Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

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.

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

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.

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.

Weak minded cowards.

a reply to: onequestion

I think it is a law in which the President himself cannot talk to terrorist.

originally posted by: onequestion
...Weak minded cowards.

I agree the "Sovereign Citizen", fringe LDS followers who took over the wildlife refuge were "Weak minded cowards"

The President can't be chatting with every lunatic group with a grudge and a personal agenda cloaked in "A cause" or that is all he will be doing for their entire term in office.

It would only encourage more people to do the same, if it meant a free one on one audience with the POTUS

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?

a reply to: onequestion
He could have prevented the initial protest march from ever happening had he taken up his famous pen and signed a pardon for the Hammonds. He does it quite often and for far more serious offenses than those of which they were convicted.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just take a look at that list, starting with illegal possession of government property, going through conspiracies of all kinds, firearms violations, illegal wildlife sales, false claims against the US, money laundering, mail fraud and embezzling to unauthorized acquisition of food stamps.

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.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
It would only encourage more people to do the same, if it meant a free one on one audience with the POTUS

It is written right there in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In order to understand that right you must know the meaning of the words used therein.

Petition A written application from a person or persons to some governing body or public official asking that some authority be exercised to grant relief, favors, or privileges. A formal application made to a court in writing that requests action on a certain matter. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the people the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Petitions are also used to collect signatures to enable a candidate to get on a ballot or put an issue before the electorate. Petitions can serve as a way of pressuring elected officials to adhere to the position expressed by the petitioners. The right to petition the government for correction of public grievances derives from the English Magna Charta of 1215 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. One of the colonists' objections to British rule before the American Revolution was the king's refusal to act on their petitions of redress. The Founders attempted to address this concern with the First Amendment, which affirms the right of the people to petition their government. Almost all states adopted similar guarantees of petition in their own constitutions.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

Anyone who followed this case and listened to the petitioners knows that they did indeed file petitions with the local, state and federal authorities. Those petitions were ignored, not addressed.
It is the obligation of the government addressed to redress the grievances---not ignore them. The county judge failed, the governor failed and the president failed. Instead of a legal reply, they sent in troops. I'm not sure how that was supposed to redress their petitions. I'm not sure what chemicals would have to be clouding one's brain to think that sending in federal and state troops is a proper redress of grievances. Every person signing those petitions that have been ignored completely, has a case for their First Amendment rights being violated. That is going to be one huge class action suit because they had thousands of signatures on those petitions.

The president, the governor and the county judge were obligated to reply. Nobody legally replied.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Those petitions were ignored, not addressed.

Where exactly does the constitution state that their grievances must be addressed?

It is the obligation of the government addressed to redress the grievances

Where is that stated exactly?

Every person signing those petitions that have been ignored completely, has a case for their First Amendment rights being violated.

How exactly were their rights violated?

In what universe does an armed takeover of a Wildlife Refuge count as "peaceably assemble"?

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: onequestion
...Weak minded cowards.

I agree the "Sovereign Citizen", fringe LDS followers who took over the wildlife refuge were "Weak minded cowards"

The President can't be chatting with every lunatic group with a grudge and a personal agenda cloaked in "A cause" or that is all he will be doing for their entire term in office.

Obama has never been known to side with anything other than an authoritarian stance. He always takes the side of "Government owns all authority"

Remember what happened with the Bundy situation when the Bureau of Land MisManagement first went to take away the cattle and remove them?" That was when Obama's greatest senate ally wanted the land for his Brother. Harry Reid's brother. So you see, there isn't going to be any humanitarian efforts by Obama when there is a friend in greed, or rather "need".

Now do you understand how our current government works now?

a reply to: woodwardjnr I guess with these things. I ask where do we draw the line. Should black lives matter have an open dialogue with the POTUS, the occupy movement. The tea party? Every militia in the USA? The kkk?

a reply to: onequestion

No, you wouldn't want that for so many reasons.

He's not trained to negotiate with them. You wouldn't ever do it live because you have no idea how it will go. They may not even be rational. You have no idea what they would be saying or claiming.

There are people trained to deal with that stuff and they aren't the president. It would also cause more of it to happen simply because people would want to be the next person on TV live talking to the president complaining about whatever bothers them.

a reply to: hellobruce
What is it that you don't understand about the definition I posted above? The language is clear.

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy. It can be putting right a wrong by compensation or compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Right to redress refers to the right to a relief or remedy.

There---I've bolded it for you. The First gives us the RIGHT of redress, that is the right to a remedy or a means of seeking a remedy.


Read the Amendment and its definitions. The right to something means the government can't stand in the way of your exercise of that action. Not to speech---not to press---not to religion---not to peaceable assembly---nor redress of grievances.

These groups peaceably assembled, exercised their first amendment right to freedom of speech in the march in Burns, they exercised their freedom of the press in having media people on scene to report (press) on their actions of exercising their freedom of speech and assembly. They also exercised their right to petition the government for redress of their grievances in the matter of abuse of citizens by federal agencies. They petitioned the county judge, the governor and the president. And got no reply.
It is not necessary for the government to take action on something that a citizen can do for themselves, speak, write, practice religion or assemble. The petition of grievances is a different kettle of fish in that it requires action by the government. Otherwise, it would be a privilege, not a right.

What is it that is so hard to understand? Did you even read the definitions? It is one of the very points on which the Revolution was based. The King ignored the petitions of the colonists. IF you have a right to petition, the authorities to which the petition is presented are obligated to respond by the very nature of the meaning of the word "redress." They are not obligated to do as asked in the petition but they are obligated to provide a means to a remedy. I don't know how to make it any plainer than the legal definitions supplied above. I've understood this since 7th grade civics class.

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.

a reply to: onequestion

You know what I think? I think the militia members and their supporters need to stop blaming others for their own actions. They need to come to terms with the reality that their actions aren't acceptable and the consequences of those actions. I'm really at a loss as to how this is partly Obama's fault now as with most things people blame him for. Really now.

What happened to personal responsibility? I wonder.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: woodwardjnr I guess with these things. I ask where do we draw the line. Should black lives matter have an open dialogue with the POTUS, the occupy movement. The tea party? Every militia in the USA? The kkk?

If those mentioned groups have grievances, they have the right to petition for redress. Have they done that? Have they presented petitions with thousands of signatures asking for specific remedies to the abuse they have suffered? What is it about rights that is being misunderstood here? How can the definitions listed above be any clearer?

Redress means to set right, relief or remedy or a means of seeking relief or remedy.

The very word's meaning requires action on the part of the party being addressed---to do something---which is the opposite of what was done----nothing. At least nothing legal. Troops were sent. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider that a remedy or a means to a remedy to governmental abuse of citizens.

originally posted by: mOjOm
It would also cause more of it to happen simply because people would want to be the next person on TV live talking to the president complaining about whatever bothers them.

Because getting a earful of what is bothering/distressing a Citizen of the United States of which he was elected to represent seems to be beneath him?

Is that what you' re saying here?

a reply to: diggindirt

If those mentioned groups have grievances, they have the right to petition for redress. Have they done that? Have they presented petitions with thousands of signatures asking for specific remedies to the abuse they have suffered? What is it about rights that is being misunderstood here? How can the definitions listed above be any clearer?

Oh no no no, Obama needs to come hat in hand and explain himself for causing these poor militiamen to do what they did! He also needs to show his birth certificate again!

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: onequestion

You know what I think? I think the militia members and their supporters need to stop blaming others for their own actions. They need to come to terms with the reality that their actions aren't acceptable and the consequences of those actions. I'm really at a loss as to how this is partly Obama's fault now as with most things people blame him for. Really now.

What happened to personal responsibility? I wonder.

What happened to the responsibility of government to uphold their end of the contract. The redress of grievances is right there in the first amendment. It's part of the contract that is the Constitution. It recognizes the right, not privilege, but right to redress of grievances---to redress means to offer a remedy or a means to a remedy. Ignoring the petition violates that right of redress. What is so hard to understand about that?