Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:53 am

This article gives GREAT DETAIL of this tyranny by the US GOV. The Feds CANNOT own this land without following proper procedure and it likely would never be granted to them anyway. I hope the Feds burn in hell! Read this and then read the CNN BS. CNN sure does leave out A LOT OF DETAILS. How can anyone stand for this Chit???

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/723

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon ... e-protest/
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby EmeraldBullet » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:27 pm

The part I don't understand is that the two guys already served their time and then the judge gave them more. Isn't that Double Jeopardy and in Direct Violation of the Constitution?
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:20 pm

They're a bunch of hooligans that weren't satisfied with peaceful protests so they decided to take up arms against their own country.

Whether they ever had valid ground to stand on in the first place is now lost amid shouts of "home grown terrorists" and your own "federal tyranny" as every nutjob spoiling for a fight is going to jump into the fray regardless of what side they choose just to get their 15 minutes.

F 'em. If we're going to give someone their land back give back to the Indians.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby burrrton » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:55 pm

No sympathy here. None.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:58 pm

So your cool if I or the Feds come and take your land because I/they want to? I didn't think so!!! They cannot do this, IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!! Clearly you didn't read the whole story. The Federal GOV has been taking these peoples land since the mid 1900's, without compensation. These people OWNED this land and you are ok with the feds taking it from them? I say F that. The story tells you that the state GOV was in the peoples favor, OF STATE LAND, and the Federal GOV still took these peoples land. Even built buildings on the land. It also explains that the only thing these people did and were convicted of was admitting to burning land THE STATE HAD OK'd TO A CONTROLLED BURN.

Explain to me how you can think this is OK??? It gives me the feeling that everyone only thinks about themselves and not of others. Actually it is just more proof. If it is not happening to you then who cares, right???

C-BOB, the family has been peacefully protesting this since they have been harassed by the Feds for THEIR land that they, the FEDS, have ZERO rights to. Since the mid 1900's. Give your land to the indians then, please. They are not hooligans or doing it just for the hell of it. The Bundy "militia" went through town and told the people why they were there and what they were doing. Sounds pretty peaceful to me. The only way it would become UN-peaceful would be if the feds want to take away our rights/property/land without proper reason or lawfully, which THE PEOPLE have every right to FIGHT against.

Just because there is a cause does not mean these people are nut jobs and just want to fight for whatever reason. Some people just want to keep YOUR F****ING FREEDOM and will risk their own lives to do so.

Would you have said the same thing to your founding fathers? Don't say no because the way our GOV acts today is not much different then why countless lives were lost to gain our freedom. You just have to open your eyes and not focus on one subject.

Burrrton/C-Bob, I actually did not say I am on the Bundy's side as I really do not know what EXACTLY they stand for, though I have an idea. What I do stand for is the people who are being robbed of their land and livelihood.

I do apologize if this comes off as looking for an argument/fight, that is not my intention. This is just the very type of subject that gets my blood boiling because it is happening all over the country to farmers, not just with cattle and the like, but with all farming that is not WITHIN the "federal" agenda. With that said, NO ONE CARES BUT A SELECT FEW???? WTF??? There must be lithium in the water??? lol

Anyway, I tend to care for all not just myself as it is a country built off of ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL!!! That way of thinking has been lost for decades.
Last edited by Hawktown on Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:17 pm

Old but Slow wrote:The alternative is to cede land to the states, who likely will not be able to afford to support them, thus sell them as private property. Sounds like a bad idea to sell the land to exploiters.


Not sure what you mean by exploiters OBS??? The owners only used the land they owned and had permission to use from the State of Oregon. This was privately owned property from the get go, on state land. The Feds have no rights to it but they took it anyway???

Like I said above, I have no clue what the "Bundy Militia" is COMPLETELY about but this was all done peacefully with a threat that the feds will not break the constitution.

The owners of the land do not recognize the "Bundy militia" either as I don't blame them, they would then be at risk of being prosecuted as "homeland terrorists" again.

You really have to look past the "Bundy Militia" and think of the people being ROBBED by our very own Government. This isn't back in the cowboys and indian days anymore, we are all civilized CITIZENS of this country and we have rights to OUR PROPERTIES!!!
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:19 pm

EmeraldBullet wrote:The part I don't understand is that the two guys already served their time and then the judge gave them more. Isn't that Double Jeopardy and in Direct Violation of the Constitution?


As far as I can Tell EB, the whole premise of this story is because what the Feds are doing is against the constitution and they need to be stopped.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby EmeraldBullet » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:40 pm

Fully agree with you hawktown. I didn't realize how bad it was with eminent domain being the main issue in this case.

I only knew that the ranchers were charged and punished for arson, and when they were done serving their time the judge ordered the be re-arrested and serve more time for the same "crime." Which is double jeopardy and completely unconstitutional. I'm not sure what this militia stands for but I do know what the feds are doing is completely illegal and immoral.

Every day we lose more rights, it's getting out of control. I'm going to open carry tomorrow just because I still can. Not that that helps these ranchers in any way, but after Obama makes his executive orders we probably wont be able to open carry as permitted by Washington State.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby c_hawkbob » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:31 am

Without eminent domain we would have no railroads, highways or national parks. Using it as your justification for taking up arms against your country just doesn't fly. There are other means of recourse (our court system). This isn't the 18th century.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:10 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Without eminent domain we would have no railroads, highways or national parks. Using it as your justification for taking up arms against your country just doesn't fly. There are other means of recourse (our court system). This isn't the 18th century.


C-Bob, this is going through the courts and they still keep screwing these people for at least the past 50 years. How long should we make people go through hell before we stand up for ourselves, AND OTHERS, by whatever means necessary? You are right that this is not the 18th century, this is now 2016 with much improved and smarter people finding ways to take, take, take with just wording in documents they call laws that were not agreed on by the people of THIS COUNTRY.

At this point I am on the side of the Bundy's but only for the family/private property they are protecting. I hope it does not come to violence but at least it makes a point to the TYRANTS that there are people out there that are willing to loose their lives to defend our county and our rights that our forefathers and families lost so many loved ones to provide for YOU AND ME!

I know I'm not going to change minds here as most people don't really look within and only focus on topics at hand which makes realizing the corruption as a whole almost impossible. These people in power are very sneaky but right in your face with taking the world/YOU over. I'm sorry if some of you want to "look at the bright side of life" and ignore what does not affect you. In the end IT AFFECTS US ALL, you just don't know it yet.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:02 am

source https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 536AATn6y4 but you will find the same on the constitution itself, this was just easier for the reader so I used this link.

What does Article 1.Section 8. Clause 17 say in our Constitution?

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States. Any land within the district shall consist only of land owned by the Federal Government and all other privately owned or non-Federal public land shall be returned to the State that originally ceded the district. And to exercise like authority over all places purchased with the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful facilities and buildings. The Federal Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and grazing areas without the consent of the State where same is located.

How much land do the feds own? Especially on the west side of the country.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... nment.html

Now this looks as if it is much more than 10 square miles of land the Feds own per district. There could be more to it than what I understand though but from what I can tell, the feds really are not supposed to OWN land like they do AT ALL.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:05 am

Old but Slow wrote:I would hate to see what private ownership would do to Yosemite or Yellowstone. Or the Olympic National Forest, or the Enchantments.


I'm sure you are onto something here OBS. There does need to be these protected areas. of course. These areas were not protected to begin with that is why these people were allowed to own this land in question. Roosevelt illegally declared this an Indian reservation back in the early 1900's even though there are not ANY Indians there??? The wildlife this is being said to have preserved di the opposite once they restricted the use of the land by the people who OWNED it and the surrounding areas where the state allowed them to have grazing rights on which all protected the land and kept it "CLEANER" with less brush and such to burn yet more forest.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:07 am

EmeraldBullet wrote:I'm going to open carry tomorrow.


Good for you but be careful and don't scare anyone with that mask in your Avatar, lol!
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:52 pm

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch/ this is the Bundy Facebook page. I love this guys post on there, especially the end sentence, lol!

Robert Rutherford I personally hope Obama bans all guns. When the dust settles after the complete insane civil unrest the only outcome will be total 100% constitutional government.
This would mean zero gun control, no background checks other than immigration. Shall not be infringed. Period
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Furthermore, I propose a new ammendment to the Constitution
Short one.
Any member of government voting for unconstitutional laws or signing said laws shall be hanged on White House Lawn. On national television.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:10 am

Bundy Ranch
19 hrs ·
January 5, 2016
Dear Sheriff David Ward
Harney County, Oregon
In light of the ongoing protest as a result of the oppression of many in your county, I would like to share my thoughts and offer my assistance regarding your involvement in this matter.
You put yourself up and presented yourself to run for the elected office of Sheriff, You have been elected by the good citizens of Harney County and made an oath to them to protect their Lives, Liberties and Property. As a sworn protector, You promised them that you would protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic. You promised and assured them that you would support and defend the U.S. Constitution. You solemnly swore and entered into an oath before God and the people that you would uphold these promises.
Sheriff, your oath was not made to the federal government nor any of their corporate entities such as the BLM or Forest Service etc. This oath was quite the contrary that created a Sacred duty, to serve, protect and defend every single one of your citizens like a hen protects her chicks against all threats. Don’t forget who your boss is, we the people of Harney County. For the sheriff to allow anyone or anything to violate the rights of his people, We The People, is a dereliction of duty of the highest order.
I must ask, what happened to the protection the Hammond family did not receive? Where were you when a foreign entity not having any constitutional power, authority and jurisdiction within your county abused your citizens? Imprisoned them, restricted them from using there resources to make a living, ruining their way of life and violating their customs and culture and charging them with heavy fines. These were the people you swore before God and the people to protect. Why did you forsake them?
Have you taken sides with the Feds? Are you scared to do your duty? Are you ignorant to what your duties are? Are you scared of how the Feds may react if you actually perform your sworn duties? I would really like to know what your excuse is for not honoring your oath of office as Sheriff of Harney County.
In the wake of your abstanance you now have some very important decisions that need to be made very soon. It should not be a hard decision understanding your purpose of existence as stated in the oath you have taken. The choice is simple, A. to turn a blind eye against your people and continue to collaborate with the Feds, pushing their agenda to remain in power and control over the people and their resources and to continue participating with fear mongering tactics such as shutting down schools etc. and now participating in the new growing threat of violence by the Feds toward peaceful protesters. or B. Re-commit yourself to uphold and perform your duties to We The People of Harney County and utilize the protesters that have come to your peoples assistance and say simply, no to the Feds and rid your county of their presence and tyranny that they have spread across your County.
Understand that the protesters have peacefully assembled only to support you and your people who are and have been oppressed by Federal over reach. Understand that their assembly is a constitutional right and act. Understand that they do not intend any harm to anyone, they sincerely want to restore the rights, land and resources that belong to the people of Harney County who have pre-emptive rights to them and non other, especially any federal Corporation. Understand that Constitutionally it is impossible for the federal government to own or manage land outside the bounds and terms stated in art. 1 sec. 8 par.17 of the U.S. Constitution. Remember that governments were instituted among men & women for the security of the rights of the people and that when governments begin to abuse those rights and fail to secure them, it is up to non other than the people themselves to uphold those rights, it is their right, it is their duty to dispose of the tyrannical government infringing upon those rights. (see the Declaration of independence.)
This sheriff is why citizens all across this nation assemble at times for regress of grievance for the respective oppression to cease. For this reason the protesters have come to your county. They have come hoping for your blessing and support and to support you in the changes you will need to make. Remember that you have the authority to promote a positive and forthright outcome working with the people to create liberty and prosperity in your county. However you also have the ability to exercise your individual agency and abuse your office and power given you to continue your lawlessness. If you continue in this direction, I’m afraid you may have blood on your hands.
Sheriff, I respect the office that you hold and the awesome responsibilities that are your’s and pray that you may be given the strength to say simply no to the feds, rid them of your county, give back the lands and resources to the people whom they were taken from and ultimately restore prosperity and liberty in your county. I know that would be the right thing to do, I believe as a steward with the accountability to the people, God will be pleased with and uphold you.
I do not reside in Oregon but can be available at your request to help you in any way I can to restore the rights of the people of Harney County. Sincerely, your supporter.

Dave Bundy
Concerned American
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:23 am

Dave Bundy's letter to the Sheriff above. Sounds legit to me! Why is it that people think it is ok for the Fed's/state to break the constitution without due process or compensation. If that is the case then there is ZERO law in this country that anyone can hold us accountable for. If this Sheriff does not jail the feds or tell them to go, his office needs to burn!!! Without anyone in it, obviously. They have no right to call this guy a sheriff as he has broke his oath as of now.

There is an agenda by the United Nations that is pushing to take all land and have ALL OF US living in apartments without our own property WORLDWIDE and NO ONE KNOWS unless you look it up. Ownoong all land is by no means where this agenda all ends, It includes REAL and ACTUALLY HEALTHY food and then some. Totl control over all is what they want. Here is a fluffy link to the wanted control of the world via the UN. ONE WORLD ORDER. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/p ... ngourworld

Here is an "extremist" (if you want to call them that, I don't) view of the UN agenda. It may be "extreme" but it is not far off at all!

http://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_ ... ement.html
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:58 am

If you care to help release the family that has been re-sentenced for the same crime in this threads case here is a White House
Petition link. Plus lots of other things to petition there as well if you like.

http://wh.gov/iwrqO
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby EmeraldBullet » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:52 pm

That is a well written letter, and it makes some really good points as well. I am a strong supporter of LOCAL government, as long as they are protecting the citizens of their jurisdiction. I feel the Feds are ruining the country to support their own greedy habits. Thanks for posting this HT and keeping us up to date on this issue.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:50 am

EmeraldBullet wrote:That is a well written letter, and it makes some really good points as well. I am a strong supporter of LOCAL government, as long as they are protecting the citizens of their jurisdiction. I feel the Feds are ruining the country to support their own greedy habits. Thanks for posting this HT and keeping us up to date on this issue.


No problem EB I agree with all you said here though i highly support very small government all around. Been away a couple days but I will post any significant findings for or against the feds and the people involved.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:21 pm

Those federal lands belong to EVERYONE not just a few greedy pukes who want to use land that is not theirs to put money in to their own pockets.

There is a movement to give all of the land that is held in public trust by the federal government to the states in which that land resides. The states would then sell off as much of that land and of course the mineral rights to the highest bidders. The states would squander that money and ALL of this nation's taxpayers would get royally SCREWED.

Do you really think that the people who want this land for dirt cheap have the public good in mind??? If you do, you are a FOOL.

It is popular to condemn the federal government yet when some disaster happens everyone cries to the federal government for help. The feds are NOT the enemy, greedy rich bastards who want something for next to nothing are the enemies.

Since when is being a TRAITOR cool?? I say we tar and feather traitors just like in the old days.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby EmeraldBullet » Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:28 pm

Except this land belonged to these ranchers first, they bought the land, paid taxes on the land, and tended for the land. And the feds stole the land. Not to mention the double jeopardy these guys are facing. The fed gov cannot be allowed to have this power, they are taking away all of our rights. It is the responsibility of the citizens to keep the fed gov in check, not the other way around. You can call me a traitor, but I feel my patriotism runs much stronger than does yours Seahawks4ever. If we do away with our constitution, as the fed gov is trying to do, then we lose the very ideals that our country is founded on. Without this foundation we are nothing as a nation. It saddens me when people support a government abusing it's power to take away the rights of the citizens.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:38 am

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Those federal lands belong to EVERYONE not just a few greedy pukes who want to use land that is not theirs to put money in to their own pockets.

There is a movement to give all of the land that is held in public trust by the federal government to the states in which that land resides. The states would then sell off as much of that land and of course the mineral rights to the highest bidders. The states would squander that money and ALL of this nation's taxpayers would get royally SCREWED.

Do you really think that the people who want this land for dirt cheap have the public good in mind??? If you do, you are a FOOL.

It is popular to condemn the federal government yet when some disaster happens everyone cries to the federal government for help. The feds are NOT the enemy, greedy rich bastards who want something for next to nothing are the enemies.

Since when is being a TRAITOR cool?? I say we tar and feather traitors just like in the old days.


I had to wait to respond to this post as there is not really a way to put it to people whom think that the government is all about EVERYONE and not special interest groups or themselves, nicely. Which is by far not the case.


Seahawks4ever, who do you expect to protect you constitutional rights when the government is NOT going to do it for you. IT IS the people who are supposed to police OUR government. This is happening in OREGON and MANY other locations around the country, AND WORLD AS WELL. This is not to just conseve land, it is to take it away so people cannot have the property they paid for.

The feds are not even offering compensation to these people, they are using scare tactics to force them out. MANY ranchers have already been "REMOVED" from their land by HIGHLY ILLEGAL methods of the BLM and Fish & wild life sevices. The FEDS even once diverted the water that these people had PAID RIGHTS to just to flood the lakes and these peoples land to FORCE them to move without DUE COURT PROCEEDINGS. After the people moved the Feds rerouted to water back to NORMAL and the flooding subsided and THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. A farm free landscape FORCED upon by FLOODING.

AGAIN, the feds are not supposed to own land, I can show you the part in the constitution again that expresses as such but I have a feeling that you did not read the whole storyor thread as others have not either. The Feds try to say they own about 50% of the land in the western US, but this is impossible to the constitution if you look it up.

The land CAN be owned by the states and has been up until not to long ago when the FEDS thought that they would try to overstep their boundary's.

This land WAS approved for use with these ranchers and not just limited to this one family BY THE STATE WHO ACTUALLY OWNS AND MAINTAINS THIS LAND. The feds wanted it and tried to, WITH FORCE TAKE IT and have been successful so far. This is why you have PATRIOTS out there defending your constitution, for ALL OF US.

Now if you want to argue the subsidized rates for land use they get, then fine. That is a completely different topic that has nothing to do with this topic AT ALL. The federal and state government IS NOT in the business of owning land (feds) or making money for profit like a business (state) so the subsidized rates to use the land is totally UNDERSTANDABLE.

If the state was in on the land grab and the ranchers involved do not want to move then the State needs to quit subsidizing this property and force the family to work off their own land that THE RANCHERS OWN. If the government wants the land then they need to pay these people the value of their property and LOST WAGES for their family business, but only if the ranchers who OWN the property agree to sell it to the government.

These type of things are happening all around the country if you look, it is not just these ranchers. I have family in North Dakota who have roughly about 3000 acres of land that the FEDS have been paying these guys TO NOT FARM. They talk about competition but that is the BIGGEST load of crap. It is so companies like Monsanto can own and operate all farming in the end. Monsanto is another HUGE thread of it's own BTW.

If the Feds are going to pay people to NOT use their land then WTF are they doing in OREGON????

Did you know that until recently the state considered it Illegal to CATCH RAINWATER and it is still illegal in many places. How about the fact that people in Nevada who have solar power have to pay higher costs for electricity. How about the fact that the government in some places does not want you to GROW YOUR OWN FOOD AT ALL.

I'll just quit here because I could go on for days about how the government is SCREWING US ALL OVER!

Do you get the point why we need people to REMIND the government who is in charge and who is the employee and who is the BOSS???
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:23 am

I guess that the federal and state governments should have though this through a little better before the EVER allowed the land to be privately purchased to begin with, don't you think???

This in a way is like to massive compost facility within nose range of my house. It is far enough away from me to not be bothersome but for those who live right by the facility are suing this company and have been for many years to cut the smell down that they cannot even prove comes from the compost facility as it is. This company has spent millions to fix the smell.

The problem??? In my eye's, the state F'ed up and allowed this company to exist where it does. This is a zoning issue. If this company has to move, the state should be held responsible and pay all costs and loss of income. I would personally take it out of lawmakers salaries but that is just me, as I feel we the people didn't screw up, they did. lol.

The thing is that there are court proceedings for this whole debacle where the thread at hand is not happening through court proceedings. There is a better way to do what is needed than to force people with threats or imprisonment.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:25 am

This is from an Oregon Rancher WHO DOES NOT USE SUBSIDIZED LAND.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... -standoff/
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby EmeraldBullet » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:22 pm

Overall it's just sad. 60+% say food comes from the grocery store. These people have never grown or raised anything in their lives as far as food goes.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby obiken » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:46 pm

Most federal land should be given to the states to manage. The Govt closest to its citizens is less tyrannical than the govt far away. John Adams.
obiken
Legacy
 
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Wilsonville, Oregon 97070

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:34 am

obiken wrote:Most federal land should be given to the states to manage. The Govt closest to its citizens is less tyrannical than the govt far away. John Adams.


Nice find Obiken!
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:48 am

These are the court documents for the Hammond case. I have not read them yet as they are long and I am busy. Supposedly there is a lot against them in here while a lot of people are saying that the whole story was not allowed in court to defend the Hammonds???

http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL- ... dacted.pdf

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content ... port-1.pdf
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:04 am

Well as expected, one man dead, and 6 others arrested including Ammon Bundy (the leader of the occupation). Reports from the Family/Bundy side are saying that the man that was shot and killed was cooperating with hands up and the cop shot him in the face, dead??? The protesters were on their way to a COMMUNITY MEETING to address the LOCAL citizens on the occupation. I sure hope more/better detail comes out of this, like a dash and or body cam that I though was the law now, but I could be wrong.

Again, I only supported the efforts of the Bundy occupation to free the Hammond family and to take back the land from the feds that they HAVE ZERO RIGHTS TO. I really would like more details from this as it is disappointing on both sides of this spectrum.




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27/1- ... ndoff.html
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby RiverDog » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:17 am

I think it's clear that the government didn't want another Waco on their hands but neither did they want to back down from this challenge or it would encourage more "Sagebrush Rebellions", so they waited until they could grab these kooks one-by-one. The guy that was killed was quoted as saying that he'd never surrender, that they'd have to kill him first. You can bet your bottom dollar that the feds knew who it was they were attempting to arrest and knew of his pledge to never be taken alive, so if I'm that agent that's tasked to arrest him, I'm not taking any chances and put my own life at risk. If he doesn't comply with orders and makes a single aggressive move, I'm pulling the trigger. Who's to say that the guy didn't have a suicide belt on so he could blow himself up and take a couple of agents with him?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:38 am

I don't for a second believe the guy that was shot came out of his vehicle with his hands in the air and they just decided to shoot him.

Even if that was their bent this is way too high a profile case for that. It plays entirely into the hand of the radical occupationists. Remember this is the guy that said a month ago that he'd rather die than be detained. This is exactly the outcome they wanted and the officials were trying to avoid. The last thing they need is another Waco or Ruby Ridge and everyone on both sides knew it.

I can't imagine that there were not dash cams and/or body cams that will eventually be released and we'll see for our selves.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:04 pm

If that is the case that he charged the police or pulled a weapon, then that is on the dead dude but if he was unarmed, I would still take out a knee cap instead of shooting him in the face. That is BS in and of itself. If it was a local cop, he/she was just a pawn in this whole thing anyway. Even if they were not a local officer, I bet they were still a pawn.

I know that you guys do not agree but there is so many cases just like this happening all around the country and if groups of people want to stand up to the "authorities" for these type of specific cases, I fully support them and cannot for the life of me figure out why NO ONE gives a s*** that the GOV is FAR overstepping their boundaries. This case just happened to make big headlines because of the standoff.

The government/corporations do not want us to farm or ranch for ourselves. They want us to keep going to the super market and keep SPENDING so they will go to ANY LENGTH NEEDED to make sure that happens and only 1 or 2 corporations OWN YOUR FOOD SUPPLY. Along with this fact is that they want us all in tight neighborhoods and apartments.

Sorry not yelling with the caps, just emphasizing.

It seems that a lot of people need to go back and read the original story about the family because the cause is all lost due to the occupation and people automatically just writing them off as wack jobs and such when according to them they are following their civil duties to uphold the constitution where all else just want to let it go by the way side without considering the ramifications.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:19 pm

I cant imagine any group of people that would purpose going out to intentionally get their own people killed so that they could escalate violence against the fing GOV of all people. Clearly this is not a battle that they can win without merit. If that is the case then fine, I just don't see it. I DO see constitution issues being EXTREMELY broken here and for that alone WE SHOULD ALL BE PISSED AND CALLING FOR OFFICIALS HEADS. But whatever, you all can let your kids future be ruled by the gov/corporations all you want, my family will have NOTHING to do with it and we will gladly protect ourselves for your sake AT ALL COST.

Now if you want to look deeper into this subject as I have, you might question if the Bundys know about the "ALLEGED" minerals in the ground at on the Hammonds property. The "ALLEGED" deposits are massive yellowcake uranium deposits, gold and other precious metals and minerals. Then you might want to question if the GOV is trying to take this land for the same reasons without disclosing that info.

#GOVSTAYOFFMYPROPERTY
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:37 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90

just watch the video! This is R Greg Walden of harney county oregon at the US House!
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:24 am

Hawktown wrote:If that is the case that he charged the police or pulled a weapon, then that is on the dead dude but if he was unarmed, I would still take out a knee cap instead of shooting him in the face. That is BS in and of itself. If it was a local cop, he/she was just a pawn in this whole thing anyway. Even if they were not a local officer, I bet they were still a pawn.

I know that you guys do not agree but there is so many cases just like this happening all around the country and if groups of people want to stand up to the "authorities" for these type of specific cases, I fully support them and cannot for the life of me figure out why NO ONE gives a s*** that the GOV is FAR overstepping their boundaries. This case just happened to make big headlines because of the standoff.

The government/corporations do not want us to farm or ranch for ourselves. They want us to keep going to the super market and keep SPENDING so they will go to ANY LENGTH NEEDED to make sure that happens and only 1 or 2 corporations OWN YOUR FOOD SUPPLY. Along with this fact is that they want us all in tight neighborhoods and apartments.

Sorry not yelling with the caps, just emphasizing.

It seems that a lot of people need to go back and read the original story about the family because the cause is all lost due to the occupation and people automatically just writing them off as wack jobs and such when according to them they are following their civil duties to uphold the constitution where all else just want to let it go by the way side without considering the ramifications.


I'm with CBob on this one. The government and local authorities took weeks to plan out their response and I doubt very much that they shot him in cold blood as is being suggested. In all likelihood, they assigned their most experienced and trusted agents and officers to arrest this dude. There weren't any Barney Fifes from Mayberry, NC out there.

And as far as taking out a knee cap goes, he can still fire off rounds or toss a hand grenade towards them. The authorities had every reason to believe that he was armed and due to his own very public threat not to ever be taken alive, he was a genuine threat to the life of anyone trying to arrest him.

So until I see physical evidence to the contrary, such as a video, I'm sticking to my reasoned belief that this guy made a choice to give up his life rather than comply with lawfully issued instructions.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:40 am

Just as a side note, I see where the militants that remain have publicly predicted a blood bath, and are preparing their holdout as if they're going to war...despite their own leader asking them to lay down their arms and give up. They have essentially signed their own death warrants. They know that they are not going to live and know that the government will never permit them to win. It's only a matter of how much longer the government is willing to let it go on and what specific tactics they will use to bring it to an end.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:16 am

in all reality, if the federal state and local governments did their job to protect the constitution, THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

The Bundy group should have protested in the streets to start this and attracted more LOCAL protesters and then changes to "BIGGER" tactics after that failed. If you look up OUR US History you will find that there were only a few people from Boston that started the fight against the Crown, not hardly everyone was on board. http://www.ushistory.org/us/9.asp (this site is AWESOME BTW, lol) I suppose that the majority of people these days would call our founding HEROS "Kooks". It's a damn shame how disconnected we are from other people points of view these days just because the majority of us are not living "ALTERNATIVE" life styles. When I say alternative, I mean as in most of you live in a city, in tight neighborhoods or apartments. Let me tell you this, that is right where they want you!!!

The bundy saga aside, The gov is not protecting it's citizens from illegal tactics to take peoples land and imprison the ones who won't give it up as they should not have to if they do not want to move.

Did you watched the video I posted of Greg Walden on the Hammond Family??? Even he agrees that the BLM workers are lucky to be alive today and were not shot going on to PRIVATE land and burning PRIVATE land. Not to mention again the federal attempt to take land ILLEGALLY that they have ZERO rights to.

Use the link I posted above on US history and on that page you will find that the exact reasons for the our " FOUNDING HEROS" wanted our own country.

Much happened between the years of 1763 and 1776. The colonists felt unfairly taxed, watched over like children, and ignored in their attempts to address grievances. Religious issues rose to the surface, political ideals crystallized, and, as always, economics were the essence of many debates.


What is happening today is BY FAR WORSE THAT BACK THEN. If you don't see it, you need to do A LOT of homework.

There is a HUGE reason that our Founing Fathers did not want the Gov to be as big as they are today and to have less control over us. The feds can F off as far as I give a s***.

I personally think that people are to quick to just accept what the gov tells you to be true. If you listened to your Founding Fathers you would question most of all they attempt to shove down your throat, on so many levels.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby Hawktown » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:26 am

From what we can see here, the guy DID reach into his jacket like reaching for a gun so he made a bad choice there. Well, I guess that it may not have been a bad choice to him personally???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj1vN_Wf-MM
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby burrrton » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:32 am

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't for a second believe the guy that was shot came out of his vehicle with his hands in the air and they just decided to shoot him.

Even if that was their bent this is way too high a profile case for that. It plays entirely into the hand of the radical occupationists. Remember this is the guy that said a month ago that he'd rather die than be detained. This is exactly the outcome they wanted and the officials were trying to avoid. The last thing they need is another Waco or Ruby Ridge and everyone on both sides knew it.

I can't imagine that there were not dash cams and/or body cams that will eventually be released and we'll see for our selves.


^^This^^
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Federal Tyranny. Bundy case #2

Postby burrrton » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:37 am

And as far as taking out a knee cap goes, he can still fire off rounds or toss a hand grenade towards them.


There's also the small matter that real-life law enforcement is not Lethal Weapon- generally speaking, if a cop points their weapon at someone, they are threatening to use lethal force, not merely 'persuade' them with no such threat.

IOW, if a cop is shooting his gun, I'm pretty sure he's taught to aim center mass and kill the threat.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests