signing statement that will give me an out that will render the law utterly useless. And no one can do a damn thing about it, right Harry?’
(Cynthia Matthews) –Notice that he has muffled some key words, the phrase”among my” and
“in.” Well. . . he didn’t say it was “his” government, (truth is that he
didn’t have bi-partisan agreement there,
and certainly not “unanimous”). But what he said amounts to a simple
agreement with HIMSELF only! THAT’S what he did say: A “unanimous view,
among my principles, in my government.” Spinning! He’s spinning,
spinning, spinning! This is on the level of the Serpent’s view and
principles when he confronted Eve to deceive her and asked, “Did God
say?” So Obama said it is “unanimous” within himself, and that would
mean he is in unanimous agreement with himself! And the phrase “in my
government” is worded as part of the “among my principles,” meaning as
he perceives governing. See?
(Olde Rose) –I have nothing but contempt for this composite construct of a POTUS, but his allusion to “my principals in my government” was to inarticulately say that the plenipotentiaries of each Department of his Administration, in short his Cabinet members, are unanimous in their support of the hand that feeds them.
- FYI Obama! Repeatedly Referring To The U.S. Military As “My Military” Does NOT Make It So [Video]
- “The Sainted” Geraldo Rivera Attacks Bowe Bergdal’s Platoon Members Who’ve Spoken Out [VIDEOS]
- Video: Hagel’s Announcement Of Bergdahl’s Release Met With Silence At Bagram AF, Afghanistan
- State Dept Spox On If Bergdahl Deserted: ‘Dude, That Was Like 5 Years Ago’ [Video]
- Videos: Taliban Bowe Bergdahl Handover — Taliban Five Receive Unguarded Heroes Welcome
- Barack Obama’s New Movie “Trading Private Bowe ‘Deserting Weasel’ Bergdahl” Poster
- Bowe Bergdahl’s Father Tweets Anti-US Islamic Terrorist Threat, Praises Allah At The WH & More!
(I will be updating this post throughout the day.)
Edit: Live streams no longer available. They have been removed.
DC traffic cams: http://app.ddot.dc.gov
— Erik Rush (@erikrush) May 16, 2014
@keith_kennedy sharing Operation American Spring rally photos via Twitter:
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
WWII memorial coming up, next stop Washington Monument. pic.twitter.com/JTNTU7jHKf
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
Saying “Thank You” to old and young service members. pic.twitter.com/7WAHFvKmNJ
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
Across from the Air and Space museum. Motivational speeches. pic.twitter.com/uBXKy31uPp
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
Captain America made it. pic.twitter.com/gQdzLAcQmr
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
— ƃop ǝldɹnd (@keith_kennedy) May 16, 2014
— Robyn E. Winn (@Robyn_Elisa) May 16, 2014
Full Clip Of Cliven Bundy’s ‘Racist’ Remarks vs. Media Matters Selectively Edited Version UPDATE: Original Version Of Bundy Remarks In FULL
UPDATE:Original version of the interview in FULL (Credit JasonPatrick11)
What say you?
“What he was saying, and perhaps not as eloquently as was relayed, that America is becoming a welfare state that makes us more reliant upon the government and eats away at the freedom of us all. He was attempting to point out what little progress has been made for black people who once lived in slavery. During that point in our history, black people were totally reliant upon someone else for their food, homes, etc. and not much has changed, sadly, in many cases for poor black families. Slavery was wrong, horrible, and we do not support that. Cliven was trying to illustrate how dire the situation was not only in the past, but currently, and how it will negatively impact the future, if Americans, of any color, continue to be dependent upon the government to survive.”
Jack Flash links…thanks!
Dave Blount links at Moonbattery…thanks!
I Don’t Care if Cliven Bundy is a Racist
Lend the lovely Kira Davis your ears as she takes a step back to look at the ‘big picture’.
— Kira Davis (@KiraAynDavis) April 24, 2014
Black Quill and Ink’s The Democrat Party and Its Rampant Racism
The Democrat Race Lie @ Black&Right
This was then:
KLAS TV Las Vegas
LAS VEGAS — A deal has been reached between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management over the cattle that the agency rounded up earlier this week.
The BLM announced it would stop the roundup of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy Saturday morning. The BLM says the animals have been illegally grazing on public lands for 20 years and has spent the past week gathering the cattle from land near Gold Butte.
The agency said it was stopping the roundup because of concerns about the safety of its employees and the public. Earlier this week, BLM officers and supporters of the Bundy family were involved in a scuffle. Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, was tased twice by federal agents. Another woman said she was thrown to the ground by an officer.
With more Bundy supporters pouring in from around the country, safety concerns began to grow.
The I-Team has learned the deal to end the gather was brokered by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie. [...]
Las Vegas Review-Journal:
[...]Although Bundy declared victory after the BLM announced an end to the roundup on Saturday because of concerns for the safety of those present, the issue is hardly settled.
BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press the agency would continue to try to resolve the matter involving rancher Cliven Bundy and the $1 million in owed grazing fees “administratively and judicially.”
“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” he said, adding that the BLM did not participate in the negotiation moderated by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie that deescalated tensions on Saturday.
“The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything,” Leff said. “There was no deal we made.”
Bundy supporters are not quite declaring victory yet either.
David Rawls of Arizona has been battling over mining claims he said his family has operated since 1949 that he said the government took from him. The 70-year-old arrived Saturday to back up Bundy and plans to stay for several more days. [...]
In related news:
[...]The Bureau of Land Management is headed by former longtime Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as federal authorities descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nev.[...]
#BundyRanch Standoff Photo Slideshow Accompanied By Lee Greenwood’s God Bless The U.S.A
#BundyRanch Moo-Lon Labe Come And Take It! Bundy Family Waves American Flag As BLM Releases Their Cattle [PHOTO]
Live Stream Bundy Ranch Standoff –Updates Including Video Of Bundy Cattle Being Released!