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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Burns Oregon--We need a plan

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:50 AM
a reply to: tensetek

So, do you have a plan?

What are you going to personally?

What specific actions?

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:18 PM
a reply to: Echo007
Here's the view of the man the residents have elected to represent them. Read what he said on the floor of the House of Representatives. He's frustrated too!
What good did it do the people to elect him if the federal government's agencies won't obey the very laws he managed to get passed to put a check on their power?
It's a fairly long speech because he and the people he represents have a long list of issues. But if you wish to really understand the issues, it takes time to study and understand them, something msm and the federal agencies hope you won't take the time to do. They have done nothing but spew out misinformation and disinformation for the most part.

Here is a bit of his summation:

Now, there aren't many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent.
Oh, that wasn't good enough. No, no, no. No, no, no. The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent. And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing. They were still reluctant to follow it.
So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law.
Do you understand how frustrated I am at this?
Can you imagine how the people on the ground feel?
Can you imagine? If you are not there, you can't. If you are not there, you can't.
You ridicule them.
The Portland Oregonian is running a thing, what do you send? Meals for militia. Let's have fun with this.
This is not a laughing matter from any consequence. Nobody is going to win out of this thing.
This is a government that has gone too far for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don't think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger.

Obviously, when the people get together and make a plan and get it passed into law---they expect the federal agencies to comply with the law. When federal agencies decide they don't want to comply with the law, what is left? Frustration!
Appealing to the federal government got them harassed even more. Getting a law passed didn't help because the feds ignored it.
Nine hundred people showing up (in an area that contains 1.4 people per square mile) should be fairly good indication that there is a serious problem. If you've ever been involved in community action groups in sparsely populated areas, you'll know how hard it is to bring people out for those meetings.
When 300 people (in a county containing less than 4200 voters) show up to a public meeting---it scares the living daylights out of elected officials because they know there are serious issues hanging above their heads. Their reaction will depend on a number of things. In Harney Co., according to Census figures, about 30% of the work force depends on government for jobs. That fact alone makes it easy to see how the governmental agencies could pressure people to "just keep quiet" about problems. Threats don't have to be direct to have the dampening effect. So when the sheriff is out there spouting off about how the community doesn't want them there---people who depend on government for their very existence will keep quiet---if they know what's good for them. Very few people in depressed areas, like Harney Co. are in a position to defy government if it means that their families will suffer. When they see men like the Hammonds sent to jail, not once but twice, and nearly bankrupted---they take note. They saw a federal judge say that the mandatory sentencing of five years would be unConstitutional, indeed "a shock to the conscious", only to have his decision overturned by a pack of zealots---what are they supposed to think? What are they supposed to do?
In cases such as these the words of the founders seem to float through the air:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

What remains now is to decide how we must throw off the government of today and demand that the government turn again to the Constitution as a guide to liberty and justice for all.
I have never supported violence. None of the leaders of this protest supported violence. They said time after time they didn't want violence. (Yes, I am well aware that there were people making videos and posting them calling for violence. I also know that leadership can't vet each and every member of any group. Been there, done that. You'll always have a few of "those" in every group.)
Our president could have ended this before it began. He has a pen. If he truly wished to end the protest or to see justice done, he could have simply pardoned the Hammonds and made a speech about how the law had been unjustly applied. My goodness, just take a look at the list of people he's already pardoned, from coc aine & meth dealers to illegal firearms charges.
Yet he does nothing.
edit on 7-2-2016 by diggindirt because: correction and clarity

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in