Oregon protest leader Ammon Bundy is arrested, says source

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The law is only as just as the jury says it is.

Juries do not evaluate whether laws are just; they evaluate charges brought and evidence presented.

Juries do not have the powers of either referendum or judicial review.

.... and I'm out. Best.

Look both ways before...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The Supreme Court was taken as an advisory body to help settle disputes between states. If it had been any more than that, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

False.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Judicial power does not mean "advisory." It means, when it gets down to it, the Supreme Court wins.

Maybe you should have gone collegiate.

A fool would think that the states got together and gave away their power to a new experiment in government.

Or an obedient college student.

Or, the, you know, actual Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A fool would think that the states got together and gave away their power to a new experiment in government.

Or an obedient college student.

Or, maybe they just ratified it without reading it.
Homework is hard.

Alexander Hamilton put in a part about the Constitutional government assuming all of the states war debt.

Something for nothing usually gets the vote.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Or, the, you know, actual Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:




This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Looks like a British Attorney Registry poison pill.

Perhaps you missed

Before the Revolutionary War the founding fathers controlled all of the American, non Tory, courts. Smugglers and tax evaders were almost always acquitted or not sentenced for voilating royal decrees. That is why the Red Coat Army was used so openly.

Those trials are most of the reason for trial by jury and the 6th amendment.

The law is only as just as the jury says it is.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nope, didn't miss anything ... unfortunately.

Frankly, I prefer the words of the Constitution to your exposition.

a reply to: Gryphon66

... when you consider the political platform of the Federalists, which included corporate welfare, monetary inflation, deficit spending, government debt, and militarism, all designed to maintain the wealth and power of a privileged elite at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, the unlimited power to tax and lack of protection of property seem less like error and more like deliberate intention.

Whenever the subject of “constitutional rights” (a problematic term itself) comes up, people reflexively refer to the right of free speech. This is an important right, and one defended across the political spectrum. However, free speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights, without property rights, are inconsequential – the mere window dressing of liberty. It is property that enables one to determine the course of one’s own life. Without it, the right to life is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by those who own your labor.
www.lewrockwell.com...

The Constitution was a con job.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Mr. Fincom announced that he wouldn't be leaving the "protest" alive. Sadly, he was right.

Mr. Bundy has asked everyone to go home because the protest aka illegal occupation is now over.

The Feds, Oregon State Police, and probably the Country Sheriff's office cooperated to end illegal activity which could have resulted in dozens of casualties with only one death and one injury.

These are the official story . Most anything else is rhetoric.

There, I fixed it for you. Why is one side of the story "rhetioric" and the other side is fact?
You forgot to include the fact that no law enforcement suffered injuries. So where did the violence originate?

From the same source that violence always originates---with the bullies. What? Do you think they were going to allow those people to spread the message of liberty in multiple counties. A message that can draw in literally hundreds of people in counties with only 7k people is very dangerous indeed.

The only thing put in danger by these protesters were political careers. If the sun is shined on the hidden things, political careers go south. Power is lost.
That's scares the bejusus out of them. They've shown quite clearly that they are willing to use violence to protect their power and corrupt cronies.

ETA: I didn't believe the official story of the Wounded Knee Occupation.
I didn't believe the official story of the Ruby Ridge shooting.
Nothing has occurred at the federal level since those incidents to make me trust their story now.

a reply to: RomeByFire
Seeing the America you wish to be a part of means you must work for the changes you want accomplished.
It starts on the local level.
It is hard, nearly thankless, un-ending work. It isn't for the faint of heart.
You'll have to work beside people with which you disagree on many things. But you must concentrate on the areas of agreement.
You will suffer numerous set-backs and outright defeats. Perseverance is the only answer. We are in search of a more perfect union for all.
Not just the rich.
Not just the educated.
Not just the religious.
Not just the liberals.
Not just the conservatives.
With liberty and justice for all.

On Friday evening I will be attending a wake for a fellow with which I've worked for over 20 years on community issues. I didn't agree with his politics. He was a Democrat. I was a libertarian. But we could agree to work together for the betterment of the community. We could agree on the philosophy of random acts of kindness. We could agree that we needed to recycle more of our waste.
When problems arose, his first retreat was always to let government take care of the issue. Mine was always to let the citizens work it out. Because each of knew that the other had the love of the community at heart, we could always find a way to work together despite our many differences.
Those alliances are vital to a community. They are not easily forged but neither are they easily broken.
It's not easy work but the rewards of the work are many.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
Ha ya! The place is a desert and would go for pennies on the dollar back then and even now. You know if there were not uranium and a few other minerals under them dust bowls. Them lands belong to Russian companies and some Chinese Asian companies by rights and paper decorum and all that ya know. Silly fools, when will people learn we life under a Corpocracy and have for a long time, and in a few generations its likely to become a complete fascist state.

And from there? Well even the ancient Greeks warned that democracy leads to tyranny oh about 3 something thousand years ago. And republics same deal. Basically the results are in, its all a failure, and the only thing one can learn from history is the fact that people do not learn form history.

So dramatic. I am surprised they did not just go in and kill them all by now, if they ever start mining there is a lot of money involved and not just on nuclear weapons as most is for production plans and nuclear plants are getting run down now a days, even the ones built on fault lines and by the ocean, plenty of those here in the states.

Yellow cake uranium is as good an investment as any. In fact likely much more then the trillions worth of lithium they found in Iraq years and years ago as lithium is about to get replaced by better tech including solar cells soon, and so much for all that hoopla, billions spent, hundreds of thousands dead, whole countries disestablished and still no were near the profit as they thought they would get out of it. If anything they are extremely bad at predicting things, I mean may as well ask miss cleo for financial and world trends.


I don't know why they always media up things. Likely that was the bundies idea so as if the eye is on them nothing to drastic would happen. I would think they were at the very least some of them aware on why some seem interested in that land or why they cant buy it even though like you said it would go for hundreds per acre if it were not for a few tidbits of info, besides the whole constitution militia men, i do believe even they have to be aware that died hundreds of years ago right along with the whole republic thing.

I mean saving the turtles some 50 of them or however many there are there is all that area, I dont think they leave that lake area to far and from what I seen of the maps well I dont see turtles trudging 50 something miles through sands to the nearest town, they would probably end up turtle stew when they get there in 20 years or so "going by turtles speed, which is something like 15 feet per hour or so, ya about 20 years"

As and for grazing rights aside for them cows pasturing on them bushes. Its like a monthly python sketch. Poor dude, but hey its there fight. And this is still a case of might makes right. I do believe the outcome is pretty much set, my money is on the people with more guns, and the media in there back pocket, oh and rockets, missiles, gunships, helicopters, tanks, surface to air missiles, and lets not forget the napalm, and oldie buts still a favorite, or even flamethrowers and grenades.

What I am saying is? They are a bit outgunned in this little fiasco as media pandering is for fools, and has never solved anything ever. You would think there buddies up in Waco would have learned...Get it..Wa- co...Like a fox, patent pending memetics there. Obviously these people as well must be pretty wacko as well.

I see all the usual suspects are out and about on this thread...I should break out the popcorn. But this story has been played out thousands of times before, its like a rehash of a rerun...Got to be something else on the net right. I think I have just about reached the end of the internet, as there really is nothing more to say about anything.

But anyways to the rest on this thread. Dont mind me! That is a command. Return to your daily scheduled programming. Let the hilarities ensue once again.

DOUBLE POST

a reply to: diggindirt

Official or not, what I stated there are facts, stripped of all the emotional, almost jingoistic rhetoric.

Breaking the law and arguing about matters that were settled with the ratification of the Constitution over 200 years ago is not "spreading the message of liberty."

There's nothing "dangerous" about this message ... everyone's heard it, made their mind up about it, and goes on with our lives.

As far as I'm concerned we shouldn't "believe" anything ... that's the issue. Belief lives right next door to imagination.

We find as many facts as we can, and judge them as rationally as we can. That's not what's going on in most of this thread.

Fact, not faith, is what's needed.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

... when you consider the political platform of the Federalists, which included corporate welfare, monetary inflation, deficit spending, government debt, and militarism, all designed to maintain the wealth and power of a privileged elite at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, the unlimited power to tax and lack of protection of property seem less like error and more like deliberate intention.

Whenever the subject of “constitutional rights” (a problematic term itself) comes up, people reflexively refer to the right of free speech. This is an important right, and one defended across the political spectrum. However, free speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights, without property rights, are inconsequential – the mere window dressing of liberty. It is property that enables one to determine the course of one’s own life. Without it, the right to life is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by those who own your labor.
www.lewrockwell.com...

The Constitution was a con job.

I'm not surprised at all that you feel that way.

a reply to: pteridine

What happened already is that one of the people who was told to stop apparently didn't and got himself shot. Darwin at work.

Except that now it comes out they didn't fire first nor were they threatening in any way. They had their hands out the window, the feds opened up firing over a hundred rounds. There were snipers in the woods, the passengers were painted with laser dots as they sat in the vehicles, this was an ambush planned in advance to happen right where it did.

They killed one man and arrested the others to be brought up on felony charges in some kangaroo court, some "checking of iD at roadblocks and free to go".

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

... when you consider the political platform of the Federalists, which included corporate welfare, monetary inflation, deficit spending, government debt, and militarism, all designed to maintain the wealth and power of a privileged elite at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, the unlimited power to tax and lack of protection of property seem less like error and more like deliberate intention.

Whenever the subject of “constitutional rights” (a problematic term itself) comes up, people reflexively refer to the right of free speech. This is an important right, and one defended across the political spectrum. However, free speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights, without property rights, are inconsequential – the mere window dressing of liberty. It is property that enables one to determine the course of one’s own life. Without it, the right to life is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by those who own your labor.
www.lewrockwell.com...

The Constitution was a con job.

I'm not surprised at all that you feel that way.

Actually, i'll retract my statement & step back from this lol. I'm not bored enough to get back into this conversation as the original topic from the OP has been pretty much settled.

originally posted by: intrptr
Except that now it comes out they didn't fire first nor were they threatening in any way. They had their hands out the window, the feds opened up firing over a hundred rounds. There were snipers in the woods, the passengers were painted with laser dots as they sat in the vehicles, this was an ambush planned in advance to happen right where it did.

Your unbiased source for those claims is what exactly?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: intrptr
Except that now it comes out they didn't fire first nor were they threatening in any way. They had their hands out the window, the feds opened up firing over a hundred rounds. There were snipers in the woods, the passengers were painted with laser dots as they sat in the vehicles, this was an ambush planned in advance to happen right where it did.

Your unbiased source for those claims is what exactly?

Oh, its biased from a victim / eyewitness standpoint and been vetted here and on social media since it was recorded.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

By deeming what occurred as murder by law enforcement before knowing all the facts.

I am going by one witnesses account that I find very credible. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it.

That's good. Because witness testimonies aren't always reliable. As others have said, waiting for further information and the situation to clear up is the way to go. It's ultimately pointless arguing back and forth over these things. None of us know exactly what happened.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: DelMarvel

I'm sure I'm as old as you and had the same education.

This isn't about the Constitution. This is about some religious nuts and other whacked out losers who want hand outs from the government and are justifying it with pseudo-patriotic blather. A bunch of buffoons who took women and children with them on an armed standoff---a courageous occupation of a bird sanctuary.

I disagree.

When all your freedoms are finally gone, and the government becomes very Tyrannical which it is becoming, and takes everything you have, don't bother calling the militia for help, because they will be the last stand between a corrupt out of control government and you. Just walk away happy, and be glad your alive.

What is happening in Oregon is the equivalent of me going down to the post office with a gun and a sleeping bag and demanding the federal government give me money for my business because Joseph Smith said it's my constitutional right.

And none of these militia chuckleheads would show up to help.

And by the way, the report from the feds this morning is that the shooting was videotaped and that will be released.

a reply to: RomeByFire

I've been ridiculed by virtually everyone I know for suggesting that I would rather move out of the country than live here for my entire life, and it's often met with statements such as; "Where would you go? North Korea? China?," as if America is the only country in the world that one can live in and remain to be free.

May I ask, in all serious, then why don't you go? What keeps you here?

You certainly aren't the only one who feels this way. I understand to a certain extent. Our founding principles are everything we need for everyone to live a good life... but we keep moving farther and farther away from those principles. I'm not sure we even have principles any more -- we just make it up as we go along, and now might makes right. If I thought I could go somewhere and not deal with government corruption and tyranny, I would be there in a flash. I just don't know where that would be. (And I can't afford to buy my own island!) Any government system can be corrupted.