Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
It appears that the militia groups who arrived in Nevada to support Cliven Bundy with his standoff against the Bureau of Land Management have become a cause of concern for some residents, workers, and businesses in the area surrounding Bunkerville.
Horsford talks Bunkerville militia presence with Rachel Maddow
KLAS-TV/News NOW (Las Vegas) reported on April 29th that hotels in Mesquite had suffered financial losses of more than $100,000 due to concerns about armed militia groups patrolling in the area. News NOW learned that Mesquite police were investigating death threats made to hotel workers following a bomb threat earlier in April.
Evidently, the threats multiplied as armed militia groups continued to pour into the area surrounding Cliven Bundy’s ranch. One city leader in Mesquite said that “the entire Holiday Inn Express was evacuated for hours following a bomb threat related to the Bundy saga…” News NOW obtained a police report which showed that the Holiday Inn Express had received at least nine threatening telephone calls after the hotel allowed BLM rangers to stay there. Hotel workers were told to kick out the BLM or they “would not be standing in the morning.” One hotel worker, who refused to go on camera, claimed that he was told by an anonymous militia member that he would be “dragged out in the parking lot and shot”.
“We are not a playground for armed militias,” Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., said during a meeting with area leaders about the militia. Horsford said that he had been contacted by residents of his district who were concerned about the armed militia groups from out of state who were still present in their area. Horsford was told by residents that militia groups had set up checkpoints where residents must prove they live in the area before they are allowed to pass…” He was also told that they had set up a “persistent presence” along federal highways, and state and county roads.
Rep. Horsford wrote a letter to the Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie asking him “to look into complaints that militiamen had been present in Bunkerville-area schools and churches and had set up armed checkpoints on state, federal and county roads, seeking proof of residency from motorists.” Horsford said in his letter, “We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia. Residents have expressed their desire to see these groups leave their community.” Horsford added that his constituents were being forced to “‘live under the persistent watch of an armed militia,’ that answers to no particular authority other than its own, and is accountable to no one.” He urged the sheriff “to work with local leaders to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a manner that allows the community to move forward without incident.”
Note: A News NOW crew that was in Bunkerville last Tuesday said it did not find any roadblocks in the area “with militia members checking on people trying to pass.”
The StarTribune reported that Bundy’s neighbors and local authorities have grown weary of the Nevada rancher’s unresolved dispute with the BLM. Bundy has denied that any militia members had set up checkpoints on public property. A group of militia members, however, was reported to have stopped a neighboring rancher who was trucking cattle to Arizona. Bundy said the milita members were just helping his son. “They wanted to ensure that Bundy cattle weren’t being rustled.”
Militias’ Ongoing Presence in Nevada Creates Fear and Friction
Cliven Bundy’s Home on the Range (A Mark Fiore Video)
SOURCES
Concerns growing about militia members at Bundy ranch (KLAS-TV)
Businesses lose thousands in Bundy ordeal (KLAS-TV)
Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road ‘Checkpoints’ In Nevada (Talking Points Memo)
Bundy Ranch ‘Militia’ Considered Using Women As Human Shield (Talking Points Memo)
Businesses lose thousands in Bundy ordeal (KLAS-TV/News NOW)
Neighbors grow weary of ‘militia’ remaining with Nevada cattle rancher in federal land dispute (StarTribune)
Nevada Congressman Seeks Probe Of Armed Militia Operations At Cliven Bundy Ranch (Reuters/Huffington Post)
Sheriff urged to clamp down on armed militiamen around Bundy ranch (Las Vegas Sun)
Bundy’s ”Militia” Is Lawlessness of a Different Color (Truth-Out)
Ongoing Militia Presence Raises Fears Among Locals Near Bundy Ranch (Southern Poverty Law Center)
NV lawmaker presses sheriff to probe Bundy militiamen (FOX 5/KVVU-TV)
Nevada lawmaker: Cliven Bundy supporters are setting up ‘checkpoints’ against residents (Raw Story)
The Dark Side Of Cliven Bundy’s Conservative Media-Approved Militia (Media Matters)
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
My how times change, I’m referring to your 8:43 post Elaine. When it was the Black Panthers against gun control and Ronald Reagan against carrying
loaded guns, the NRA was for gun control? Things have been turned on their heads, because now ….why?
Bundy’s ”Militia” Is Lawlessness of a Different Color
May 3, 2014 By
Terrance Heath
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23470-bundys-militia-is-lawlessness-of-a-different-color
Excerpt:
Lawlessness of a Different Color
Let’s be clear. Clive Bundy is basically a criminal. After losing in court for over 20 years, Bundy employed the threat of violence to continue illegally grazing his cattle without paying the grazing fee that other ranchers pay. A simple review of county records proves Bundy’s claims on the land are bogus. Whipped into a frenzy by Fox News, Bundy now has armed “militia” supporting him in flouting the law.
If Bundy and his supporters were black or Latino, and wore hoodies instead of cowboy hands, they wouldn’t be called a “militia.” They would be called a gang of armed “thugs.” Instead of hailing them as heroic patriots, the talking heads at Fox News would be calling for them to be arrested, if not shot on sight.
History bears this out. In May of 1967, Black Panthers invaded the California statehouse. Thirty well-armed young black men and women arrived on the west lawn of the state capitol, and climbed the capitol steps. Bobby Seal declared, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”
What drove the Black Panthers to the capitol was opposition to gun control.Then governor Ronald Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” and called guns “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”
But that was when the NRA supported gun control, and Republicans were still the “law and order” party.” What’s happening at Bundy Ranch may be lawlessness, but it’s lawlessness of a different color — and that makes all the difference.
Chuck:
These guys might not be militias in the sense you describe even in the most remote of senses, but they tend to identify themselves that way. The concern I have is traction these guys might garner by poking sticks at them by others, especially the feds.
I agree that if somehow both sides can make this issue quietly go away that would be best. In this case it really isn’t so much Cliven Bundy or the BLM chief, it is the lunatic fringe types that are the the unstable ones who flock around them.
Dumb? most are I think are. But it is not a good idea to dismiss them and fail to understand what makes them tick.
Speaking of which, the helicopter story you mentioned reminded me of one of those lunatic fringe types we had. He was convinced he had to take action against the government and began building pipe bombs and other explosives in a shed he owned. I’m sure he felt he was going to make a big show against the government, until his shed detonated and took him with it.
I-Team: Police say Bundy ranch protesters not off the hook
By George Knapp, Chief Investigative Reporter
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25396688/i-team-police-say-bundy-ranch-protesters-not-off-the-hook
Excerpt:
LAS VEGAS — Metro Police officers who were on the front lines of a recent showdown near the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville say they feared for their lives.
At least some of the militia members who pointed weapons at police officers during the confrontation may have wanted a violent outcome and tried to incite one.
In exclusive interviews with the 8 News NOW I-Team, officers who were on the scene shared their thoughts and fears, and they say it is not over.
“These guys with rifles, keep them calm,” was Clark County Assistant Sheriff Joe Lombardo’s request to one of Bundy’s sons the day of the confrontation.
Lombardo’s top priority was to prevent a spark that might set off a bloody firefight.
“There was a possibility of somebody just having an accidental discharge causing a blood bath, because the individuals that were showing up, the militia quote unquote, were armed to the teeth,” Lombardo said.
On one side, armed federal rangers and agents, on the other, a huge crowd of angry militia members and in the middle, 30 Metro officers, exposed and vulnerable, aware that if the shooting began, some of them would die.
“You are standing there going, ‘I just hope it doesn’t hurt when it comes. That it’s quick,’ and it was real for us. It was real,” Sgt. Tom Jenkins said.
“(You thought you might die?) Yeah.” Sgt. Jenkins said.
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie has been negotiating behind the scenes with rancher Cliven Bundy for a couple of years. On the morning of the big showdown, he and Joe Lombardo drove to Bunkerville to let Bundy know that a deal had been reached with Bureau of Land Management to suspend the roundup of Bundy’s cattle.
Bundy, who has grown accustomed to media attention over the past few months, said he would only talk to Gillespie on stage in front of his crowd. Once there, he ordered the sheriff to go out and disarm every fed he could find.
“And report back in an hour. Disarm everyone working at a federal park,” Bundy told the sheriff.
“I mean, the hair was up on the back of my neck. There was the so-called militia surrounding the stage. There was a lot of firepower out there and it made me nervous. anything could happen,” Lombardo said.
Gillspie and Lombardo say they offered to provide Bundy with legal counsel—free. He turned it down and later urged the crowd to go after his cattle.
“Mr. Bundy, in my personal opinion, incited the crowd,” Lombardo said.
Some of them didn’t need much to get riled. Their hostility toward government was on full display. A few equate the BLM with Nazis.
“That bunch, the SS squad or something to do with Hitler, shouldn’t have guns there aimed at the people,” one man at the showdown said.
They were equally hostile to journalists covering the story. Pistol-packing militia men have blocked 8 News NOW’s access to public roads. Some poured lighter fluid around our news vehicle while others got physical.
Elaine – I was in fear for my life is the clarion call of all police officers. I am pretty sure they teach it first day at the academy. And what are 30 LV cops doing out there. It is not a LV problem.
Darren,
Great ideas, but human nature being what it is on both sides, ain’t gonna happen. This is how I expect this scenario will play out. The FBI and other agencies learned a lesson from Waco and Ruby Ridge. They also have all the time in the world. No one is being held hostage, unless it is the hapless citizens of the local civilian community, so there is no emergency situation. As they did with the white supremacists holed up elsewhere, they simply isolated them and waited them out. Even if they have to wait for Bundy to get old and die, they will eventually collect what is due the government, plus interest and penalties.
I hesitate to call those roving gangs of gunmen militias. As you know, I am descended from true militiamen who fought at King’s Mountain, Yorktown, Beattie’s Creek and Cowan’s Ford. Those guys could not find a stepladder tall enough to kiss the asses of those farmers and merchants who took on the most powerful standing Army in the world in the late 1770s and early 1880s. THOSE were militiamen. At any rate, they will not be at Bundy’s ranch forever. They will have to go home sometime.
I may have mentioned this before. Many of these guys are not the brightest bulbs on the marquee. Several years ago, there was a search on for somebody out west. I don’t remember the details, but Army National Guard helicopters were participating in the search. A Blackhawk crew spotted somebody walking down a road and thinking they might get information to aid their search, decided to land on the road to talk to the guy. As the pilot made his approach to land, the pedestrian turned and opened fire on the helicopter with a long gun, either a rifle or shotgun. Training kicked in, and the Blackhawk pilot hosed him down with his chain gun. The Board of Inquiry ruled it justified, because the helicopter pilot was taking fire from close range.
This is not likely to end with gunfire unless somebody on either side does something stupid. I expect it to go out with a whimper.
Chuck – could you give us a link to the murder by Blackhawk incident? Sounds fascinating.
Thank goodness the first militia groups in our country stood up against tyranny. When it’s done to day, it’s bad for business and some folks are concerned. lol
In my view, the sovereign citizen movement and the adversarial citizen movement share the property of being of an authoritarian theory in use combined with an authoritative theory espoused, while having models of reality which are inextricably adversarial in function while resolutely proclaiming otherwise.
On Wikikpedia was to be found a few minutes ago,an article titled, Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development”…
I note two, in-the-limit pathways in those stages.
One pathway consists of Basic trust, Autonomy, Initiative, Industry, Identity, Intimacy, Generativity, and Ego Integrity; that is, as best I can discern, essentially the pathway my life has, in an overall sense, consistently taken.
The other pathway consists of Mistrust, Shame and Doubt, Guilt, Inferiority, Role Confusion, Isolation, Stagnation, and Despair.
The pathway my life seems to me to have taken is one of affirming life and life experiences, and is the functional antithesis of authoritarianism. The extreme-other pathway, which my life has not taken, is the pathway of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism, to be effective, has to destroy its alternative through being adversarial to individual autonomy.
My bioengineering research has, with the people I have studied closely as individuals, demonstrated that about 98 percent of the people I have been able to closely study have adapted to life through the authoritarian pathway, and that about 2 percent have adapted to live through the autonomy pathway.
In my research findings, those who travel the pathway from Mistrust to Despair may despair of the failure of authoritarianism to provide a truly thriving way of life for everyone. Authoritarianism may have been described about as well as may ever be necessary in Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” whereby, to maintain the freedom of authoritarian in a proclaimed-egalitarian society, all pigs are equal and some pigs are more equal.
Who decides who is to play the authoritarian role in an authoritarian society? Those who have been most damaged by authoritarian socialization?
From Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, addicts,and Pushers: Revised Edition, Syracuse University Press, 2003, by the late Thomas Szasz, Chapter 12, “THE CONTROL OF CONDUCT: AUTHORITY VERSUS AUTONOMY,” the two paragraphs; here quoted according to public safety interest copyright fair use:
“There is only one political sin: independence; and only one political virtue: obedience. To put it differently, there is only one defense against authority: self-control; and only one obedience to it: submission to control by authority.
Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But this is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities. In short, authority needs subjects, persons not in command of themselves—just as parents need children and physicians need patients.”
The main difficulty that I observe pervades authoritarianism, whether it takes the form of the rule of law, or the rule of sovereign citizenship, or some other form, is simply that authoritarianism stipulates that people are responsible for their actions while preventing people from having the self-control without which personal responsibility is impossible to actually achieve.
Bundy has a god-is-talking-directly-to-me discourse and his followers have a god-gave-us-a-prophet class b authoritarian fixation.
Mixed in with that is a heavy dose of ignorance, zealot rhetoric, and some lack of respect for our country.
Dredd – lack of respect for this country is what used to make it great.
An armed society looks like Syria. Is that really what we want for our country? The survival of the most brutal.
Annie – you used an emoticon. I think you are going to soon be hearing from the other anon.
No matter how comical or bizarre Bundy and those who follow him are, it is important to recognize how and why they act this way to address them.
The militia movement is not completely aligned in their politics or resolve but they have some common elements of many among them.
Most of them organize themselves in such a way that they do not consider themselves to be domestic terrorists, as many have ascribed them to being, they regard themselves as the vangard and / or the last protectors of liberty of individual citizens’ rights and freedoms of ordinary people from tyrrany. They tend to be split into two separate groups.
One group is, probably the more dangerous of the two, is aligned with the political goal of the sovereign citizen movement (a primer here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement ). I suspect that Bundy, as evidenced by some of his speeches, is sympathetic to this group but I don’t think he was, at least in the beginning, a member of a militia in the core sense. He probably embraces those who have joined his cause after the fact but I don’t have enough information on this to be conclusive. Sovereign citizens tend to advocate that the federal government has no jurisdiction over them. The do not recognize things such as driver licenses or federal income taxes. Many do not recognize city government law enforcement, state law enforcement or federal government but tend to at least in some respect county sheriffs because they believe they are legitimate beause they are elected by the people. Most in this group are irritating at best but generally keep to themselves but have their own political beliefs. There is a significantly large number (but less than the former) group that is very edgy and to some extent willing to resort to violence when actively confronted by government agents or Law enforcement officers. There have been several murders of LEOs by these and agencies, especially in rural areas, must take these guys seriously. The latter goup is more likely to organize where the more docile is most likely to be loosly associated by have common goals.
The second group are those who do not follow the sovereign citizen movement but view themselves as either recreational in nature, more as hobbyists but available in the event of some kind of need to protect people. These individual groups are harmless. But there is another faction of the group that is between the sovereign citizens and this more passive group. These individuals support the constitution, individual liberty and property rights. They tend to consider themselves as state citizens slightly more than they consider themselves to be US citizens. They don’t necessarily believe they are at war with the US, nor want to overthrow the government but they believe in many respects the US government has for the past 15 or 20 years began to further encroach on ordinary people and is engaged in taking away their liberty, for which if it becomes to aggressive they are justified in retaking America back from politicians and out of control government agencies that are against ordinary people. These people are those who became energized after the Ruby Ridge Fiasco in Idaho and the Waco Seige, but after the Oklahoma City bombing many backed off due to sympathy to those who died but a splinter type of group felt emboldened. (a small group comparatively). After the 2001 terrorist attacks the goups became less vocal and visible as some form of patriot leanings were that the US citizens were being attacked and they believed the government was doing what it could to combat foreign enemies and most were supportive or at least less vocal. They had also tended to lose a lot of support after the OK city bombing. But, many of the militia groups began stirring under the radar as the public became more, largely, less trusting in the federal goverment. What the second group is especially worried or angry about is the perception of federal agencies taking away land and what rural individuals consider their birthrights. Property rights especially.
The Bundy situation was a cause célèbre with both of these two groups. The groups believe, those in the more activist splinters especially, that the federal government is increasingly taking property rights away from individual citizens. Rural American culture is very strong on property rights and individualism, especially those having or using rangeland. They resent having their land marginalized especially through what they believe to be pretexts such as environmental laws or administrative rulings for which they do not recognize as being legitimate legislation. Their beliefs are not completely without merit as there have been many land grabs and reductions in the freedoms of property owners by goverment agencies especially with the US Forest Service and more recently the BLM. They especially resent eminent domain on rural areas. The perception might be higher than the reality but nevertheless it is what they believe.
What Bundy represents to these groups as a man who was victimized by the BLM and restrictive government regulation, especially with the endangered turtle in the area and the fact that Bundy is only one of three families that have retained the use of the rangeland, which Bundy’s family and others have used in some cases for over a hundred years. I belive formerly there were probably 40 or 50 ranchers that used these lands and the government administratively forced them out of the grazing rights. This was another proof to the militias and Bundy that the land grab and destruction of their way of life was happening to him. The issue of money, the million dollars in unpaid grazing fees, was part of the perceived unreasonable treatment of Bundy so his supporters do not recognize its legitimacy. The fact that Bundy said he paid the Nevada state fees plays into the militia sovereign citizens’ beliefs in that he paid a legitimate state/county fee but not the feds’.
In rural culture, the rancher, is seen as an upstanding American who preserves a way of life they identify with, this demographic is sympathized by both of the two groups. Americanism, individuality, and rural eithics are held also. It is especially much more in the American West than it is in Cities or the East.
The incident where the Bundy family was confronted in which SWAT team like BLM rangers and two individuals were tased (I use this for reference purposes) when word of this spread it began to energize the sovereign citizens and the more aggressive factions of the militias, at least in their attention.
When Bundy later decided to draw a line in the stand where they wanted to retrive their cattle from the impound pen the BLM created it had enormous propaganda capital in his favor. The message was made as a fact that he was a rancher trying to retrieve his illegally seized cattle and his fellow horseman, bearing US flags and such, were proud citizens who were willing to face the possibility (perceived, if or if not true) they would lay down their lives in defense of freedom in the face of a well armed SWAT team of BLM rangers who represented the icon of a repressive federal goverment bent on robbing them of their liberty. They garnered a lot of sympathy in many circles as they were the underdogs willing to take a stand for their cause. The scene with the BLM played right into Bundy’s hands and increased his following.
In my view politicians and federal officials are making a strategic mistake to call these groups actively supporting Bundy and his followers domestic terrorists. That further supports in the minds of these individuals that the federal government is actively attempting to marginalize them or, given the 13 year so called “war on terrorism”, evidence that the federal government will eventually use force against them. It might resound well with the general public that is against their beliefs, but it is counter-productive for Bundy and his militia followers.
The concern I have is if the federal government reacts in a way that is perceived to be menacing and an act of violences becomes perceived by these groups against them, we will see a real act of domestic terrorism levied against a government agency.
The militias agitating the hotel and others in this example is by the most dangerous of these groups that probably is coming from several individuals acting among each other but are agitators. Of course many will not support them, but those who do will not object to this happeining because there is real hatred presently toward the BLM. I have to stress that the BLM has not always been an enemy, or even probably noticed by these militia groups as a whole before the Bundy issue became national news, but presently they are the enemy and those supporting them are viewed as such.
The federal law enforcement agencies are in a difficult position in one respect. The federal government, cannot yield completely to an armed group making confrontational demands else it might elicit more of this elsewhere. But if they don’t attempt to take the wind out of these individuals who are making threats or violence soon (when it happens) the violent movement could grow.
The worst case scenario would be for a Ruby Ridge or Waco incident and that is something the feds and everyone wants to avoid.
One way would be to defeat the cause célèbre of Bundy by decreasing its profile. In my view the best outcome would be for a large number of his sympathizers to collect the million dollars he ows the feds in grazing fees and he then pays off the fines, the feds release the judgement against him publicly, and in privately someone from the US Goverment, through perhaps an intermediary, provides him with an address of his grazing rights to his satisfaction and let this matter quiety go away. This way Bundy can declare a public victory of such and the goverment can they declare Bundy submitted to paying his grazing fees. The BLM should then make statements that it is addressing the concerns of other ranchers and property owners, not those such as Bundy types but what is perceived to be ordinary individuals.
If this happens, the militia types will have no front to fight against in the open sense. They are provided a sort of victory, but by the same token the government should give a soft force message that we as a sociaty cannot have people running around in trucks toting guns like in Somalia, and take a less visible force, while at the same time watching these groups and nabbing them if they make real criminal acts but not doing what can be perceived as being baiting or entrapping.
Again, no matter how strange these folks are, it is a mistake to treat them as abstracts or in generalizations.
Annie – you were the one who publicly stated she was going to a family event yesterday. I was giving you support for your survey of your family members. There is no attack, personal or otherwise. I was defending your honor.
Justice Holmes
Why not call these gangs what they are gangs of terrorists.
====================================================
because they are white, republican/libertarian, and christian.
if the feds or the sheriffs office really wants to go in and stop it they should do it during duck dynasty.
kind of like washington attacking the hessians on christmas.
Why not call these gangs what they are gangs of terrorists. Their goal is to terrorize the area into submitting to their “there is no government but us” mentality. Unless something is done while they are in their beginning stages we will witness a ME situation right here in the US. That is apparently what these guys want.
the other anon – syg and an armed society are two separate issues. The article is well-written hyperbole but does not actually describe stand your ground or the fact that we have a RIGHT to be armed.
I love emoticons, don’t you? Several other people on here love them, too.
Max1
If you’re still around. I responded to you about CEO prosecutions. I thought not much had been done with the CA/Enron screwing except getting Grey Davis recalled. Lay and Skilling HAD to be prosecuted after they grabbed their money and ran as Enron was going belly up. Am I mistaken?
So fellows, am I safe in saying that Ike started the damn war?
pete, thanks to you too.
Ahhh yes. The old domino theory. I had no idea France had been in Nam since 1856 or something. My underlying education regarding Nam is Enzio singing Some Enchanted Evening to Mary Martin. I think it could use some brushing up.
rafflaw,
Yes, a sad day indeed.
However the neighbor shooting at the students were an armed National Guard.
Declaration of Independance
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
I just don’t see grazing rights as the reason given in it…
Max – 1 – you really don’t understand grazing land and grazing rights do you? The majority of land in the Western states is owned by the federal government. You can easily check on line to see how much federal land is owned in the Original 13 or any state prior to 1865. It takes roughly 100 acres of land to graze 1 cow for 1 year in the West (not so in the East or West Coast). Since private land is very limited, ranchers who want to raise even a nominal number of cattle are required to get grazing rights on someone’s land.
Speaking of being in fear of your neighbor shooting you, off topic, but yesterday was the 44th anniversary of the Kent State killings. A very sad day that I will never forget.
Paul Schulte
Elaine – an armed society is a polite society.
= = =
An armed society is one that lives in fear of their neighbor shooting them.
And armed society is a polite society. My next door neighbor is an arms dealer and I am glad of it. 😀
re: rubber thanks Elaine and raff too damn tired to keep searching. and I hate Bing search but can’t get firefox to let the default be google….