Cliven Bundy Is On His Way To Oregon And He’s Not Going Alone

a reply to: Informer1958

Throughout every thread posted concerning this event, I was an ardent supporter of the actions these people were committed to and posted reams of personal comments to that effect, UNTIL I happened upon yet another post that made me question seriously my support for this event.

Anyone that still supports these activities certainly need to review this thread and subsequent posts to either continue to support these people or reject their actions and consider the fact that they , as was I, was duped into believing in a cause that did not exist, was manipulated into taking dangerous actions on behalf of a corrupt political action organization with the acronym, (ALEC) and died in the false belief that his cause was just.

Click this link if you dare to learn the truth.

Koch-backed lobbying group is spreading Ammon Bundy’s lies — misspellings and all

www.abovetopsecret.com...

PS: No star and flag for you this time I'm afraid. Sorry!



PS again. I posted a video presented by Bill Moyer about this organization you truly need to watch to fully realize just who, what (ALEC) is.

It is like this group just gets dumber and dumber. I know they want publicity and love attention but, they might want to take some time out repair their image first. Hire somebody who is not crazy and semi intelligent to speak for them. Try and understand why they no support beyond a fraction of the fringe. And stop doing and saying crazy things. Then, maybe, they can go protest something without being a laughing stock.

a reply to: MrSpad
i think at the core their gripes are sound.
but i agree, they have gone about this bass ackwards.

FYI, old papa Bundy has not yet decided if he is traveling to Oregon.

Cliven Bundy later told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he hasn’t yet “made up his mind.”

“I’ve been invited to go with [Fiore]. I haven’t committed myself at all,” he told the Review-Journal by phone Monday night.

source

a reply to: MrSpad

Even though I have learned the truth of who and what is behind this travesty, I still do not consider them idiots, morons or radical extremists, maybe radical extremists but not morons or idiots. They, like me, have been deceptively manipulated into believing in their radical cause by a highly sophisticated and politically criminal organization that has used them to further their cause. They have, justifiably in my opinion, grown completely disillusioned with a criminally and negligently corrupt government to the point that they were easily manipulated by this criminal political action organization. I do not laugh at them. At this point in my continuing evolution of enlightenment, I actually sympathize and have pity for their misguided, used and betrayed souls.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: centarix
As always, the peace-loving militia people who are known for responsibly handling firearms were the ones abused.

Priceless! You mean the peace-loving militia people who threatened a bloodbath on camera for all to see? The one who said he would "never be taken alive"? The one who ran a road block (rather inexpertly) then jumped from his truck yelling, "Shoot me! Shoot me!"

You oughta be a comedian.

Care to support that claim with evidence, or do you just parrot everything the media states as fact? That Mr. Finicum "threatened a bloodbath", or said that he would "never be taken alive?" I've never seen an interview that shows him saying anything of the sort, and a lot of evidence to the contrary, actually.

a reply to: Gothmog

You're right, I don't watch cable news and it's not my source of info and that's because we have the Internet. Wanna know where I've been then check my thread history.

These men do not qualify at all for police brutality. I've never seen authorities work so well with armed criminals in my life!

a reply to: roaland

And when it comes out there are no bullet holes I'm sure many of you will say it's a lie and there are bullet holes.

What else is new?

a reply to: Olivine

I recall hearing about him taking over the occupation.... from his ranch a couple of weeks ago. I guess he figures that's the best and safest way to continue this "protest".

Sounds good to me!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: roaland

And when it comes out there are no bullet holes I'm sure many of you will say it's a lie and there are bullet holes.

What else is new?

I am sure you like to think that your opinions are objective yet here you are making up the story as you go based on your opinion....

a reply to: CharlesT

Thank you C for the link to that thread. Sadly, to many on both sides of their political divide believe themselves to be free of the propaganda fed to us every day while all the while belittling those who they believe have fallen for the opposing propaganda.

a reply to: CharlesT

I have been a fairly ardent supporter of Mr. Finicum, posthumously, as I didn't care for the way the man's reputation was trashed. I sympathize with the Bundys' cause of objecting to the unjust, overly harsh punishment given to the Hammonds. I am also upset by the feds' heavy handed tactics in dealing with men and women who were, essentially, peaceful protesters. I am also against the corruption and dirty tactics that have been used by the BLM for decades.

That being said, I think you're absolutely right about the hidden agenda you referenced in your earlier post, that has been mentioned in the thread you referenced. A few articles in the BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms thread broached the topic.

That being said, I still think the federal government makes a crappy steward, and the constitutionalists are right in that there is nothing in the letter of the constitiution that authorizes the federal government to hold vast tracts of land that reside within the states. Anyhow, though turning the land over to the states alone doesn't solve the problem that that land will then most likely wind up in the hands of wealthy individuals or big businesses, the same will happen if it's left under federal control. They'll squeeze the little guys out, but megacorps will still be able to buy access. Neither solution alone serves the interests of the people. Something else needs to happen here.

I think if the land is reopened for settlement, that that should be protected for use by individuals, and prohibited from exploitation by big business. If not reopened for settlement, and we're only talking about allowing the land to be used for ranching, recreation, mining, and logging, well then I still think this is an issue where individuals should be empowered, and big business interests should be restrained.

If the MNWR were never occupied and we never heard about all of this BLM corruption, big business would win. If the land is returned to the states as is constitutionally required, with no restrictions on how the state may use it, big business will still win. I would like to see a sensible solution brought forward where the people may benefit from this, and not just large companies. Some mining operations require a large effort, I get it; so do some logging operations. Neither the solution nor preserving the status quo really benefits the people in any way I can see, however.

Are Contractors about to cause a new civil war?www.alternet.org...'shoot_to_kill'

The fact of whether or not the US Government can own land is settled. To claim anything else is absurd and dishonest.

But let's imagine, for a moment, that the matter is in question ...

It is still quite certain that neither the US Constitution, nor the the Oregon Constitution allow for anyone to ignore arbitrarily the laws of the land, to trespass on property that they ABSOLUTELY do not own, to shut down the operation of a legally established enterprise under force of arms, to make threats of armed insurrection and/or violence against duly sworn officers of the law acting within their jurisdiction, etc. etc. etc.

And the Constitutions sure as heck don't empower anyone to resist arrest, evade law enforcement, or threaten law enforcement while armed.

If scofflaws from Nevada choose to travel to Oregon to inflame and agitate an already tense situation, they should be dealt with as the law demands.

Done.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Are Contractors about to cause a new civil war?www.alternet.org...'shoot_to_kill'

If there is any truth to this...

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does -- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials.

...it is somewhat concerning .....

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's astounding to me is that so many of you are supporting these interlopers. Are you not for local control and States rights?

Why does the Bundy Gang have any say in the affairs of Harney County or the State of Oregon, eh?

It can't be because they are American citizens, because they spit on the Constitution and the American way.

Reminds me of Al Sharpton sticking his nose into Ferguson more than anything else, LOL.

The Paiute don't want the Bundys there, the Actual People of Harney County dont' want the Bundys there, and neither do the People of the State of Oregon.

If they try to trespass, they should be arrested and tried for same. No one is above the laws of the land.

Least of all deadbeat ranchers and traitors.

Are you not for local control and States rights?

Where have you been and what in the world have you been watching? From the very first press conference held there, had you watched it, you would know that the demand was to turn this federal land back to state and local control!

www.youtube.com...
At about the 3:00 mark he begins to outline the exact intrusions into Oregon and county control in water and road issues. Have you actually never listened to what they are saying?

Why does the Bundy Gang have any say in the affairs of Harney County or the State of Oregon, eh?

The US Constitution applies to the entire US. Violation of it should concern every citizen. You have the same attitude that I saw amongst Dixie Democrats in the deep south in the '60s when they decried the influx of "Yankee students" and killed them for their efforts to help people secure their rights.

It can't be because they are American citizens, because they spit on the Constitution and the American way.

Again I will refer you to Ammon's words in the link above. From beginning to end he asks for the federal government to follow the Constitution. He couldn't be any more clear. If you have a link to him saying anything other than what he said in the press conference I urge you to post it.
In fact, I challenge you to post it or admit that you made it up. A link or it didn't happen.

The Paiute don't want the Bundys there, the Actual People of Harney County dont' want the Bundys there, and neither do the People of the State of Oregon.

Again, you are posturing beyond knowledge. Show me a poll that shows what you are asserting. I can show you plenty of links that report hundreds of people showing up to the community meetings to hear these men and women speak. And there is video of the meetings---people weren't standing there yelling, "Go home." They were asking questions and exchanging ideas. It was obvious that the sheriff didn't want them there. My question remains about why he would want an invasion of military scope to come to his county and completely disrupt life there. Disrupt life to the point that ranchers who are simply trying to keep their cattle fed and watered must undergo a search twice daily. The militia never pointed a gun at anyone. The FBI are doing it on a daily basis right now. They have taken over far more building and created far more fear in Burns, Oregon than the militia ever did.
www.youtube.com...
Hear it in the link above from a Burns resident who is confused and frustrated.

So unless you can refute what is posted above with evidence, I'll have to come to the conclusion that you are more interested in spreading disinformation and slandering people standing up for rights than you are in having anyone's rights protected. In other words, you are a member of the Authoritarian Cult of Government. Here is what one of the authors of the Constitution had to say about the very situation we are enduring today:

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:445

"[We are] determined... to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man or body of men on earth." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:386

"We are willing to sacrifice to [union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united] everything but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson C. Nicholas, 1799. ME 10:131

If you cannot understand the issues as explained quite clearly in the first press conference linked above, I fear for your ability in the realm of the real world. Nobody uses any big fancy words. They don't have any Madison Ave.-trained, slick-talking public relations guys doing the Doublespeak. They explain their issues in words any school child can understand---just like the founders of this country intended.

From Jefferson's writings, it would seem that he might be on that refuge were he alive today.

"A strict observation of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lost the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.

emphasis mine
famguardian.org...

Post the links. Please. Show me where I've gone astray.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Neither he nor anyone else spewing this hatred and bile can back it up with evidence that doesn't exist.
They have no evidence for their claims and their only purpose is create division and diversions by spouting lies and misinformation.
It's the low-information people, the ones who tune in dutifully each evening to find out what they should think about the happenings being covered by msm in collusion with the federal government. You can pity them but I'm sorely afraid you can't change anything about them because they haven't the capacity to do the research and think critically about issues. They were taught in school to obey, to never challenge authority. They were taught in school with police officers dressed in paramilitary garb patrolling the halls and other officers telling them that it was their job as a "good citizen" to rat out "law-breakers" who were threatening society by smoking pot.
They were never taught to think critically and logically, they were taught to obey authority without question. And so they will. And they will revile those of us who have the advantage of being able to logically think and investigate and ask questions. The post to which you replied is a perfect example.

a reply to: diggindirt

I am not the topic. The majority of your post illegitimately states nothing more than your opinions about me (as usual).

The Bundy Gang neither had nor has any legal standing, nor jurisdiction, nor right of common law to demand anything of anyone, least of all the US Government, by force of arms. That is the definition of insurrection. The Governor of Oregon and the local Sheriff (Chief Executives of their respective jurisdictions) both ordered the Bundy Gang to cease their illegal occupation and remove themselves from the property. Whomever OWNS this land, it sure as hell is not the Bundys nor their associated gang of thugs/cultists.

Indeed the US Constitution DOES apply to every citizen equally. The Bundys deny this fact.

Ammon Bundy is a criminal. He has no standing to demand anything under force of arms, least of all on behalf of a) the American People b) the People of the State of Oregon nor c) The People of Harney County, Oregon. He is a self-appointed trespasser, has committed incitement to riot (and insurrection) multiple times as documented on video, etc. The People of Oregon and the People of Harney County (not to mention the Paiute Nation) have repeatedly told Bundy and his Gang that they are not wanted in Oregon.

Anyone who says differently is not telling the truth, and as your requests for evidence have routinely demonstrated that you only move your requirements and deny the obvious truth once evidence is provided, I will stand on what I have previously linked to you, as well as common knowledge of this situaiton, as well as the OBVIOUS FACT that the US Constituiton does not empower any citizen to ignore the laws of the UNITED STATES, or of OREGON, or of HARNEY COUNTY whenever they dang well feel like it.

I understand these matters completely, and demonstrably better than you have displayed thus far. It pains me that you are able to twist the words of Thomas Jefferson to the nominal defense of cowards and criminals, but that is, as despicable as it may be in my estimation, your right.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

For what its worth, I agree with you. Employment of mercenaries is against the Geneva Conventions as well as the Military Commissions Act. Employment of private security is legal but is extremely questionable in pursuit of the Peoples' business.

I do not agree with the mass "deputization" of security companies. As you say, it sets a dangerous precedent.

You really font understand the constitution do you ? In fact you seem to not understand history either. This territory was gained through a treaty with the British. This turned it into US territory and once it was a US territory it allowed congress to give land to people. Every deed in the state started its ownership by the US government. To say they can't own the land means every person that thinks they bought land in the state would be invalidated. Even land owned by the state was given to it by the federal government.

This is the funniest part of this argument people want to claim the state owns the land under the constitution but the state wouldn't exist if the federal government didn't give them the land to create a government in the first place. The ranchers that claim the land as theirs was given to them under the homestead act. Again congress giving away land to get people to move there. And reality is if the federal government turned this land over to the state it would be a nightmare they don't have the ability to take care of the land. They would have to increase taxes and create an infrastructure to take over the services they provide.

The bottom line is ranchers aren't happy because the free ride ended. They used to be able to use federal land any way they wanted and could even put up a fence and lay claim to it. That ended now the federal government charges for land use and has laws in place to protect local wild life. If cattle grazing effects local wildlife then they are restricted from using that tract of land. This means ranchers like the Bundies got upset they don't want to be charged to graze cattle and they think they should decide where. See the Bundies were upset when the federal government said the tract of land near them had been over grazed and it was effecting local wildlife. The government had a tract they would allow cattle to graze but the bundies said it was to far away and even threatened to drive their cattle through the middle of town. They also continued to graze federal lands even though they were killing off local wildlife such as wild horses. In fact at one point the federal government rounds up their cattle for being on federal land. They returned them and yet they continue to refuse to pay for grazing rights and refuse to recognize the BLM when they issue burn bans and declare an area being damaged by ivergrazing . Bottom line your defending Simone who believes his rights supersedes everyone else's and he and he alone has the right to tell the US government how to use their land. It be like your neighbor telling you you can use your front lawn because they want to use the grass for their picnics. When you tell them its your property they say no its not its our picnic area and you have no right to stop them.after there picnics they trample your olawn destroying the grass and you have to pay to have it reseeded. But that's not their problem that's the expense you incur because they have rights.