Army Officer on Oregon Killing: 'This could be the First Shot of 2nd American Revolution'

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: TrueAmerican

He says Obama should be impeached over this for ordering in the FBI

Really, I mean really? Why does it always have to go back to f*cking Obama.

What was the situation surrounding the man's death? How was he executed?

Thats what happens when you're the President and order the FBI to attack and they execute an American citizen. What the hell do you want...ignore the idiot in chief's responsibility? Not my fault you voted for the jerk.

a reply to: annalisa2016

....
This has escalated into something well beyond just cows and grass but to what end?

It has never been about cows and grass despite what the idiots on msm have been telling you. Listening to them is like hearing a robotic doll who has been programmed. They all have exactly the same story---word for word---scripted for them by their overseers.
Bless their hearts, they don't know any better because the education system over the past 25-30 years has beaten into their brains that the only correct behavior is to bow down to any figure of authority who demands it of you. They were "educated" in schools with police dressed as paramilitary officers patrolling the halls and DARE officers in the classrooms telling them they must rat out all "law-breakers." They never studied US history or the Constitution beyond the questions covered on the national tests.

To what end you ask?

To the end that the federal government is put back into the small box the founders of the country build to reign in the power of authority over the people. These problems began in the 19th century and have been allowed to continue because of the corrupt nature of the bureaucracy. Go back to the days of building the railroads and the robber barons to start your research on this issue.
The founders of the country weren't unclear about the contract between the federal government and the states. KrisAnne Hall explains it quite eloquently. Her version matched every Constitutional law lecture I've ever heard, including several judges from State Supreme Courts, law professors and Attorneys General.
Those of us who have been around since the Warren Commission have ample reason to doubt any form of official story because of all the tall tales they told about that and every subsequent incident in which they have been involved. We've read the news stories about the corruption, the altering of laboratory tests by federal agencies and lying under oath to get people convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
If you had friends or family members who constantly told lies and tall tales to make themselves look good and others look bad---would you trust anything coming from their lips? It shouldn't surprise anyone that we are highly skeptical of an agency that will use a sniper to shoot a woman holding a baby in her arms or shoot a teenager in the back because his Daddy is a wanted man for having a gun with a barrel that was altered.
People who are willing to die for their beliefs scare the crap out of liars so the liars attempt to either kill them off, marginalize or imprison them.

I do not know if any of you have seen this new information about the Oregon stand off.

This Is Something We Can Never 'Unsee' - Free-For-All Armageddon Or Crisis Actors In Oregon? You Be The Judge!

With a lone group of holdouts at the Oregon refuge pushing other Americans to join them, why would a live video that one of the menwas making capture a series of events and statements that we can never 'unsee'? When you take a look at the videos below and actually HEAR these men being told they'd need to sign a 'talent release' and then READ the words coming from the lips of one of the men in this story from Cleveland.com, we can clearly see that Americans and US patriots are being set up.

DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! First, from Cleveland.com and the few stragglers left in Oregon.:

allnewspipeline.com...

At this point I don't know what to believe, perhaps this is about the gun grab laws that Obama wants to pass.

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Mr Bennett on the video took 8 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Just to tell everyone Obama should be impeached. ...sigh....

I saw no man executed. .

These kinds of post are misleading and spread untruth. ....

Nobody saw Michael Brown raise his hands either, yet millions believed it to be true, even after it was proved it wasn't.

This is no different.

Believe it, or not that's your choice. Just don't cry that there is no video of it, that's irrelevant.

a reply to: poncho1982

Believe it, or not that's your choice. Just don't cry that there is no video of it, that's irrelevant.

At this point I don't know what to believe. I certainly don't believe anything the propaganda machines spews out.

At some point earlier on I was supporting the militia, now I have second thoughts and I think I'll stay in the grey area.

The fact is, there are to many hoaxes going on to deliberately mislead the masses.

a reply to: RomeByFire

People comparing this to Waco, Ruby Ridge... I just don't even know what to say. If these comparisons to be accurate, then it's safe to assume these men are of a cult, yes? It appears to be that way, martyrdom is an honorable feat - but this?

You've just shown your abysmal ignorance on the subject of both Ruby Ridge and Waco. You've fallen into msm's trap by believing what was broadcast about those incidents. Have you read Gerry Spence's book about Ruby Ridge? How about Randy Weaver's account? Oh, the feds learned a lot from Ruby Ridge. They learned not leave any survivors to recount what really happened. So at Waco they burned them all alive. Just like the BLM burned all those cows alive in their "prescribed burn" in the video.

All this claptrap about people saying they are ready to die for their beliefs means they are violent people is just so much noise on the part of those squalling about "armed men" because they evidently have no clue to what freedom of speech, press and association mean. They have grown up in a "Zero Tolerance" world, taught what the government wants them to know in schools patrolled by police dressed like combat soldiers. They've been taught by the DARE officer that it is good to rat out anybody "using drugs." They've been convinced that mandatory "community service" is "voluntary"---if you want to obtain a degree at a government sponsored school.

There are plenty of us out here that know that the killing of people without benefit of trial is wrong. We know that the War on Drugs is a farce. We know that the War on Whatever Social Problem Crops Up is a farce. Further, we know that these are un-Constitutional programs set up to make money for those in positions of power. But money talks in our government today. If we needed anything more than the Citizens decision to see that SCOTUS is bought and paid for---I don't know what it would be. But as long as cable tv and the BigSix keep pumping out the circuses and Uncle Sam keeps handing out bread, the medicated masses will stay on the couch.

a reply to: Informer1958


Yes and but........be sure that the government is very afraid of organized armed citizens. So it really doesn't matter what the truth is at some point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If they want a revolution so badly, let them have it. Unlike, say -- disarming every single American who owns a gun, via door to door search and seizure -- I'm pretty sure this one is actually doable.

Plus, you know, given time and interest on old debts, virtually no one is going to "come a runnin'" to back up the new patriots in their quests to return national parks and wildlife preserves back over to the fat, white, robber barons who ran the show for a thousand years or more prior to the first American revolution.

Tough luck that. Most of us have jobs.

originally posted by: annalisa2016

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Painterz
Retired army officer. Not an actual serving army officer. Just some guys opinion who used to be in the army.

FYI: the BLM's crimes are ALSO the result of "some guys opinion".

The problem is, not too many of us share that opinion...

There is no legal authority for the feds to own or maintain any land therefore there is no legal authority for anyone to contract with them to do so. All subsequent contracts are illegal and therefore null & void. It is about complete federal control.

The framers did NOT give SCOTUS the ultimate authority to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution & federal power. That is a modern abhorrent interpretation of the Constitution and judicial power. James Madison and John Jay and the rest of the framers wrote that the States were the ultimate authority of the application of the Constitution and the people the ultimate power. We need to put down the SCOTUS opinions, the government's desires, and the mainstream ignorance and get the wisdom of the writers of the Constitution.

www.facebook.com...

I have read through 5 pages of posts so far and I see this as being the absolute best so far. The video explaining the Constitution and the federal government limitations explains very well just why the government is guilty of murder despite the personal actions of any participant. The facts are that the federal government has absolutely no authority to own land except for certain and specific reasons. The federal government caused the circumstances for his death and therefore guilty of murder........

That simply is not true, Article 4 Clause 2 does not specify any conditions for Federal Ownership of Land nor does it specifically prohibit it, it simply states COngress has the duty and right to pass regulations for the needful use of said.

Read it again a few times, let the lack of any real specifics sink in please

In order to understand the Constitution you have to study the entire document, not clipped out sections.
How many classes in Constitutional law have you taken? How many hours have you spent studying the documents surrounding its adoption? Do you know the reasoning and background of the document?

Article One lays out the powers of the federal government. It draws the outlines of the small box that the founders were inscribing to keep the power of the feds in check. They drew a slightly larger box to contain the power of the states, leaving the majority of power over themselves to themselves.
Article One Section Eight sets out the powers of Congress. Paragraph Seventeen says this:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—

www.archives.gov...

Do you see where it boxes in the government by limiting their authority to "(not exceeding ten Miles square)" and again, "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;" There is nothing ambiguous or unclear.

Article Four deals with the States and their relationship with the Federal Government. Due to the fact that the box around the property to be owned by the feds in Article One, this article deals with Rules and Regulations specifically---the word 'Law" is mentioned in the first paragraph, not the second paragraph of Section Three. The only "Laws" mentioned are to provide for people being treated equally in each state as regards public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings.
Secondly, you must understand the meaning of "Territory" and "Property" remembering the proscription laid out in Article One.

Moving along in the document that places the government in a tiny box---we find that the States weren't quite satisfied with the document as it was originally written demanded the addition of a Bill of Rights. In particular, pertaining to this issue the 10th Amendment made it perfectly clear that the box surrounding the feds was the smallest, the box around the States was bit bigger and the biggest box of all was given to the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now if you have a legal contract that specifically states on page one that your property is limited to X and then states on page three that you have the right to make rules for certain uses of that property. I challenge you to attempt to nullify the limitations on your X amount of property found on page one just because page three says you can make rules for your X amount of property.

KrisAnne Hall is far more eloquent than I and if you will take a look at some of her videos you'll better understand the issues. A particularly good one is her "Genealogy of the Constitution" in which she lays out the basic tenets and traces them back in time. www.youtube.com...

So I would respectfully suggest that you read the entire document and the actual writings of the founders as well as the documents on which it is based.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: stevieray

Ooh! Ooh! My turn!

"These guys never wanted violence!"

Who are the ones advocating for bloodbaths, again?

The people of this town asked them to leave.

Little Princess Ritz deleted his youtube video proclaiming his hatred and want for violence.

Who is one promoting murdering again?

I'm taking one out of their book, good to know I'll have unfettered support when I decide to claim others property as my own because I'm fighting government tyranny.

The issue was whether what I said was true. You said it wasn't, and I proved to you that it was.

Your subsequent desperate tangent to anything else notwithstanding.

This thread isn't about me nor you, congratulations though - you're right! Woo-hoo! Go you, high-five! Would you like me to print and email you a certificate ascertaining to you being correct? I couldn't care less about being wrong or right.

You know what a true tragedy is? Poisoning people's water supply in Flint - but by all means, continue playing the victim card regarding those who broke federal law and were treated like criminals.

Again - it's nice to know I will have unfettered support when I decide to take over someone's else's property and shall face no criminal wrongdoings whatsoever.

As I pointed out to you in another thread your strawman of taking over someone's property does not apply here. This is public land, not private property. IF you had been alive in the '60s you'd have been having brain spasms I'm sure because back in those days government property was regularly "taken over" by protesters when they occupied campus building on a fairly regular basis to protest the Vietnam war. We also "occupied" areas of federal land to prevent massive development projects designed to move populations from lands occupied by their ancestors for generations.
Why do you continually bring in issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread? The Flint Michigan issue is a state issue. I'm sure that there are threads on Flint's problems just as there are threads on all the other horrible things the Feds have done.
This issue is about a government instituted to protect the rights of citizens that has become the jailer of citizens rather than the protector. They have broken the very laws set down to keep them inside that tiny box envisioned by the founders.

FBI just released video of the traffic stop and shooting. Finicum sure did exit that vehicle quickly, after nearly hitting a cop at the roadblock. He also repeatedly reaches inside his jacket, where the FBI notes he had a loaded 9mm handgun:



Skip to about 5:50 for the shooting.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Apparently he was dragged out of the car and shot execution style while on his knees with his hands over his head.
WATCH THE VIDEO

We have watched the video, he was NOT dragged out of his car, he was NOT kneeling, he did NOT have his hands over his head.... so why do you claim he did?

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
The guy DID have his hands in the air and was UNARMED,

No he did not....

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Lmao the whole world is laughing at murican "patriots". Those idiots should all (minus children) be locked up for life. Americans didnt support tge bundy family before. What makes you think they will support them again in an armed revolution?

You are proposing to imprison people for life whom you have judged "idiots" without the benefit of trial or even meeting and speaking with them. People who have caused no harm to anyone, have simply occupied a vacant federal building in the middle of a wilderness. The majority of Americans know only what msm, cable tv and the BigSix, have told them to believe about these incidents.
What issue---please be specific---what issue could possibly arise that would prompt you to support people who were protesting the actions of the government? Or is it so in your world that governments can do no wrong because they ARE the law? I realize that schools are teaching this very doctrine and you may have been subjected to this type of propaganda. The cure for that malady is to read the original documents and the writings of the men who composed the Contract we call the Constitution.
If the feds want the right to own land other than the property laid out in the Constitution, they can use the legal means of changing the Constitution, not just walk in and grab power that rightfully resides with the States. If you don't see the difference between those fighting the over-reach of federal powers and "idiots" perhaps you need to do a bit of research into the issues being discussed by the patriots.
See, the issues being discussed by the msm crowd are things like grazing rights and poaching. Those aren't Constitutional issues---aren't even mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. But msm has been directed to talk about those issues rather than the underlying issue of a federal government that has taken powers rightfully belonging to the states and the people.
Amendment Ten was one demanded by the States. It draws those boxes in which powers reside. It isn't unclear or complicated for people who have a third grade level of reading skills.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See how they drew a little, bitty box to hold federal power, a slightly larger one for the States in that the States can prohibit powers not delegated by the Constitution, and the biggest of all---"to the people." It's up to the people to hold onto the powers they have, not cede them to government.
You see, when this document was written, the States already existed. They had their power and this was actually a negotiation as to how much power they were willing to give the feds. That's what all the debating was about. Read up a bit on it for a better understanding of our grand experiment. You may learn that the material presented to you in your government-sponsored textbooks didn't tell the entire story. You probably learned that the Revolution was about a tax on tea didn't cha?

a reply to: nataylor

I've just finished watching what is claimed to be unedited video from the FBI.
www.rawstory.com...

Maybe it's something with my browser or video player but it is really messed up in some interesting places. I've tried going back and forth but it keeps pausing and pixeliating (is that a word?). Is it clear for you?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
The guy DID have his hands in the air and was UNARMED,

No he did not....

Just watched the video he clearly exited the car and walked aroudn the back of it with his hands up, look like he stumbled in the snow or something and was trying to get his balance, before the officer behind him shot him dead then walked off

Then they lit up the car..........

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Then they lit up the car..........

Better yet, then they lit a cigar.

I doubt it will cause a civil war but I guarantee it didn't sh!t to prevent one.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yes, please...take your own advice and "Watch the video". Your narrative does not fit the video, but is consistent with yesterdays "news".

Your comment is an interesting study into how people can be influenced by being told beforehand what they are about to watch and then confirming that is what you saw, contrary to the visual evidence.

Just for the record...does anyone know where this guy Funicum was from?

He was from Colorado City, Arizona. Do some of you conspiracy theorists know who else is from this 'closed' community?

A rather unsavory fella by the name of Warren Jeffs (former leader of the FLDS church), a guy who believed in raping 13 year old girls and having something on the order of 80 (yes, "eighty") wives.

Stick up for him all you like, but that's not a guy I'd want on my side...PERIOD!

This wasn't Hammond's cause. Hammonds disassociated themselves from Bundy and this knucklehead several weeks ago, BEFORE they occupied the refuge.

There's no "revolution" here. There's just one dead tin-horn cowboy who made a living off his FOSTER children, and the taxpayers who fund them.

Somebody should have slit tarp boy's throat the first night he showed up in camp in his stolen government truck so he could never even get a chance to die in a shootout on an FBI video!

Truth hurts sometimes.