Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

Threatening violence while being heavily armed is a violation of law when a person or group violates established laws and refuses to comply with law enforcement officials.

Had it been a group of black men heavily armed and decided to occupy the street in front of your house, how would you feel about the whole right to peaceably assemble?
They don't want to leave either.
Is it their right?

a reply to: diggindirt

The Bundy clan decided that they didn't need to pay for use of public land for some reason. They have the same entitlement mentality as people collecting welfare. Public land means we can all use it. You think Clinven and his brood would allow me to go and bring my cattle to that public land to let them graze? Not a chance. They would run me off that land.

I don't agree with the policy of allowing the federal government to own large swaths of land, which is a problem in the west. I also don't agree with some entitled bunch of bastards that they should have dominion over that land. Give control back to the states and local governments, but don't give it up to a bunch of welfare cowboys who think they own something just because they've been using it for a couple generations.

If Cliven wants to change things he should start at home and elect people locally that support bringing land back to the state and local government. He's a welfare queen using public resources to profit right now. How great would that be if all of us could use public land to line our pockets. Maybe I should start a garden in the local park and get pissed off when they tell me I can't do it.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
No.
They must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy.

You really have no idea at all. Why are you ignoring

Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight 465 U.S. 271 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

And you should learn the difference between a case deciding labor laws and a civil rights case. Try again.
That case was about labor law, specifically collective bargaining rights. Government "policymakers" are not elected officials, the people to whom the petitions are addressed in this case are elected government officials. Thus, they are the servants of the people who elected them and are bound by the Constitution. That's the difference in words that the average 7th grader can understand.
Elected officials of government who took an oath to the Constitution are addressed by the petition by the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. Not government policymakers.
Words have meaning. Learn what they mean before trying to use them.

In the OP it is addressed that the government is weak...
This is a false statement...
The government has become overtly powerful it's complacency and lack of respect for the law of the land and it's own people is evidence of this...
What has become weak are the people, if this happened years ago people would have traveled from far and wide to band together to protect thier rights as citizens...
The people are dumbed down and distracted with thier own struggle and are played against one another through race religion and deception etc...
The stand off was a real opportunity for American citizens to show they care about thier rights...It was a test to see just how weak you had become...
It was a full success for the government,now they know they can strip more freedoms from you with little resistance from you...
America... Land of the enslaved, Home of the fearful...
How you have fallen from grace...

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: woodwardjnr

The first solid point I'll recognize.

So do we sacrifice an open dialogue with the public for the fear of copy cats?

Bear in mind that
1) I sympathize with these protesters and their opposition to federal land grabbing, and
2) I have minimal respect for President Obama as our Chief Executive.

That said, a President has no interest in giving protesters against his/her policies an open and highly visible platform. The majority of a President's political capitol is based on an image of popular sentiment from the assumed majority, and being seen with normal everyday citizens who directly oppose their agenda would cause cracks and flaws to appear in that image. Add to that, this President is in the lame duck stage of his Presidency and wants to preserve a legacy of popularity.

In short, no benefit for the President.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

Threatening violence while being heavily armed is a violation of law when a person or group violates established laws and refuses to comply with law enforcement officials.

Had it been a group of black men heavily armed and decided to occupy the street in front of your house, how would you feel about the whole right to peaceably assemble?
They don't want to leave either.
Is it their right?

I'm really, really tired of these arguments being brought up about race. It isn't about race or religion or food preferences. It isn't about occupying a street in front of someone's house. You are grasping at straws and the straws aren't going to support your non-argument.
Nobody threatened violence except the government agencies. They did more than threaten. They shot guns and shed innocent blood.

originally posted by: diggindirt
And you should learn the difference between a case deciding labor laws and a civil rights case.

You should learn about precedent!

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

So the Supreme Court states that the government does not have to listen or respond to petitioners!

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

Threatening violence while being heavily armed is a violation of law when a person or group violates established laws and refuses to comply with law enforcement officials.

Had it been a group of black men heavily armed and decided to occupy the street in front of your house, how would you feel about the whole right to peaceably assemble?
They don't want to leave either.
Is it their right?

I'm really, really tired of these arguments being brought up about race. It isn't about race or religion or food preferences. It isn't about occupying a street in front of someone's house. You are grasping at straws and the straws aren't going to support your non-argument.
Nobody threatened violence except the government agencies. They did more than threaten. They shot guns and shed innocent blood.

Okay then...
A group of every kind of race in the rainbow. Heavily armed and decide to take over the street in front of your house. Or local elementary school. Or post office.

And refuse to leave or be forcibly removed by law enforcement officials...

Still okay with it?

a reply to: onequestion

In my opinion what should have happened is that the president should have gone on live television and began an open dialogue with the militia for more than one reason.

You're right. As head honcho and chief bottle washer of the federal government, all of this can be laid at the feet of Obama. No one had a greater responsibility to do whatever necessary and proper to protect and preserve life -- ALL lives -- and redress their very well known and well documented grievances. The fact he has chosen not to is our first clue that he did not want to, and that he did in fact want this grand show of force.

And that goes right on down the line, applying equally to governors, congress critters, sheriffs, etc. Where were any true statesmen? Where was any respect for the people and their rights? Where was any respect for life? Any effort to protect and preserve life? I didn't see any of that. Just a bunch of bullies... and murderers.

I'm not letting the prez candidates off the hook either. They also want to be head honcho and chief bottle washer, and not one addressed the grievances of the people against the government they wish to run. Those who did address the situation were sure quick to tell the occupiers to obey they law... but never made the same demands of the federal government nor the land managing agencies. Not one even promised to look into or consider their complaints and demands. Not one.

And they want to be my would-be master? It's like a real life version of Ghostbusters... forcing us to pick our poison... the means of our own demise.... commonly known as the lesser of two evils argument. I refuse to do so. If I were voting today, I'd be writing in LaVoy Finicum. And if something doesn't change before election day, I will be doing exactly that. Not one of these rotten apples deserves my vote, and they won't get it.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
And you should learn the difference between a case deciding labor laws and a civil rights case.

You should learn about precedent!

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

So the Supreme Court states that the government does not have to listen or respond to petitioners!

For the last time here---words have meaning. Government policymakers are not elected officials. Look it up. And please take an online civics class since your educational institution was obviously deficient in this area. You should have learned this in 7th grade.
I despair for the ignorance I've seen exhibited on this issue. People who don't know the meaning of simple, everyday words---the difference between a policy maker and and a law maker is vast. Look it up. Simply put---you are wrong. That case set precedent for labor law disputes because it is about policymakers, not elected officials. Policies aren't laws. Look it up.

originally posted by: diggindirt
For the last time here---words have meaning.

They certainly do, remember this?

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

So the Supreme Court states that the government does not have to listen or respond to petitioners!

But some people apparently think they know more than the Supreme court!

a reply to: hellobruce
And you are putting forth a specious argument, neglecting to look up the difference between a policy maker and a law maker. Using a labor relations board case to argue a civil rights case. Learn the difference. Look it up. The case specifically says "government policymaker", not elected officials. The committee of people that made up the "government policymakers" were not elected officials.
Elected officials are just that---elected by the people so must give attention to the people that hired them.
Government policymakers are hired by government, not elected by the people so they must give attention to the government agency that hired them, not the people. I don't have any simpler words to explain it.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: onequestion


I think it would have set a bad precedent if obama got involved.

Not that he hasn't stuck his nose into other situations and have them turn out for the better. ya right.

He should have had the FBI go easier and maybe had the press back off the terrorist doom angle.

He certainly had the obligation to direct someone to address the petitions sent to him. Legally. Redress means to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy. Sending in troops is not a legal remedy to abuse of citizens by governmental agencies. That's in the First Amendment.
He has no right to interfere with the press in any way. That's in the First Amendment too.

Words have meaning. Look them up. Redress does not legally include saying in essence, "Shut up and go home."

The Constitution does not state that a citizen is guaranteed a redress of their grievances.

It says that citizens have the right to "petition" their government for a redress of their grievances.

In other words, your right to "petition" your government for a redress of your grievances in no way guarantees that your grievances will be deemed valid, much less worthy of "redress."

While you may indeed have the right to petition your government, you have absolutely no guarantee of success or relief.

a reply to: the owlbear
Another specious argument simply because it did not happen. The case will be tried on what actually took place, not someone's "what if" scenario.
Obama could have stopped it with a pardon.
The governor could have done her duty and provided a means to a remedy.
The county judge could have done his duty and provided a means to a remedy.
They didn't do that. They abandoned their duty to their constituents and in doing so violated their civil rights.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: onequestion


I think it would have set a bad precedent if obama got involved.

Not that he hasn't stuck his nose into other situations and have them turn out for the better. ya right.

He should have had the FBI go easier and maybe had the press back off the terrorist doom angle.

He certainly had the obligation to direct someone to address the petitions sent to him. Legally. Redress means to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy. Sending in troops is not a legal remedy to abuse of citizens by governmental agencies. That's in the First Amendment.
He has no right to interfere with the press in any way. That's in the First Amendment too.

Words have meaning. Look them up. Redress does not legally include saying in essence, "Shut up and go home."

The Constitution does not state that a citizen is guaranteed a redress of their grievances.

It says that citizens have the right to "petition" their government for a redress of their grievances.

In other words, your right to "petition" your government for a redress of your grievances in no way guarantees that your grievances will be deemed valid, much less worthy of "redress."

While you may indeed have the right to petition your government, you have absolutely no guarantee of success or relief.

I'm not going through definitions again. They have already been posted. "Redress" is an action word, a verb requiring action---in this case, it requires action of the person/s to whom the petitions are presented. Learn the meaning of words before using them. Deny ignorance.

a reply to: diggindirt

Thank you for all the research and links. This is fascinating stuff!!! Not just because I enjoy reading the history and reasononing and evolution for our rights, but because it's important to know going forward and finding real solutions for the issues we face today.

Sadly, there are too many who prefer abuse and tyranny and force, no matter who or how many are killed in the process... or perhaps especially if it kills someone. Some people prefer their oppressors.

I will never fault those who would use proportionate (or greater) force to protect and defend their lives, but that distinction is lost on those who believe only they have the "right" to life, that only they have a "right" to use lethal force, and applaud those who do. But I do believe that there will have to be more martyrs for the cause -- those who refuse to take up arms but stand strong and proud on principles but are nevertheless killed for their words and principles. Perhaps when our streets are running with the blood of innocents -- the blood of our family, friends, colleagues -- people will reconsider their bloodthirsty ways. I am reminded of the Roman historian who bemoaned the fact that the British warriors were so formidable because they had no fear of death due to their faith. I hate to think it, but I do believe it will come to that if something doesn't change soon.

a reply to: onequestion

In my opinion what should have happened is that the president should have gone on live television and began an open dialogue with the militia for more than one reason.

That would have been the worst thing he could have done. It would have given the terrorists a public platform and legitimized their attempted land grab in the eyes of some.

1. He could have talked them out of the occupation peacefully and coerced them to surrender.

They said they would rather die than surrender. In any event, they do no not respect the office of the President and there's good reason to believe they do not respect the person of Mr. Obama.

2. By creating a national dialogue with the militia he could have helped addressed a growing anti government sentiment by addressing the issues brought to light and helped bring he country together.

The issues these gun toting land grabbers have are not the issues that most Americans have. Most Americans do not resent the government on principle; in fact, the growing support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump suggests they do not feel the government does enough. Why give media exposure to a group that is fundamentally opposed to American values while claiming to be upholding the Constitution?

These leadership qualities are what we need to expect from our presidents. What we have now is a joke, these people are a joke. Congress, the senate all worthless scoundrels with zero leadership qualities and a total lack of a moral compass.

Once again, Obama has taken the right choice in not acting. Congress has nothing to do with the situation.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: onequestion


I think it would have set a bad precedent if obama got involved.

Not that he hasn't stuck his nose into other situations and have them turn out for the better. ya right.

He should have had the FBI go easier and maybe had the press back off the terrorist doom angle.

He certainly had the obligation to direct someone to address the petitions sent to him. Legally. Redress means to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy. Sending in troops is not a legal remedy to abuse of citizens by governmental agencies. That's in the First Amendment.
He has no right to interfere with the press in any way. That's in the First Amendment too.

Words have meaning. Look them up. Redress does not legally include saying in essence, "Shut up and go home."

The Constitution does not state that a citizen is guaranteed a redress of their grievances.

It says that citizens have the right to "petition" their government for a redress of their grievances.

In other words, your right to "petition" your government for a redress of your grievances in no way guarantees that your grievances will be deemed valid, much less worthy of "redress."

While you may indeed have the right to petition your government, you have absolutely no guarantee of success or relief.

I'm not going through definitions again. They have already been posted. "Redress" is an action word, a verb requiring action---in this case, it requires action of the person/s to whom the petitions are presented. Learn the meaning of words before using them. Deny ignorance.

This isn't about definitions!

It's about the fact that you have NO guaranteed right to "redress." Not in the Constitution or anywhere else.

You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

You have no guarantees that your petition will be successful or that your perceived grievances will garner any relief or redress.

If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.

As a matter of fact, I would wager that the vast majority of "petitions" filed for whatever reason are indeed unsuccessful in terms of actually garnering any relief and/or redress.

I know what the word "redress" means, now maybe you could show me where you or anyone else has a guaranteed right to that redress.

originally posted by: diggindirt
"Redress" is an action word, a verb requiring action---in this case, it requires action of the person/s to whom the petitions are presented.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.... but you obviously know more about law than they do, after all you saw it on the interweb!

No President is going to talk to crazy people with guns who take over a building. Because then every nut bad would grab a gun and a building and demand the President dialogue. Besides anytime these guys talked it was clear they had no idea what they were talking about and that they were mostly nutters on a mission from God.