It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

page: 68
<< 65  66  67    69  70 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:43 AM
edit on 2-2-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:15 AM
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

"Just warming up" eh? Hehehe. Nice.

One of your statements actually makes some sense.

Sadly, this actually does demonstrate what the US Government has done in the past ... IN FAVOR OF ranchers and cowboys ... like your friends the Bundys.

Also unfortunately for your comments about "a land grab" ...

The Supreme Court gave its blessing to the Indian Claims Commission ruling, claiming that the Shoshone had no claim to the land since the tribe had been paid $26 million.

So, not a case of BLM simply grabbing land or bullying American citizens ... but a good example of how we have totally mistreated and committed atrocities against the Native American peoples through due process.

edit on 2-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Duplicate

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:33 AM
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

It was not an attempt to paint you as anything.

You said native tribes do not recognize federal law when in fact not all tribes have issues with the federal government. That is why I said don't lump them all together. But thank you for chastising me over something I didn't do.

Oregon tribal nations however are not a part of PL280. With that said crimes occurring in non PL280 states become the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Native tribes have no authority over non native individuals.

So, again, dont lump all tribes together.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:56 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

To further add some of the land claimed was rejected by the ICC / United States Court of Claims because multiple tribes claimed the same land, making it almost impossible to resolve.

Also, specifically with the Shoshone, there is this - United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting ... So even more complicated, in fact, as you pointed out.

Sad for the remaining Shoshone lady ... Philosophically I actually sympathize with her individual position. Thanks for the info!

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gryphon66Here's an article with a clear photo of Jon Ritzheimer holding up this pamphlet from the LA Times; Oregon Armed Protesters invoke the Constitution -- Annotated by a Conspiracy Theorist

Another Skousen proponent is Richard "Sheriff" Mack.
'Sheriff Mack' wielding new weapon: a message

For years, Richard Mack wrote books and gave speeches, arguing for gun rights, sovereign states and "constitutional sheriffs."

At first, not many people listened to Mack, a two-term Graham County sheriff who lives in Safford. Many wrote him off as a radical.

But that's changing. The tea party's nationwide emergence and Arizona's drift to the right are bringing Mack's ideas from the political edge into the eddies of the mainstream.

Since Barack Obama's election as president, Mack, 58, has been a hot national speaker, and some of his dearest ideas have come up in the current [Arizona] Legislature.
As a Provo officer in about 1984, Mack attended a class for police officers on the U.S. Constitution, led by W. Cleon Skousen, a right-wing Mormon intellectual and former FBI agent. Skousen was a fervent anti-communist who wrote about religious and political topics and serves now as an inspiration....

Although Mack is Mormon, he has been spreading these ideas around the country to any audience who is interested, non-Mormon, "Patriot", etc.

While not fully supporting the Bundy Oregon action, Mack says when talking about it, “You Never Know What This Corrupt Government Is Going To Do.”

So, even though the message came out of Mormon history, it has resonated with non-Mormons.

Oh, I wanted to say that the White Horse Prophecy dealt with Mormon elders "saving" the country. Finicum was not an elder, but he was certainly caught up in the movement.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: desert

Sadly, Mr. Finicum was ill-used by the Bundys; Cliven's comments seem to make that fairly clear.

Yes, I've run across Sheriff Mack. As you can see, the philosophy has blossomed throughout certain communities, yet, it retains it's "religio-social" element ... adherents repeat the tenets unquestioningly and are not dissuaded in any way by clear statements of obvious direct fact that contradict their "beliefs" ... in specific regard to Mack, the example of what I'm referring to is that no where in the US Constitution is here a single reference to the office of "Sheriff."

... thus making the phrase oxymoronic "Constitutional Sheriff" a perfect symbol for the absolute nuttery of the whole movement. In my opinion.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:08 AM
Here's a somewhat less jingoistic description of the situation with the Dann family: New York Times article, 2003 than has been provided previously.

I have nothing but personal sympathy for their plight, after reading factual material on what has happened. Apparently, Mary sadly died in 2005, a few years after the article from the Times above.

I would certainly say that it seems that the BLM could have handled the matter differently with the last two Shoshone on this land.


This story does not illustrate a "land grab" by the BLM. It demonstrates the way, often less than ethical by any standard, that Americans acquired the lands of the United States.

Beyond that the artificial distinction made between "the US Government" and "the People of the United States" in this instance is disingenuous. In many cases the People (i.e. individuals who settled these areas, like say, the ancestors of the Bundys) were all too willing and culpable for their Government to acquire land for their use.

Nothing in the story speaks to a lack of authority for the US Government to own or administrate public lands.

Nothing in the story suggests that individuals (even lovable ones like the Dunn sisters) should be able to arbitrarily ignore US law.

Also, from 1863 onward, the Shoshone have sought "redress of their grievances" (to which, technically they are not Constitutionally endowed) in the appropriate way, legally, through the court system.

The Government has settled with the Shoshone nation in an equitable if not fully ethical manner.

Dealings with the Native Americans have not been our proudest moments as a nation, certainly. Implying that Americans past and present have not been complicit with those actions is simply incorrect ... if not hypocritical. In my opinion.

ETA: Curious question though ... why aren't the Bundy's and the rest of the camouflage cavalries (or as I heard someone humorously call these folks "Y'allQaeda") rushing to the aid of the Dunns and the Shoshone?

edit on 2-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:29 AM
Richard Mack lamented that Ammon Bundy would be labeled a "nut extremist". This reminds me of a story told to me by a person who regularly visited a family member who was a resident of a mental hospital. Each time he would visit, residents would come up to him and whisper, "I am not crazy, but all those people over there are." Sorry, Sheriff, but both you and Ammon are indeed nutty extremists. Personally, I might even find you and Ammon to be nice, even fun, guys to be around.... but you're still extremists and nutters.

There's a very interesting read from last Sept that provides background to the extremist movement. (And it includes corporate as well as state and citizen supporters.)....

Constitutional Crisis in the Heart of Dixie

To understand why the “sovereign” movement’s focus has moved from the South and to the West let’s take a moment for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) history.

Mormon people were persecuted. They were killed and driven from New York, then from Illinois to the territorial west. LDS culture to this day reminds members to never forget the persecution the “pioneers” endured. ...

The Mormon intent was to be separate from the United States – regardless of what the Louisiana Purchase had to say. ....

The federal government has always struggled with how to respond to the LDS state, particularly regarding sovereignty and polygamy. To this day, the Federal government struggles with exercising its authority in this relatively lawless tri-state area known as Dixie.
Because the Federal government is unable or unwilling to enforce the rule of law, there are consequences.

One consequence is that Bundy and the sovereigns have been empowered to challenge Federal authority elsewhere on public lands. They have become seditionists looking to provoke a fight. We have seen them [movement members] show up in Oregon and Montana to provide an armed presence to prevent Federal lands managers from doing their jobs, and other areas like Ferguson, Missouri. To date, law enforcement at all levels have acquiesced to their demands.
A lesser-known LDS rancher and seditionist in the Arizona Strip has also been making similar claims as Bundy. LaVoy Finicum has become semi-famous in the states rights circles through supporting Bundy. He has recently published a book just in time for the Western Freedom Festival titled, “Only By Blood and Suffering: Regaining Lost Freedom,” where he describes a family struggling to survive during a “national crisis….in the face of devastating end-times chaos.”
Of course, the Federal Government does not wish to see their employees threatened, as has happened in Cedar City where the Western Freedom Festival will be held.[9] And, nobody wants to see bloodshed and the possibility of another Ruby Ridge and Waco. No doubt, these life and death issues weigh heavily on the minds of federal law enforcement agents as they continue to deal with the rise in the “states rights” movement.

One thing I noted was the ending to Finicum's novel, as described in this article

(IMO Finicum probably fantasized that he was his made-up character, Bonham)

Probably the harshest criticism is saved for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The main villain, Zachary Williams, is a DHS agent who conscripts an army of convicted felons and spearheads a plan to turn the region around southern Utah and northern Arizona into a kind of fascist kingdom.

In the final pages of the story Williams nearly wins; Bonham is wounded, surrounded, without a rifle, and Williams talks about “taking your head.” At the last second, however, Bonham pulls out his revolver and kills Williams and several other agents.

“The bullet took Zachary Williams between the eyes,” Bonham narrates, adding a few lines later that “The bodies of my enemies lay before me, not a twitch coming from them. Holding the old revolver in my hand, I could not help but spin it around my finger once before sliding it back into the holster.

This is not how it all went down in the non-fiction of Oregon.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:00 PM
a reply to: desert

That is an amazing and (heartbreaking) find.

Non fiction indeed.

Too bad we can't hold Mack and the Bundys as accomplices in Fincum's suicide.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:50 PM
a reply to: desert

Have we discovered the fount of all conspiracy theories, Desert?

From an article called Mitt Romney's Nutty Professor - Mother Jones

If Romney hasn't read Skousen's political philosophy, that's probably for the best. His professor's grand theory of American history was founded on a set of beliefs that had little to no basis in reality. He believed that the Founding Fathers were directly direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, whom he said had migrated to the British Isles—and that by extension, the Constitution was the direct descendant of the ruling system of the ancient Israelites.

Wonder if this also ties into the Templars, Freemasons, etc. etc.?

As Alexander Zaitchik reported for Salon, some of Skousen's colleagues at BYU insisted on teaching his economic treatise, Naked Capitalism, which theorized that a global cabal of bankers was quietly controlling the world from behind the scenes. (Naked Capitalism was a sequel to Naked Communism, which argued that the Soviet Union was just a pawn in larger effort by the United Nations to control the world).

edit on 2-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:14 PM
Another reference proving that Finicum was shot by Oregon State Police, not the FBI: - online version of The Oregonian

Finicum was shot by Oregon State Police officers during an attempt to stop and arrest the leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, then in its 25th day.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:38 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66
Well then, of course it is fine to shoot them all. Don't see why any of them were left alive if they had been reading an "annotated" Constitution which gives a different opinion than that held by the "authorities." My goodness, why didn't somebody STOP them from reading and talking about such dangerous materials as an "annotated" copy of the Constitution? Send in the troops now and wipe them all out. We simply can't have these differing opinions on the application of the Constitution since ALL THE FOUNDERS were in perfect agreement and never gave any opposing opinions.
These people are religious? Singing hymns and praying? My, my, we can't let that happen either. If they're putting their religion above the words of federal authorities they certainly deserve to be shot down on the side of the road like a dog. Certainly, we know from modern sources that all the framers of the Constitution were secretly atheists. Pay no attention to their writings, they were simply trying to fool the populace with all that talk about morality.
Anyone caught with an "annotated" copy of the Constitution should, at the least, be jailed for sedition, but probably would be easier just to shoot them or send a drone in to kill them. We all know how very dangerous "unauthorized" opinions of government can be!

Thank you for enlightening us on these matters---serious matters indeed when people of faith become involved in government. We know that's not what the founders intended don't we?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (NOTE: This only applies to people who agree with our definition of the Blessings of Liberty, all opposing views will be suppressed and their proponents killed.)

It only makes sense to kill or imprison those who voice disagreement. That is the Fed's method of insuring "domestic tranquility", kill the opposition. Our presidents have been doing it for some time now with drones. I can't figure out why he hasn't yet sent a drone to the refuge to take out those dangers to our society who have religious beliefs and believe that they have some sort of right to oppose the Imperial edicts.

Thank you for explaining the government's position so clearly with the help of msm.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:44 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: desert

Have we discovered the fount of all conspiracy theories, Desert?

From an article called Mitt Romney's Nutty Professor - Mother Jones
If Romney hasn't read Skousen's political philosophy, that's probably for the best. His professor's grand theory of American history was founded on a set of beliefs that had little to no basis in reality. He believed that the Founding Fathers were directly direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, whom he said had migrated to the British Isles—and that by extension, the Constitution was the direct descendant of the ruling system of the ancient Israelites.

That's interesting. How can the author be so sure about the founding father's ancestry not being what Skousen believed? (Off topic, but do you know who Joel Skousen is?) I don't know either way, of course, and I don't have access to that kind of deep sourcing but I don't think I've ever come across anyone mentioning such a thing. I can entertain what may seem completely outlandish to someone else but I think is an interesting concept. Hmm.

I'm not religious but the subjects' religious beliefs are taking a beating. :-) I would have to know them personally to see how fundamental or extremest they might actually come across as being.

The Internet and what's posted on it about anyone is not a complete description of who that person really is. It can and does lead to false, fragmented impressions of people. Google Mind hasn't been uploaded with every aspect of everything which makes up any given person. We jump to conclusions and make assumptions about people based on an illusionary, (why isn't that a real word?), subjective, Internet profile. Then people are condemned according to these deceptive images. It's scary.
edit on 2-2-2016 by tweetie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Could you quote where anyone here has said it was okay to shoot anyone because they were carrying Skousen's marked up "Constitutional" pamphlet.

Could you quote where anyone has said it was not okay for any member of the Bundy Gang to sing hymns.

You're welcome for enlightening you on these matters.

Again, you're welcome for the information I have provided you.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:51 PM
a reply to: tweetie

You say you don't have any evidence that any of the "Founders" were members of a lost tribe of Israel ... okay ... was your comment just a general quibble with a rather minor point in the linked article?

The matter at discussion (still related to the OP in terms of the motivation of Ammon Bundy and his Gang) is not "interesting ideas" that we all consider from time to time; Skousen wrote these theories in a series of books that he presented as fact. These books were, in 2009, on the best-seller list for months after Glenn Beck resurrected them. There are representiatives of his National Center for Constitutional Studies going around the country offering "classes" on these fictions and presenting them as actual fact.

I would say that is why such (apparently) baseless nonsense would be of concern. ETA: Clarifying "of concern" ... because many have taken Skousen's misinformation (which it is without proof) about the nature of the men we call "The Founders" as well as The Constitution and have used it as the foundation of beliefs which basically seem to say that actual known facts and recorded history are unimportant ... what is important is BELIEF.

BELIEF makes it okay to illegally occupy, vandalize and prevent the operation of a Federal bird sanctuary.

BELIEF that one is not subject to the laws of the land or to law enforcement gets one needlessly killed (or sacrificed, according to Cliven Bundy)


How exactly are the Bundy Gang's religious beliefs taking a beating? Because the Mormon Church repudiated what they were doing?


I honestly have no idea of the relevance of your last paragraph to our discussion. (No offense intended). Are you saying we can't know anything factual about other people in the world unless we know them fully in all of their individual beings?

I'd have to disagree, if that's what you're contending.

edit on 2-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:36 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: desert

Have we discovered the fount of all conspiracy theories, Desert?

At my age, I just wish someone had discovered the Fountain of Youth

Well, that is interesting about Romney.

The exchange was read by some liberal critics an enthusiastic endorsement of Skousen by Romney. In the context, he's merely suggesting, with characteristic blandness, that anything to do with the Founding Fathers is worth reading. In fact, he went on to reject the notion that state governments could simply ignore a Supreme Court decision they considered to be wrongly decided—a staple of Skousen's 10th-Amendment-based philosophy of nullification.

Whew! Good! Thank God we don't have POTUS candidates who believe in nullification. Oh, Wait!

Cruz, however, co-authored an unconstitutional proposal claiming two or more states could simply ignore the Constitution’s command and nullify the Affordable Care Act so long as they work together. Although the Constitution does permit states to join in “interstate compacts” that have the force of law, under the Constitution such compacts require the consent of Congress and can be vetoed by the President. Cruz falsely claimed that states do not need to meet these Constitutional requirements to undermine laws they don’t like.


Moore said Storey instructed Cruz and others using “The Miracle of America,” a set of audiotapes and workbooks by the late Cleon Skousen, a leading defender of the John Birch Society who has been touted in recent years by radio and TV talk-show host Glenn Beck.

from the Dallas Morning News

Jazz was created in America. And so was Mormonism. Personally, I have known many, many Mormons from my community. BYU graduates among them. They were all of the Romney type, not the extremist Bundy etal type.

As far as this thread,

The thing about death cults is that there’s only one real way to defeat them. And that’s by helping the people who believe in them stop believing in them.

This is what we did after World War II in Germany and Japan. The people of Germany and the people of Japan were totally behind Hitler and Tojo because they bought into the death cult that both dictators presided over. Hitler said he was bringing about a 1,000 year Reich and the Germans believed him. In Japan, meanwhile, they believed the Emperor was literally a descendant of the sun god.

But after the war was over, we won the hearts and minds of the people and we convinced them that their death cult was wrong.

Thom Hartmann

America now needs to deal with its own secret shame. IMO what happened in Burns was the confluence of American religious and social phenomenon extremism. We may have dealt with other countries' cults after war, but we never effectively dealt with our own Civil War aftermath and our own penchant for powerful extremist ideas.

Maybe Mr. Cleon Skousen needs his own thread?

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:41 PM

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe Mr. Cleon Skousen needs his own thread?

I'd be glad to participate in one.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:31 PM
a reply to: desert

and if Cruz looked at the law and history he would see that a state that ignores federal law can be considered in a state of rebellion and the feds can nationalize their guard units to enforce the federal law (something about black kids going to a white school in the south).

Then there is that whole Supremacy clause in the constitution....

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:13 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

It very plainly say that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...."
Pursuance means carrying out a plan. The authors of the Constitution outlined their plan in the Preamble. It is saying that only laws that pursue the plan they're laying out can be considered the supreme Law of the Land.
Words have meaning and lucky for us, the framers of the Constitution weren't nearly as verbose as today's legislators.

Since you're a cop, can you tell me exactly where in the Constitution is the section that allows law enforcement to lie to the public? It is an established fact that they will lie to citizens but if citizens lie to them they bring charges against the citizens. How does that not get crosswise of the principle of equality before the law? You can charge me for lying to you but you can't be charged for lying to me. Seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

new topics

top topics

<< 65  66  67    69  70 >>

log in