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

Oregon militia standoff: holdouts expected to stand down soon – live

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:21 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

Noted diggindirt, thank you for the clarifications there, and the links. I will take a good look at them. Did you see my questions in the superlong post I wrote earlier on this page? I'd like your thoughts once you've had the time to formulate an answer.
edit on 12-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:39 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

I agree with you, militia is used more as a distraction..... but even so, there is nothing wrong with a group of people calling themselves militia or armed militia, it's not against the law as some seem to think.

edit on 12-2-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Olivine

I suppose it's unfortunate that although individual miners and small mining companies will be squeezed out, large scale mining operations by large companies that will radically transform the areas in which they are conducted will likely not be prevented. There's that kind of a double standard that goes on with federal lands.

What do you want to bet that they don't let Owen's Lake refill, either? God forbid the Los Angelans should have to find another source of water than shipping it down from Owen's Valley. They have desertified that fertile region over the last century. Of course, that would have been another case of angry farmers being unruly. They fought to keep that canal from being built, but eventually got slapped down. All the inland rainfall that allowing that lake to refill would produce, well we can't have that. LA needs a drink!

Oh, no, no, not to worry! They will simply find someone to write up a study that says the impacts of the huge mining operations will have positive impacts on the wildlife. Some poor recent college graduate struggling to pay off their student loans would find such a project a worthwhile endeavor. Having no training in critical thinking, having been trained to follow orders, when he/she is told that it would be good if the report could accommodate the good friends of the Congress members, the mine owners, and the wonderful wildlife as well, what sort of report could the boss expect?
Would a stipend of, oh, $50k or so for that study be agreeable? Oh, yes indeed, there might be other studies needed for which we can use your expertise.

My goodness, that struggling, debt-ridden, newly minted college graduate will produce a mountain of paper for this study with figures, graphs and comparison tables galore. Written in scientific, technical jargon that an average person could no more decipher than fly to the moon.

The miners and ranchers don't have millions of dollars to hand out to do their own studies to repudiate the fake ones by the government. They just live on and know the land and love it.

Buried with paperwork.....that's one of their main methods of fighting to overwhelm citizens.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:49 AM
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It is my firm belief that when remodeling is in order, we must check the foundations to make sure the structure is sound from the ground up. Determine where the weakness lies and go about the repair.

I believe in this country and the principles on which it was founded as expressed in the documents which became a contract between the federal government and the states. Our foundation is firm, but like all things crafted many years ago, and remodeled from time to time, the structure that is the federal government has flaws.

I want to go back to the rules outlined within the Constitution. I don't agree with all the changes made to the Constitution in the method prescribed by the founders but I am bound by those changes due to my allegiance to the country. I pay income taxes because the Constitution was changed to allow the government to tax my labor. I'm philosophically opposed to that but under protest, I pay my taxes, including the fine for breaking the law by not purchasing health insurance.

I draw the line at being told that I must participate in commerce which is of no value to me. I will not pay the corporate world thousands of dollars to avoid paying the government hundreds of dollars. I'd rather save my thousands of dollars and give it directly to the people I trust with my health care. That system whereby I go to the doctor's office, consult with the doctor, pay his bill and go home. That system has never failed me or my health care providers. I want that relationship to continue.

I believe the primary battle is the education of people who have not been taught their rights, have not been taught to think critically instead of blindly accepting what is pushed across the screen. I think this act of civil disobedience, if not what I would have done, was done well. Peaceably. That's what civil disobedience is. Despite the fact that some of the most rabid of the "Defenders of Liberty", (no names but there are plenty of them with their little hurt egos that they weren't called in as advisers) have condemned them, they did what they promised and remained peaceful in spite of tremendous provocation.
That is the narrative that we must take back from the government and their able allies in the BigSix. Without our basic Constitutional rights, how can we hope to accomplish fighting off the corporate interests?

Our Constitution was designed to give the people the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. How many people do you see out there who are advocating a return to those principles? When did that become a radical idea?
When the msm became the BigSix, going over to the dark side.

Let's fix things so that the people have the say in their fate that the Founders envisioned for them. I firmly believe that they will do a better job of keeping the scoundrels out if the original powers of the state and local governments are regained.

Silly and idealistic, yeah. So I've been told. But I grew up hearing, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:07 AM

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
I sympathize with the Bundys' cause of objecting to the unjust, overly harsh punishment given to the Hammonds.

They illegally set a fire to control another one (illegal because none of them had firefighting training and training on how to do a burn) and that fire spread to Federal property and darn near killed an entire firefighting team.

After being let off for the first offense, they did it again.

The current ruling was that they hadn't served minimum time. When this was first opened, they appealed it - and lost the appeal.

I am also upset by the feds' heavy handed tactics in dealing with men and women who were, essentially, peaceful protesters.

I think our definition of peaceful protest is not the same. I would have seen it as a peaceful protest if they showed up at the courthouse as a group with a large donation and extra lawyers and petitions with thousands of signatures.

That being said, I still think the federal government makes a crappy steward,

I volunteer at an Audubon center that's a brownfield remediation site. The previous land owners turned it into an open air illegal dump (filled with tires that caught fire regularly, threatening nearby houses.) The owners before that abused the land and the soil until almost nothing grew there.

I submit that private landowners are often much worse.

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.

That will create a lot more problems than it solves.

Animals (coyote, deer, bobcats, raccoons, skunks, wolves, etc) will lose their homes and will move into the cities or die off. Without enough land to feed them (or only poor quality land) they will become nuisance predators and scavengers in our neighborhoods. Bird diversity will drop. They'll also move into our city parks and our jogging trails, and animal attacks on humans will increase.

All this will damage our waterways - and the first things to die off are usually the insect-eating predators (dragonflies and small fish.) We will lose our natural protectors against mosquitoes and other things

(in case you think I'm pulling this out of my hat, I am working on the data I collected during the long years of drought we had here in Texas - when we also saw West Nile Virus because the waterways were in poor condition as ponds dried up and yes we had a magnificent crop of mosquitoes without our predators.)

But it takes money and resources to patrol and preserve the land (sometime, go look at the Indian mound sites, which are administered by states. You'll see them in sad condition, and in some cases the large mounds of the mound builders are used as offroad jump and riding areas because the states won't allocate money to give the site the attention it deserves.)

I'm in favor of federal lands, given the history of mismanagement by individuals and by states. A national coordinated policy is what's needed... and this does mean that not everyone will get everything they want. I'm not in favor of the states doing this because of the very poor way they direct resources (at least the Feds can balance it across one large account.) States often fight over things like who owns what part of what waterway and can be very bad stewards for those downstream.

I'm sure folks will disagree... after all, I'm a hippie-environmentalist-scientist. But that's the view from my world where I have been working to save the ponds at our Audubon during the drought and save the water predators so that we don't get hit with Zika and West Nile Virus again. I will have to go brawl it out with the County Commissioners on behalf of the beekeepers this summer, and am in the process of collecting more data again - because at the first bite, the county's going to want aerial spray again.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:09 AM
...and the reason I talk about birds is that they, like fish, are the "canary in the coal mine" for environmental health. They can't live in badly polluted or dangerous areas.

If your waterways don't have little fishlets, the water quality isn't good for humans or much of anything else. If you've only got sparrows and pigeons in your neighborhood, chances are that your neighborhood isn't a very high quality one and may have problems with the heat island effect and more.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: Byrd

I figured you would disagree with me on many of the points I listed earlier in the post, and that's fine. I'm willing to argue them with you, but I'd rather table those for the moment. What I was mostly asking about was the large mining interests that will likely triumph regardless of the outcome of the states vs. fedgov land management issue. Either way those large companies will get their mines.

Not necessarily a bad thing. I think it is an injustice, though, to prevent any small mining operation from running, but to welcome the big ones in. Small mine does not have to mean environmentally damaging. Large mine does not necessarily mean environmentally stewarding. It seems as though regardless of whether land management policy is changed over this (seems doubtful in my opinion), big business will once again triumph to the detriment of the little guy.
edit on 12-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:03 PM
The Golden Rule

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
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.

Big business always wins, as Marx so famously observed. Alas, this is not just true of Capitalism, but Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Theocratism and even Anarchism, which differ only in the titles and details of what constitutes "big business".

The reason is that businesses are forms of social organization whose goals are to create wealth. As in most other kinds of human endeavor, groups tend to be more powerful than individuals, and usually proportionate to their size, which is also the principle underlying Democracy.

Since business groups are expressions of freedom of association, efforts to oppose that principle inevitably require some degree of authoritarianism. Such efforts, though ostensibly targeted at "big business", necessarily affect everyone, and usually adversely.

Societies can replace corporate Chairmen with Ministers, Commissars, Nobles, Priests or Warlords, but the effect of doing so is invariably to concentrate wealth and power even more narrowly through monopolization, so "big business" wins again.

Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

They will be the only beneficiaries of the Malheur occupation, while the rest of us pay the price.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: Byrd
Hey, I'm also an old hippie tree-hugger and appreciate your work. However, somewhere along the way you've been given some pretty skewed information. I was reserving judgement on the issue of the fires but then I heard this interview with the man who was the Fire Marshall in Harney County for the past few decades.

It's a different view, presented without interruption, from a man who has spent most of his life there, working with all these folks. As this is not a sound bite issue, please listen to what this long-time member of the community and public servant says as he tells of the developments there in recent weeks.

In this interview he says he had worked with the Hammond family on fire issues and never had any issues with them. This is a local public servant, someone who just wanted to figure out what was going on and why, and was doing his best to understand and bring unity to the community. He is a very credible witness to the double-dealing between local law enforcement and feds. He has no script, no axe to grind. He admits to not knowing what is being hidden, admits that he is terribly confused and upset by what has happened to his county. But, from his perspective as a member of the community, it wasn't the peaceful occupiers who caused the fear. It was the feds.

You may not believe him but I find him one of the more credible witnesses simply because I've been in his position as far as suddenly discovering that people whom I believed I could respect and trust in local government had sold out to interests having nothing to do with the good of the community.

Turning the land and the money used to manage the land back to the state and county just makes sense because they are there, they know the seasons, the wildlife and can easily do the same management jobs that feds now claim. Why should the ranchers and farmers send money to Washington, DC, have it handled at the federal level, only to have some of it sent back, after "handling & bureaucratic" fees being extracted. It makes no sense whatsoever in this day and age for this long-distance control of lands that rightfully belong in the hands of the people of Oregon and Harney Co.
You say you are in favor of federal lands. On that we differ.
You say you are in favor of a national coordinated policy but how does that work? Each environment is different. One size can never fit all. It just doesn't work that way, no matter what the federal managers say.
The levels of bureaucracy at the federal level are nearly insurmountable for the average citizen. They are utterly confounded by not only the numbers of people they must address but also by the government jargon that the bureaucrats throw out in any meeting that can finally be arranged.
You say the states fight over different issues. Yes indeed, isn't that the way we've always settled our arguments, by having discussions, presenting opinions and finding compromises to avoid conflicts like the one we've just witnessed.

I thank you for your hard work. It's very important that we as citizens get out and do that work. I served for several years as a water tester for our state department of Water, attempting to look at the impact of all sorts of activities on our waterways and our lakes. You do it out of love, not for any other reason. But when people are shipped in to the area who have no love for the land or the wildlife, their sole interest is in following the rules and the rules become paramount---until they find a rule that they (the feds) don't like. Then they tell the public, "We are the federal government, we don't have to follow those rules, they are for the people." Can you not see how that causes distrust and division? Especially when the people know they have no way on earth to reign those folks in without going to court. Joe and Jane Public don't have those kinds of resources. If the land is in the hands of the state, they have a local state representative and senator they can go to---look in the eye---and discuss the issues. I'd bet that in 99% of these cases, the Federal Representatives aren't available for face to face meetings unless there is a problem of the magnitude of this one.

I know I'm not going to change your mind but please try to see that there are other, legitimate views on this issue that don't involve militia or any of the crazy stuff you've heard on msm and on some of the alternative news feeds.

Just to add: Here is a scholarly paper about the issues our community, our region has experienced. Land "sold" to federal authority under duress, promises made about what would happen to the land,....and promises broken time after time. As one of the victims told me once, "We should have known they wouldn't treat us any different than they treated the Indians. They never keep their word and they can always write a new regulation to get their way and we have to travel to Washington to even complain." She was speaking about a federal agency that had blocked off access to the cemetery where her parents and siblings were buried. When she showed them the legal document which said that the descendants would always have access to the cemetery, she was told, "That was over 20 years ago, m'am, our rules have changed."

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:40 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Watched those video links that you posted in your reply last night. Thanks again. Molyneux really nails it in that one! I even learned a little, and I've kept up with the events surrounding this standoff pretty well.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:50 PM
An Army Of None

originally posted by: diggindirt
The "militia" argument is a strawman, meant to distract and divert attention.
The government officials and press were the ones calling these protesters, "Militia." They didn't call themselves a militia. They called themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom---at their very first press conference.

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

-- James Whitcomb Riley

Hell's Angels insist they are not a "biker gang", but a "motorcycle club". A prostitute isn't a "whore" but a "hospitality worker". Al Capone wasn't a "gangster", but a "legitimate businessman".

The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom aren't a "militia", but "peaceful protesters" who just happen to "peacefully protest" by forcefully occupying federal property, brandishing firearms and threatening to kill anyone who might try to stop them.

References to the Malheur occupiers as a "militia" appear to be inspired by their militant methods and dogmatic consonance with the constitutional militia movement, which has for decades simplified government surveillance by bringing together for easy monitoring individuals who share an expressed willingness to resort to force of arms to achieve their political goals.

The term "militia" itself, though possessing statutory relevance in the U.S., has consequently come to be used to refer to groups which behave in such a manner, as in this case.

Is referring to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom as a "militia" a straw man? Perhaps. But by rendering themselves indistinguishable from one with their behavior, the responsibility for any confusion which arises rests first and foremost on them.

If they don't want to be called a "militia group", they shouldn't act like one.

tl;dr: It's The Guns™

edit on 2/13/2016 by Majic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:12 AM

originally posted by: diggindirt

Just to add: Here is a scholarly paper about the issues our community, our region has experienced. Land "sold" to federal authority under duress, promises made about what would happen to the land,....and promises broken time after time. As one of the victims told me once, "We should have known they wouldn't treat us any different than they treated the Indians. They never keep their word and they can always write a new regulation to get their way and we have to travel to Washington to even complain." She was speaking about a federal agency that had blocked off access to the cemetery where her parents and siblings were buried. When she showed them the legal document which said that the descendants would always have access to the cemetery, she was told, "That was over 20 years ago, m'am, our rules have changed."

You forgot to add the link to the paper. I'd like to see that, too.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:19 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: Majic
Thanks guys, for your well thought out responses. I didn't agree with everything I read, but you've definitely provided me with more food for thought. I may write more lengthy responses here when time permits. I'll probably do a thread on these underlying issues though, and I hope you guys will add your input when I do. Either way, thanks again. I personally think these issues are more important than most people realize, which is why I've been spending so much time on them lately. Hopefully some more people will gain in wisdom from our musings, and we aren't just pissing in the wind here.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 03:33 AM
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Oops, sorry.
Here's the scholarly article.

And here's another by the same author that tells the recent struggles a bit more concisely.

That's the story of a lot of my family (immediate family's removal for the building of Kentucky Dam, same story, land granted in return for service in the War of 1812 and handed down through the generations) and a whole mess of my friends. The author is a dear friend and a hard worker in this cause.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 03:44 AM
a reply to: Majic

The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom aren't a "militia", but "peaceful protesters" who just happen to "peacefully protest" by forcefully occupying federal property, brandishing firearms and threatening to kill anyone who might try to stop them.
References to the Malheur occupiers as a "militia" appear to be inspired by their militant methods and dogmatic consonance with the constitutional militia movement, which has for decades simplified government surveillance by bringing together for easy monitoring individuals who share an expressed willingness to resort to force of arms to achieve their political goals.

Your statement in the first paragraph, quoted above is patently untrue. I have proven this with my postings of video which nobody has been able to refute. You have no video of protesters brandishing firearms, nor threatening to kill anyone (beyond the rantings of poor Dave when he was overcome---is threatening to kill yourself against the law?)
They used no force to get into those buildings, they're civilized men, they used keys like civilized people do. They had friendly, civil relations with the agents of government, laughing and shaking hands with them at every meeting---until that ambush on the side of the road.
It wasn't the peaceful protesters who fired weapons and shed blood. Despite the fact that the FBIs claim there firearms found in the truck, they never fired them. Only agents of the government shed blood. The protesters were civilly disobedient in a non-violent manner. The violence came from agents of government.
Those agents were just following orders.
They didn't even have warrants at that point. But they executed today's version of a writ of attainder. They just didn't go for legislative approval because you know, they're the government. They have the force.
They were just following orders.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:49 PM
Points Of Lawlessness

a reply to: diggindirt

The definition of brandishing can vary based on jurisdiction and circumstances, and self-defense is a defense against brandishing charges in most cases. Displaying a firearm while committing a crime, however, is not one of them, particularly when threats to law enforcement officers, expressed or implied, are involved.

We can disagree on the specifics of the term, but any suggestion that the conspicuously armed status of the Malheur occupiers didn't constitute a threat to law enforcement lacks credibility on its face.

The act of occupying property illegally, displaying firearms and resisting eviction is a use of force. Whether they used keys or not is irrelevant, because their continued armed occupation of the property constituted a forceful occupation.

That's why random strangers are not free to walk into your house carrying a gun, sit down on your couch and refuse to leave. They are not allowed to do that on federal property either, and arguing it's not "forceful" is as unconvincing in court as it is here.

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back."

-- Ammon Bundy

Setting aside the nuances and parsing of the subtle and not-so-subtle visual and verbal threats made by various occupiers over the course of the siege, the act of refusing to surrender to law enforcement authorities during the ongoing commission of a crime while in possession of firearms is a very real and deadly threat, and was responded to accordingly.

The implication that the occupiers did not make it crystal clear what would happen if law enforcement tried to take them into custody for their crimes is unconvincing. The credible threat of deadly force was the very foundation for the Malheur occupation and the only reason it went on for 41 days.

Which brings us to the central failure of this unfortunate episode: the conceit that anyone other than the occupiers and a small number of sympathizers would believe or share their fantasies.

Illegal Fiction

"What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."

-- Ammon Bundy

The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom labeled themselves as such to give themselves an air of constitutional authority, and claimed their occupation for the purpose of forcing the government to release Dwight and Steven Hammond and surrender ownership of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was supported by the Constitution.

The problem, which is evident to anyone who has actually read it, is that there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Constitution which even vaguely supports that claim. This is a recurring theme with self-described "Constitutionalists": either ignorance or willful misrepresentation of what the Constitution actually contains.

There are no provisions in the Constitution that authorize unelected individuals or groups to act on its behalf, except those appointed by elected officials or acting under their authority as prescribed by law.

None of these people qualify.

Regardless, they claimed the authority to unilaterally take up arms against the federal government. The closest words in the Constitution for that are "rebellion" and "treason", though I don't think this particular case meets those definitions, just a long list of felonies and misdemeanors.

But that's not for me to decide, it's for the courts to decide, as the Constitution prescribes. And it is in court where the Malheur occupiers will be confronted with the truth.

The truth is that they did not occupy the Malheur refuge because they support the Constitution, but because they oppose it. A nation of over 300 million people wasn't doing what they wanted, so they chose to act against it.

Yeah, democracy sucks.

I could go on forever about what is wrong with the U.S. government as it currently stands, starting with the 17th Amendment, the immeasurable destruction it has caused to the Republic by disfranchising the States, and the long train of abuses and usurpations which have resulted. It's a gigantic list of outrages that only continues to grow with the passage of time.

But for all its myriad problems, the government we have is still the government prescribed by the Constitution, as established by the People of the United States, and operating continuously under the authority thereof since 1789. If we don't like it, we can change it, but only acting together in sufficient numbers, not as "lone wolves", "mad dogs" or self-appointed citizens' committees conspiring to break the law.

That's not how constitutional government works.

The only people supporting and defending the Constitution in this case are the law enforcement officers who brought the Malheur occupiers into custody and those who will prosecute them for their crimes.

That's how constitutional government works.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: Majic

I don't think I can fault your logic on the letter of the law of the constitution. I think the implication is clear, though, that the people will resort to insurrection from time to time as they feel the circumstances require it, and that that is as it should be. This fact is not written into the letter of our constitution unless you include the Declaration of Independence with it, but that fact was clearly recognized by our founders. See Thomas Jefferson's 'Tree Of Liberty' statements, and his 'let the people be armed' writing. diggindirt has quoted them within the last week here on the board somewhere, but I'm pretty sure these weren't the only founders' references to this idea.

In other words, when the rule of law fails, the people will become unruly. At least we can hope so. This fact is an intrinsic part of our system of government, in my opinion. I think the second amendment and the fact that we see ourselves as a free people makes its occasional occurrence a forgone conclusion. Though perhaps not codified in the law (except the Declaration of Independence of course), it is very much a part of who we are as a nation. I should add that I think this is an important check to government's natural tendency to reach for more power.
edit on 13-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: nvm

edit on 13-2-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:20 PM
Pruning The Tree Of Liberty

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I doubt it's possible to be a member of ATS for eleven years and not see the Founding Fathers' quotes about liberty and tyranny mentioned at least a few times.

Indeed, the United States exist as a nation precisely because a sufficient number of people were dissatisfied enough to cast out the previous government -- a heritage in which most Americans take profound pride. Since the Patriots prevailed, none dare call it treason, and here we are.

If such a fate were to befall the current government, then I imagine the same could be said of the victors. That could only happen, however, if those sworn to support and defend the Constitution fail to do so.

Opinions obviously vary in this forum (which is a good thing, because groupthink is boring), and good people can disagree about almost anything, but I don't think it's too terribly controversial to suggest that those who truly honor and respect the Constitution of the United States of America will do everything possible to protect it, rather than seek to tear it down.

That's why I have no kind words to offer for the Malheur occupiers. By their words and deeds, they have made themselves the enemies of the very Constitution they falsely claim exempts them from the laws of the land.

I pray they and those of like mind find sufficient incentive and opportunity in the coming years to educate themselves as to why that makes them the bad guys, and resolve instead to go and sin no more.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:04 AM
a reply to: Majic

Their insurrection, though poorly planned and executed, has accomplished one thing though. It has drawn more attention to these issues than existed before their ill-fated 'rural project' was undertaken. I can honestly say that land use issues commanded very little of my attention two months ago.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:44 AM
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

That it has, though I still think it would have been far better for all concerned if they would have just stuck to parades.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in