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

a reply to: aethertek

How does them allowing the land to be drilled and mined equate to them being eco friendly?

Seems to me it's more like they want to justify their actions by creating the opportunity for bigger budgets.

Do you honestly believe that these big energy oil minin uranium and so on and so forth have no political leverage? Especially when Dick Cheney is involved?

Naïveté?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

How the hell does anyone know he collects welfare for those kids?

Uhm ... Lavoy Finicum did ... are you saying he lied? Well that's not very hero-like is it.

Finicum Says Foster Children Were Removed - OPB.com

Finicum said he is licensed and has a care contract with Catholic Charities Community Services in Arizona. While his license has not been revoked, Finicum said he would no longer receive referrals to care for foster children.

That represents an enormous loss of income for the Finicums. According to a 2010 tax filing, Catholic Charities paid the family $115,343 to foster children in 2009.

And further ...

“That was my main source of income,” Finicum said. “My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.”

And before you or anyone goes there ... yes, Catholic Charities AZ is funded by Government programs ...

Financials - Catholic Charities AZ

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows for the laws of the land to be broken by those that consider themselves above those laws ... whether Washington bureaucrat or Nevada rancher.

There is nothing patriotic about encouraging others to spit on the Constitution and trample underfoot to save a few dollars on grazing fees, or to cover up poaching, or to justify grown men playing "Soldier."

If you are going to make these ridiculous accusations:

encouraging others to spit on the Constitution and trample underfoot to save a few dollars on grazing fees,

I feel the need to ask you for a link to the story or video where you witnessed such behavior. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're just making stuff up.

a reply to: Leonidas
I certainly hope they and all other citizens can count on me for support when their rights are being violated.
I don't discriminate my support based on religion. Or politics. Or skin color. Or any other silly difference.
I do my very best to treat others as I wish to be treated. If I don't support others whose rights have been violated and help them make it known, who will support me when mine have violated?
I don't ask them how much they have in the bank or where they attend church. I just want to know that they believe in the grand experiment outlined in the Constitution. If we share that single belief we can use that document to solve most any issue that might arise.
I don't think rights require a background check. That's just a bit too Big Brother for my tastes.
Clarence Gideon wouldn't have passed anyone's background check. But he made a difference in the US courts.

a reply to: diggindirt

1. I don't care what you assume.

2. Cliven and Ammon Bundy (and their minions) claim that that the Federal Government is illegitimate and that God has given them leave to break the law, oppose and disarm Federal agents, etc. They advocate for insurrection and inspire others to do so. If you don't see that, Google it yourself.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
I certainly hope they and all other citizens can count on me for support when their rights are being violated.
I don't discriminate my support based on religion. Or politics. Or skin color. Or any other silly difference.
I do my very best to treat others as I wish to be treated. If I don't support others whose rights have been violated and help them make it known, who will support me when mine have violated?
I don't ask them how much they have in the bank or where they attend church. I just want to know that they believe in the grand experiment outlined in the Constitution. If we share that single belief we can use that document to solve most any issue that might arise.
I don't think rights require a background check. That's just a bit too Big Brother for my tastes.
Clarence Gideon wouldn't have passed anyone's background check. But he made a difference in the US courts.

Problem is in this case sir, the "grand experiment" you speak of gave the government the right to do exactly what they did and the Bundy's the right to be arrested for violating those laws. There's really nothing here that would meet the threshold of "government overreach" or illegality on the side of the United States. The Bundy's blew this up to make a huge mountain out of a minor anthill for something that had nothing to do with the core issues of the case.

They reaped what they sowed.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Again you are making claims about behavior and yet you have no evidence presented to back up your claims. Please post links to substantiate your claims. Specifically---

Cliven and Ammon Bundy (and their minions) claim that that the Federal Government is illegitimate and that God has given them leave to break the law, oppose and disarm Federal agents, etc. They advocate for insurrection and inspire others to do so.

It is you making the claim so it is up to you to back it up with their words or actions on video. Put up or stop making your slanderous claims. Just one video where they did what you allege will suffice---it must be their words, not some reporter telling you that is what they were saying/doing.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
Again you are making claims about behavior and yet you have no evidence presented to back up your claims. Please post links to substantiate your claims. Specifically---

Cliven and Ammon Bundy (and their minions) claim that that the Federal Government is illegitimate and that God has given them leave to break the law, oppose and disarm Federal agents, etc. They advocate for insurrection and inspire others to do so.

It is you making the claim so it is up to you to back it up with their words or actions on video. Put up or stop making your slanderous claims. Just one video where they did what you allege will suffice---it must be their words, not some reporter telling you that is what they were saying/doing.

He really doesn't need to post links, they did say all of that during the course of the standoff, maybe not in exactly those words, but close enough.

a reply to: annalisa2016
We all reap what we sow in one way or another. I pray that your harvest will be more merciful than the seeds you are sowing with your hatred and disregard for the rights of others. Your attitude would have Rosa Parks still in the back of the bus and women still unable to vote. Can you not see that?
I'm deeply sorry for this generation that has grown up in schools that teach submission. I'm sorry for the ignorance that is so rampant on such vital national issues. I've explained the issue here at length here but because that's not what your government-sponsored teachers and government-sponsored textbooks told you. Do you actually think they would give you the information you need to oppose them?
I challenge you to read the actual documents---not some pundit's opinions---but the actual document and the history of those documents and the writings of the men who penned the documents. They made very clear that their intentions were for a small federal government controlled by the States.
In this specific case it was the fact that the federal prosecutor responsible for the Hammonds case is literally crazier than a cracker but nobody had the power to stop her in her insanity. So two good men are in jail for protecting their lives and property.
Do you honestly believe that a "minor anthill" of a problem will get 300 people out to a community meeting to discuss problems that don't exist? In a county of only a handful over 7000 souls? Have you ever tried to get 300 people together to discuss anything? In the middle of winter? Only events that involve throwing basketballs or footballs can draw that sort of crowd in normal circumstances.
The federal government is not our ruler, not our boss, not our owners. The fact that they have grabbed that power is over-reach. The mere fact that the feds have declared that they have the right to drone people to death without benefit of trial should absolutely scare the living daylights out of every citizen but until those drones come to your neighborhood---you'll stay on the couch or behind the computer keyboard proclaiming that all is good. The fact that forfeiture laws allow authorities to breach the Fifth Amendment on a daily basis should have had people in the streets years ago but as long as it's "criminals" or "suspected criminals" getting ripped off by the government set up to protect their rights you will cheer on the "law and order" boys. After all, only people who have led perfect lives deserve the protection provided in the Constitution---right?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: annalisa2016
We all reap what we sow in one way or another. I pray that your harvest will be more merciful than the seeds you are sowing with your hatred and disregard for the rights of others. Your attitude would have Rosa Parks still in the back of the bus and women still unable to vote. Can you not see that?
I'm deeply sorry for this generation that has grown up in schools that teach submission. I'm sorry for the ignorance that is so rampant on such vital national issues. I've explained the issue here at length here but because that's not what your government-sponsored teachers and government-sponsored textbooks told you. Do you actually think they would give you the information you need to oppose them?
I challenge you to read the actual documents---not some pundit's opinions---but the actual document and the history of those documents and the writings of the men who penned the documents. They made very clear that their intentions were for a small federal government controlled by the States.
In this specific case it was the fact that the federal prosecutor responsible for the Hammonds case is literally crazier than a cracker but nobody had the power to stop her in her insanity. So two good men are in jail for protecting their lives and property.
Do you honestly believe that a "minor anthill" of a problem will get 300 people out to a community meeting to discuss problems that don't exist? In a county of only a handful over 7000 souls? Have you ever tried to get 300 people together to discuss anything? In the middle of winter? Only events that involve throwing basketballs or footballs can draw that sort of crowd in normal circumstances.
The federal government is not our ruler, not our boss, not our owners. The fact that they have grabbed that power is over-reach. The mere fact that the feds have declared that they have the right to drone people to death without benefit of trial should absolutely scare the living daylights out of every citizen but until those drones come to your neighborhood---you'll stay on the couch or behind the computer keyboard proclaiming that all is good. The fact that forfeiture laws allow authorities to breach the Fifth Amendment on a daily basis should have had people in the streets years ago but as long as it's "criminals" or "suspected criminals" getting ripped off by the government set up to protect their rights you will cheer on the "law and order" boys. After all, only people who have led perfect lives deserve the protection provided in the Constitution---right?

Firstly let me say you put together a very long winded response to a very short reply and maybe read a lot more into it then was there, so I'll address a few things then get to why I said what I did.

1) Nothing in my comment was hateful in any way. You are reading hatred into this incident where there is none implied.

2) You do not know my feelings on many issues, so you cannot state, unequivocally that I would have seen Rosa Parks on the back of the bus or that I would have given up my right to vote (as a woman I enjoy voting) Each situation is different and needs to be looked at individually, not with a broad brush that, if you disagree with one, you must disagree with all. Such black or white interpretation is much more harmful than approaching each situation as an individual one to be decided and looked at as an individual situation.

3) Nothing in my statement was implying that I agree with violating the 5th Amendment, I had stated earlier in the discussion had you cared to read back, that upon inspection of the document that you claim I know nothing about, the document does and did give the Federal Government to not only own but also administer land for Federal Use, that includes, charging nominal fees for grazing, which in the end was what this whole mess was about. He didn't want to pay the grazing fee. Boo hoo, sorry, this time, for THIS one instance, the Government was right, the Bundy's and ALL the people they conned into coming up there were wrong. Had this been a different situation, I may have come up with a different conclusion, which brings me to point

4) How dare you sit and think that just because I don't see this one your way, I am either a) submissive or b) "sitting on my couch or behind my computer proclaiming all is good" :effectively calling me an uneducated sheep: ; again, each situation is different, and needs to be looked at as an individual situation.

5) The men in jail were not protecting their property, they took over a Federal building, it was not their property. If they had stayed to their own land, this would have been a different situation, they did not, they invaded and forcibly took over a US Government building. Case closed. Anything before that moment could have been a different situation, once they crossed that line, they were in the wrong.

It saddens me greatly that people try to paint others with broad unwavering strokes, without really understanding why someone may feel the way they do, you didn't even ask me why I had the opinion I did, whether or not it was an overall opinion or just applied to this one incident, or what my understanding of the law, or the Constitution really was? No instead, you decided to attack me and call me (i'm paraphrasing now) "An uneducated lazy submissive who wants the government to run every aspect of my and every other American's lives as long as I have stupid comedies on TV to watch and junk food to eat"

I have no hatred and disrespect for others rights, if you knew anything about me at all you would know that, but I will also call stupid, stupid when someone does something really dumb, that could have been avoided, and could have done without the massive escalation. Maybe next time, you'll as what my reactions to other situations would have been before you paint me with a "I love big all powerful government" brush.

By the way, exercising your rights, and getting your point across, does not require armed takeovers. Women getting the right to vote, and Rosa Parks, did not use violent armed conflict to get the results they desired, and ended up being granted in the end. Think about that for a second before you compare those two defining moments of American history, with some guy that wanted free food for his cows.

a reply to: annalisa2016
Fine, if you have those links I'd appreciate it if you would provide them to back up your claim. Otherwise, I'll doubt that any such videos exist. I'm well aware that many in the media were reporting that they were saying those things but I've yet to see any of the leadership making any such statements. Put up the links or just stop with the outrageous claims. It shouldn't be hard to find such links if they exist.

a reply to: annalisa2016
Sorry, if you think the women's movement didn't involve violence and women being carted off to jail for civil disobedience, same with the Civil Rights movement, you indeed do have a lot to learn of history.
Where do you think Rev. King was when he wrote "Letter from the Birmingham jail"???
Do you think for one minute that Rev. King didn't have armed body guards?
Does the name Alice Paul not ring any bells where imprisonment of activists is mentioned?
Again I urge you to become educated on the past. If you think the wresting of rights is a non-violent process you have much to learn indeed.
Even when the protesters stood silently, the authorities still arrested and imprisoned them. Here's a link for wiki's sanitized version of events. en.wikipedia.org...
You have such radical law-breakers to thank when you step into the voting booth. Criminals that they were.
It is the government instigating the violence, the force. Dogs, fire hoses, night sticks, tear gas and guns.
Kent State was a completely non-violent protest. Half the people shot there weren't even at the protest, just passing by on their way to class when a government bullet ended or forever changed their life.
If we have only the right to express opinions which agree with the government's view, how much freedom do we really have? If we cannot exercise Amendments One and Two simultaneously, how much freedom do we really have? What, I have to choose which rights I will exercise? One at a time? Does that sound right?
ETA: Isn't not being able to practice Amendment One and Amendment Two at the same time kinda like a scenario where the government says that eating a hamburger is perfectly legal. Drinking a milkshake is perfectly legal. But don't you dare go drinking your milkshake while eating your burger or we will put you in jail.

a reply to: diggindirt

You really do not know how to read do you. For someone who claims that they "understand history" better than this poor uneducated wittle girl, you certainly can't grasp what someone is actually saying.

Maybe if I dumb it down like I have to for high schoolers, you'l get the drift.

You are comparing apples and oranges if you think that a bunch of armed people upset of grazing rights of cows are anything like someone being arrested for suffrage or civil rights. LIke I tried to explain, and I will once again try to explain there is not one shred of similarity between the two and you cannot lump in these morons that decided to take over a building that did not belong to them, thereby breaking the law, with people that for the most part were peaceful protesters, who yes, went to jail and were yes, met with violence, but they themselves didn't ask 300 people to come join them with guns and storm a building.

I think the only way I'm going to get you to understand this is thusly:

Close your eyes for a second. Cliven Bundy and 300 people storm your living room screaming about the evil gubbment and how they are taking away dem dere liberteez, and they occupy YOUR home to make a point, at gunpoint. Then they start to demand that very silly things be sent in to them, like junk food and sex toys, and you have no idea what's going on IN YOUR OWN HOME because they have taken over, and are refusing to leave. You would immediately call the police and tell them to get those crazies out of your living room as fast as they could.

The house doesn't have any less significance because it's owned by the Government. It is still property and property that was not Cliven and his Merry Men's to occupy with an armed insurrection, this is not the 1960's this is not the 1920's this is certainly not 1775. This is TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, we should have by this point in our lives evolved beyond the need for "grabbin our gunz, girlie mags and lube, and takin over one dem damn gubbment indoctronzation centers there!!! WE HAVE LIBERTEEEEEEZ!"

In the Twenty first century, here in the United States we have ways of making our grievances known, it's called the internet. They don't censor us and claim that it's being done in the interests of National Security (in fact if they did your whole reply would have been stricken as it's borderline inciting violence, or at the least condoning it) You have a voice, you can be heard, you don't need AR16's and AK47's and C4 to make a point. THIS IS NOT SEVENTEEN SEVENTY FIVE ANYMORE. Wakey wakey join the next century.

In the end it doesn't matter how much of a blowhard you are for this incident being somehow some first shot in a new revolution or how wonderful the militias and the Bundy's are for sticking it to the evil gubbment, in the end, it's still one moron, that got in trouble because his cows didn't have enough grass to eat to make more cow farts, got upset he got in trouble (how dare they, I'm Cliven Bundy, don't they know who they are dealing with), had a temper tantrum and did the absolute worst thing imaginable, took over someone else's house, when he knew damn well if it were the other way around he'd be the first one like you to condemn it.

a reply to: annalisa2016

It's funny how people are still comparing the occupation of a little outpost in the middle of nowhere (home to nobody), by forcibly sticking the key they found into the lock, to the storming of your own house at gunpoint. I thought this was a federal building, which would make it payed for by the very people that "stormed" it.
I guess it never crossed your minds that they intentionally went to a totally out-of-the-way spot to make their stand as to not cause further problems along that route. You'd rather have them do it at someone's own house then, yup, way more safe and not as inhibiting at all for all of the neighbours.

Apples and oranges ... Now it's apparently also only about letting cattle graze for free, not about the Hammonds being imprisoned again, not about the BLM landgrabbing, not about 100's of ranchers losing their homes and livelihood, not about mineral mining rights...

We have the internets... If you go through the info it is explicitly shown that all other venues had been exhausted in the Hammond's case, hence the protest.

I sincerely recall not one bullet being fired by these protesters, now a man is dead.

The MSM is doing it's job allright...

a reply to: annalisa2016
I asked for just one link to a video that supports your support of this:

He really doesn't need to post links, they did say all of that during the course of the standoff, maybe not in exactly those words, but close enough.

Just one link to a video where they were "saying those things" will work---not a video of msm saying those things about the leadership---but the leadership making the proclamations you are alleging.
But no, you have to attack me---the usual method---to show me that I don't understand.

Just one link? To give even a tiny bit of evidence to back up this claim:

. Cliven and Ammon Bundy (and their minions) claim that that the Federal Government is illegitimate and that God has given them leave to break the law, oppose and disarm Federal agents, etc. They advocate for insurrection and inspire others to do so. If you don't see that, Google it yourself.

But he can't back it up and you can't back it up---only put forth more word salad about invading private property when nothing of the sort has happened.
Now I know that msm told you they said these things and the FBI has claimed that they did these things but where is the evidence that those claims are true.
Just one video that shows them doing any of the things charged.

Here is Ryan Bundy explaining the stand they are making.
www.youtube.com...

Here is Ammon Bundy explaining for numerous reporters.
www.youtube.com...

Here's a meeting with the local sheriff. He says he's not afraid of them and shakes hands with all before departing.
www.youtube.com...

Here's the actual meeting with representatives of the FBI. Do you see any of the behavior you've described?
www.youtube.com...

So, there is my evidence. Where is yours? Present it please if you truly want to continue discussion. Lack of evidence for your claims will lead people to believe that these specious claims are all hogwash, attempts to demonize people who are of a different opinion.

Those are the videos you get when you Google. I guess that's why you haven't been able to post any links---because they don't exist. Just as your claim

it's borderline inciting violence, or at the least condoning it)

is ridiculous since the only violence that happened was at the hands of the feds---not the protesters---and I have never supported violence. You have no case, only words, the internet and msm's claims these were bad, bad men. You have fallen into the old trap of believing what is put out by the government and their loyal msm minions and not taking the actual time and energy required to be a citizen and investigate their claims.
How is it that we are expected to believe your claims without a shred of evidence and yet disbelieve our lying ears when we can hear what the protest leaders are saying quite plainly in a multitude of videos where they express their complaints quite clearly?
I am indeed sorry that your education was inadequate to prepare you to be a responsible citizen. It isn't too late yet. You can gain the education about our history if you have the initiative to do so. As you said, we have the internet so you can actually read the words of the founders without even the trouble of going to the local library. In reading their words, you can gain insights on the principles by which they attempted to order their lives. You can understand why the States wanted to put the federal government in a tiny box, confine themselves to a slightly larger box and leave the biggest space for the people. Again, it was the States which called for the Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from federal over-reach.www.billofrightsinstitute.org...
You can find the entire history of the Bill of Rights here: teachingamericanhistory.org...
Here is a brief excerpt explaining the arguments of the day that might help you to understand how very much the founders felt the need to limit the scope of government, especially the federal government.

The fate of the ratification of the Constitution turned on two compromises made in the 1) Massachusetts and New Hampshire ratifying conventions and 2) Virginia and New York ratifying conventions. The compromises involved two distinguishable kinds of recommendations which emerged during two distinct phases of ratification: 1) amendments that would alter the structure and powers of the general government and only incidentally include or mention the need for a bill of rights. This was the case in Massachusetts and to a lesser extent in New Hampshire; 2) a prefatory attachment, or actual inclusion, of a bill of rights separate from, distinguishable from, and prior to, proposed amendments to the Constitution. This second kind of compromise took place in Virginia and New York and was followed later by North Carolina and Rhode Island. With the unconditional adoption of the Constitution, newly elected Representative James Madison urged the First Congress to reject amendments that would radically change the Constitution along the lines suggested by Massachusetts and New Hampshire and adopt a bill of rights as suggested by Virginia and New York. President George Washington had earlier set the tone in his First Inaugural Address: he urged a reverence be shown toward “the characteristic rights of freemen.” Madison declared that he had always been in favor of a bill of rights. He argued that enumerating rights was not dangerous if there were a stipulation that the list “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is the reasoning undergirding what became the Ninth Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights. And for prudential reasons a bill of rights was necessary to conciliate “honorable and patriotic opponents.” Furthermore, a bill of rights, although impotent to stop a tyrannical majority, would be valuable in the event that elected officials overstepped their bounds, and a bill of rights could perform a civic educational function by reminding Americans of the purposes and limits of government. And he did this in front of an unenthusiastic Congress dominated by Federalists. Only 13/59 House members were Antifederalist (four from Virginia) and 2/13 (both from Virginia) in the Senate. Crucial to Madison’s approach was the distinction between friendly alterations such as a bill of rights that would limit the reach of both the federal and, if Madison had his way, state governments on the one hand, AND unfriendly alterations such as amendments that would alter the structure and power of the new federal government. Moreover, he wanted the first session of the Congress to complete this project thus stifling any further attempt to call for a Second Convention.

Please stop with the personal attacks and provide your evidence for the claims of msm and the feds that these were violent men who wanted to ignore the Constitution and make their own laws or whatever claptrap the government whipped up and handed to the reporters.
One link.
One video link.
Just one to prove mine wrong.
When the entire basis of your story is erroneous, that these protesters were violent men seeking a violent confrontation with law enforcement, then the entire story falls apart due to lack of evidence.