A magnitude-6.6 earthquake shook Nicaragua on Friday afternoon, sending people running frightened into the streets less than 24 hours after a magnitude-6.1 quake rattled the Central American country.
On Thursday night, officials took 155 people out of neighborhoods northeast of the capital city due to risk of landslides. One of the shelters was still housing 22 families on Friday.
The government said roughly 800 homes were damaged in the town of Nagarote and surrounding areas, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) northwest of the capital.
Friday's quake struck at 3:29 p.m. local time (20:29 GMT), and was centered about 6 miles (11 kilometers) east-southeast of the town of Nandaime. It had a depth of 85 miles (138 kilometers).
The USGS said Thursday's quake struck at 5:27 p.m. local time (23:27 GMT), and was centered about 11 miles (18 kilometers) southeast of the city of Larreynaga. It had a depth of 6.2 miles (10
Despite popular belief, every culture of every nation draws a line in the sand against government tyranny. The problem is, many draw this line so close to total defeat that it rarely matters. For the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, for instance, it wasn't until the Germans had already herded millions onto railroad cars destined for death camps and cornered the rest into dilapidated central housing that the ZOB resistance was formed, only to be wiped out a month later. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but clearly too many freedom movements throughout history waited too long to respond to the trespasses of oligarchs.
The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.
I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.
The question of when to strike back is pivotal to any resistance movement. Turn to violence too soon or without proper cause in the eyes of the public, and the rebellion may lose the moral high ground and the support of the populace. Wait too long, and the totalitarian hordes may be too far entrenched, forcing the rebellion to fight from a position of strategic weakness.
While there is certainly much to despair in the state of our nation, I find the notion that Americans will do nothing in response misplaced and ignorant. From what I have observed, it is not a question of “if” citizens snap, but when.
With objective eyes one could easily see it during the last attempts by the federal government to pass anti-gun legislation that would have led to confiscation. Pro-2ndAmendment protests erupted all over the country (though the MSM mostly ignored them) with participants far outnumbering the miniscule groups in support of gun control. The sentiment amongst millions of gun owners and millions of Liberty Movement proponents was that we were not going to allow government enforcement of new gun laws. Period. If that meant we had to start using those same guns to put an end to government, then that was exactly what we would do. The feds, of course, buckled.
Rather than take the more dangerous and unifying direct route of federal legislation, gun grabbers have shifted strategies, isolating and targeting specific states they believe will be more pliable and easier to conquer. Connecticut and parts of New York, however, have shown that even people in the most socialist of states have no intention of complying with gun registration or confiscation. In Connecticut, only 38,000 high capacity magazines were registered according to the new gun laws, while approximately 2.4 million purchased through retail remain unaccounted for. Only 50,000 “assault weapons” were registered, while at least 300,000 remain unaccounted for. A sizable number of police are also refusing to enforce registration measures (some out of constitutional loyalty, and some out of a desire for self preservation),causing the state of Connecticut to back off of its hard line rhetoric.
I can say with full confidence that the conditions within Connecticut alone would lead to an open shooting war if officials actually attempt to enforce registration and confiscation. If Safe Act-style legislation or executive orders are ever enforced at a national level, I have no doubt revolution would follow.
The latest hotbed I have witnessed is the Bureau of Land Management attack on a cattle farmer in Clark County, Nevada owned by Cliven Bundy. The BLM has so far stolen over 500 cattle from Bundy on the grounds that the federal government owns the land his family has been using for grazing pasture for generations. The confiscation was implemented under the auspices of “protection for endangered species”. The species in this instance being a desert tortoise.
The methods used by the BLM resemble a militant raid, with hundreds of agents, helicopters, and even snipers at their disposal. Adding insult to injury and making the issue a national concern, the feds have also staged “First Amendment Zones” miles away from their activities to keep protestors away.
I believe that if this situation escalates into a Waco or Ruby Ridge brand of event, not only Liberty Movement residents of Nevada, but Liberty Movement champions across the nation will indeed finally throw down the gauntlet. What does that mean? It means they are going to start shooting. Opposing groups can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is that one way or another, it is going to happen.
Discussions within the movement are far from apathetic. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of eyes are watching every move of the BLM right now, and they should be taking this fact very seriously.
The naysayers will claim that we don't have the will to take action. They are welcome to think whatever they like. But mark my words, Constitutionally minded Americans are not going to stand by and watch another massacre, nor a loss of gun rights, nor will we be entertaining violations of our freedoms for much longer. This society is on the edge of something. It's kinetic, or electric. It is not yet quite visible but it is there, reverberating in the atmosphere. My suggestion to our federal bureaucracy would be to do what they did during the gun debate, and quickly back away.
Of course, we all know they won't.
Do the elites want to stir up insurgency in order to give pretense for a larger crackdown? They very well might. But it is transparent in the way they try to mitigate dissent and offer placation that they do not want a rebellion larger than they can manage. I think it is far too late for that. I think they've pissed off too many people, instead of just enough people. I think that though most pretend-Americans will do nothing but watch in horror or hide in their hovels, the size of resistance to the tides of despotism is growing far beyond common realizations. And, when this resistance erupts, it will shock even those who fully expect it.
A dangerous scenario is developing America, one that I and many others have been warning about for a long time. Many think that what is occurring in Nevada, asthousands of patriots, oath keepers and even Constitutional Sheriff's arrive in protest of the gross abuse of the leviathans power, is a good thing. In many ways it is, because it shows the dedication and motivation of those committed to defend liberty; however, there is another element to all of this. Behind the scenes, unreported by most media sources, the enforcement of the United Nations Small Arms treatyadvances.
According to the New American, 32 nations have now submitted "proof" of ratifying the treaty to the UN Also, according to the same article, a universal "forced adherence "will take effect after 50 nations have verified their own ratification. In other words America, they are going to enforce this treaty whether we ratify it or not. In the last article I wrote, concerning the Connecticut gun laws and the UN small arms treaty, I spelled out some of the language and it clearly gives the UN power to intervene in "conflict areas" for the purposes of disarmament and establishing control. What we have developing in Nevada is definitely a conflict folks; it could very well be the next crisis that won't be going to waste.
To further demonstrate the "global efforts" to disarm America, I will refer you to a report issued by the UN demanding the U.S. do away with "stand your ground laws" because they threaten the "human rights" and safety of American citizens, particularly, brace yourself now, women and minorities. While the data in the report is easy to discredit when comparing it to facts, it doesn't change the fact that it is an official report being used to discredit The United States Constitution. If you want to see what the real intent behind the UN small arms treaty is you need look no further than Venezuela, where implementation of the treaty led to bloodshed while Hugo Chavez, with support of the UN, disarmed the population by force. This is what is coming to these United States folks; this is the global governance vision of the UN that so many believe will lead to world peace and harmony.
It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.
Madison knew unlimited federal power inevitably results in unbridled tyranny. “I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America,” he wrote.
Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.
“The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”
This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
Cliven Bundy’s struggle with the BLM in Nevada is exactly the situation Madison and the founders tried to prevent. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to own land, beyond what is stipulated in the Enclave Clause, and its seizure of land, under the obviously fallacious pretense of protecting a tortoise, is a serious violation of the Constitution.
Madison made if perfectly clear in Federalist Paper 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… The [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“It’s really about our constitutional rights and statehood,” Bundy has said. “And whether this area known as the state of Nevada is owned by the United States government or is owned by the sovereign state of Nevada.”
Mr. Bundy, despite a propaganda campaign to the contrary launched by the federal government and its subservient media, is absolutely correct – the war shaping up between the Nevada rancher and the federal government is about states’ rights and, ultimately, the rights of sovereign individuals.