Cliven Bundy Is On His Way To Oregon And He’s Not Going Alone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: diggindirt

I am not the topic. The majority of your post illegitimately states nothing more than your opinions about me (as usual).

The Bundy Gang neither had nor has any legal standing, nor jurisdiction, nor right of common law to demand anything of anyone, least of all the US Government, by force of arms. That is the definition of insurrection. The Governor of Oregon and the local Sheriff (Chief Executives of their respective jurisdictions) both ordered the Bundy Gang to cease their illegal occupation and remove themselves from the property. Whomever OWNS this land, it sure as hell is not the Bundys nor their associated gang of thugs/cultists.

Indeed the US Constitution DOES apply to every citizen equally. The Bundys deny this fact.

Ammon Bundy is a criminal. He has no standing to demand anything under force of arms, least of all on behalf of a) the American People b) the People of the State of Oregon nor c) The People of Harney County, Oregon. He is a self-appointed trespasser, has committed incitement to riot (and insurrection) multiple times as documented on video, etc. The People of Oregon and the People of Harney County (not to mention the Paiute Nation) have repeatedly told Bundy and his Gang that they are not wanted in Oregon.

Anyone who says differently is not telling the truth, and as your requests for evidence have routinely demonstrated that you only move your requirements and deny the obvious truth once evidence is provided, I will stand on what I have previously linked to you, as well as common knowledge of this situaiton, as well as the OBVIOUS FACT that the US Constituiton does not empower any citizen to ignore the laws of the UNITED STATES, or of OREGON, or of HARNEY COUNTY whenever they dang well feel like it.

I understand these matters completely, and demonstrably better than you have displayed thus far. It pains me that you are able to twist the words of Thomas Jefferson to the nominal defense of cowards and criminals, but that is, as despicable as it may be in my estimation, your right.

All those words and not a single link to offer any evidence. This is what you are offering up. Your blindered opinions and allegations that by quoting Thomas Jefferson's word directly I am twisting them. Here is a link to the entire text of the letter. It concerns the Burr conspiracy. Please read it and tell me how I've twisted his words.
The quote I offered was the beginning of the letter, here is the closing but you really need to read the entire letter and understand the situations he was addressing. His message about mercy should not be lost on any of us.

In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.

press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

a reply to: Gryphon66
I was asking, yea, pleading with you to give some, even the barest of evidence for the claims you made. You made the post so I addressed the post to you since it is the common, accepted practice of this forum to ask posters to support their posts by evidence. (I'm sure you're familiar with the phase, "Pics or it didn't happen.) You have failed to do so consistently.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You just said it yourself.

The locals want the FBI gone.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You just said it yourself.

The locals want the FBI gone.

Yes and they also want the whackdoodles gone. Plus their collection of dildos. You can't turn this all on the FBI. Ammon Bundy and his acolytes went to several town meetings. In each one annoyed locals told them to get the hell out. It's not just about the presence of the FBI, they regarded Bundy and his idiots as out-of-towners who were a) sticking their noses where they did not belong and b) destroying the land they were occupying. They bulldozed bits of it and destroyed fences. Some of the locals supported the ideals of the Bundy's. Some do not. As a result the community is now deeply divided and wants the remaining whackdoodles to just leave so that they can put this behind them and rebuild ties.
No-one sane wants Cliven Bundy within a mile of the place. Not that he'll be allowed to enter the place IF he's going there at all.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You just contradict yourself again.

Ahhhh why even try.

a reply to: centarix

what utter bollox - the road block was zero suprise

the wingnut spent 3 minuites stopped in the middle of the road [ yup straddling the centre line ] with 2 LEO vehicles behind him [ both had illuminated light bars ] - he then drove for a further 2 minuites before attempting to evade a roadblock on a straight section

finicum didnt brake once as he approached the road block - though he would have been able to see it clearly .

suprise my arse

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You just contradict yourself again.

Ahhhh why even try.

Educate yourself.

And I note that you haven't even admitted that I was right about Cliven Bundy being a racist.

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Informer1958

Gawd....

What else is there to say?

Btw, I doubt the assemblywoman will run from the police, then run out of her car upon almost crashing into them and reach for a weapon.

If she gets shot at with her hands out the window after being stopped by police, she might.

Will that happen before or after running roadblocks?

You're confusing "avoiding hitting a surprise roadblock by swerving" with "running a roadblock". Of course the cops started out by pointing guns at them, which gave the other party the right to use lethal force in self defense.

So as always the gun-nutter trigger-happy cops couldn't wait to point guns. Nor could they wait to be the first to shoot. As always, the peace-loving militia people who are known for responsibly handling firearms were the ones abused.

So now the record shows the cops were the first to point the guns. They were the first to shoot. The other side has yet to do either. I imagine that someone like yourself may want to suggest some kind of gun control for mentally insane cops at this point? Or no?

You seem to have bastardized the SCOTUS ruling that pertains to this. An officer pointing a gun at a person doesn't automatically give that person the right to point one back. Frankly, that assertion is utterly asinine.

A person has (in theory) the right to resist and UNLAWFUL arrest, and may do so up to and including taking the officer's life if it comes to that. Many states are doing away with language like that, though, and it's not really considered to be a good idea to cite Bad Elk, or Plummer v Indiana.

Though I'm sure you knew all that.

But you go on thinking that'll get you outta trouble. It'll work great, I'm sure.

a reply to: dragonridr
It is really neat that you were posting that quote while I was reading the very letter in which it is contained.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

What is the subject of the letter? Here is the opening line:

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs.

The next line is the line you quote.
He goes on to say:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.

Then he closes with this:

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.

This is a discussion on the distinction of a natural right and an action taken for the benefit of society. His last line seems to imply that the problems we face today aren't exactly new.

And for your second quote:

"A government regulating itself by what is wise and just for the many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the few who direct their affairs, has not been seen, perhaps, on earth. Or if it existed for a moment at the birth of ours, it would not be easy to fix the term of its continuance. Still, I believe it does exist here in a greater degree than anywhere else; and for its growth and continuance... I offer sincere prayers." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

Again, did you read the contents of the letter? oll.libertyfund.org...

He is addressing the folly of simply copying the laws of one country to a completely different county.

This most heterogeneous principle was transplanted into ours from the British system, by a man whose mind was really powerful, but chained by native partialities to everything English; who had formed exaggerated ideas of the superior perfection of the English constitution, the superior wisdom of their government, and sincerely believed it for the good of this country to make them their model in everything; without considering that what might be wise and good for a nation essentially commercial, and entangled in complicated intercourse with numerous and powerful neighbors, might not be so for one essentially agricultural, and insulated by nature from the abusive governments of the old world.

Put more in the modern vernacular: One size doesn't fit all.

It is a lengthy letter but here is a key passage:

In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “let us separate.” I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, [539] and hold the former at arm’s length, by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war. No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together. And all this to feed the avidity of a few millionary merchants, and to keep up one thousand ships of war for the protection of their commercial speculations. I returned from Europe after our government had got under way, and had adopted from the British code the law of draw-backs.

Now I freely admit to being just a bit hazy on what Jefferson refers to as "the law of draw-backs" but somewhere in my memory it seems to be a part of the British Mercantile System. Perhaps some of our British friends can further inform us. Meanwhile, I will endeavor a bit more research on the subject.
However, from the body of the letter, it seems to me that he was inveighing what we today would call the Military Industrial Complex and how it was handed to us by copying British law that didn't fit well in an agricultural nation.
If I am mistaken in the meaning of the letter, please be so kind as to show me the error of my thoughts.
Jefferson was first and foremost an agriculturalist, not a follower of mercantilism. I shall do more research but I believe that in at least some of his writings he placed the value of agriculture above that of mercantilism, the production of food was deemed of utmost importance to the nation.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66
I was asking, yea, pleading with you to give some, even the barest of evidence for the claims you made. You made the post so I addressed the post to you since it is the common, accepted practice of this forum to ask posters to support their posts by evidence. (I'm sure you're familiar with the phase, "Pics or it didn't happen.) You have failed to do so consistently.

Yes, I've noted this tactic before, asking for evidence to support obvious and commonly known and accepted facts. Then when provided the facts are denied, the sources are challenged, and the intention is to obfuscate, rephrase, and derail.

There is not a single comment that I made that requires additional "backup," and every single one is obvious fact:

It is a fact that the US Government can and does own land.

It is a fact that the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution do not authorize citizens to break the law at their will.

It is a fact that neither document codifies a right to trespass on the property of others.

It is a fact that neither document allows armed groups to shut down operating enterrprises at will.

It is a fact that neither document allows for armed rebellion, insurrection, lawlessness, rioting etc.

I know these things because I have read both the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. If you haven't, and don't know what these documents contain, I will provide you links:

US Constituion

Oregon Constitution

There you go. Feel free to read them and make yourself familiar with them. If you find language that allows for willful lawbreaking, trespass, armed takeovers, insurrection, rebellion or riot .. feel free to post as positive statement.

Anything else will be rightly ignored.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
I refer you to the FBI's posted video of the event. www.youtube.com...

At 9:13 his brakes are clearly applied. Why would you make such a statement that can so easily be proven false?

It is there, plain as day when the brake lights all light up.
For more information you can see the analysis done here:
towardsabetterworld.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: Gryphon66
And still not a single link to back your claims of things that are "obvious"---not one. It does seem that you could find at least one video to provide as some sort of evidence for what you are saying but you haven't and now you claim that providing evidence is unnecessary.
Come on man, if it's so obvious just indulge us with one evidential link.
My posts were linked to specific events and specific language of Jefferson, a radical, revolutionary Constitutionalist whose words you accused me of twisting but conveniently neglected to show how I had twisted them.
Attack, attack but it's useless to attempt attacks and expect them to be successful when you have no ammo! (or video)

a reply to: CharlesT

I am well aware of ALEC and their nefarious activities. I am well aware that the several states are trying to gain control of the land within their borders currently managed by federal agencies. And it doesn't surprise me at all that corporate interests would be exploiting the abuses of the feds -- and the actions of the Bundys/militias -- for their own interests.

But I don't see how that directly connects the Bundys to ALEC? Could you explain please?

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: MrSpad
i think at the core their gripes are sound.
but i agree, they have gone about this bass ackwards.

Almost (???) as though someone wants it that way... what better way to discredit the legitimate gripes and issues than by putting a huge media (and law enforcement) spotlight on a bass ackwards movement? What better way to legitimize their abuse of force and power by creating a ragtag band of militiamen to battle for the public safety?

In related news regarding reaction on the part of the remaining remnant of the Bundy Gang at the bird sanctuary, even more evidence not only of illegal activity, but intentional and willful illegal activity:

In a video released Sunday, David Fry, a 27-year-old Ohioan, says the FBI has told him the remaining gang will face additional charges for “fortifying” the site, which he identifies in the video as “Camp Finicum,” after LaVoy Finicum, the man shot and killed by police in January. Fry brags about using government vehicles (incorrectly identifying a Chevy HHR as a PT Cruiser), and then gets into a pickup truck. “I want the FBI to see this, y’know, because this is how I want to say, ‘Screw you. Piss off your little charges.’ It’s a U.S. government vehicle. You see that? It’s a U.S. government vehicle! I think I’m gonna to take it on a joy ride,” Fry says, getting increasingly agitated. “Now you got another charge on me, FBI! I am driving your vehicle!” (There’s some profanity in the video.)

from The Atlantic - The Defiant Holdouts of the Oregon Occupation

LInk to Video (please note profanity)

Cliven Bundy, while appearing uninterested in the armed occupation earlier, now apparently welcomes these men who are willing to "sacrifice" themselves for his cause. (Ref: his comments on the death of Lavoy Finicum.)

As stated, if Mr. Bundy breaks the law, he should be arrested and tried.

We've seen the results of the government's indulgence of these patently illegal activities: ESCALATION.

a reply to: diggindirt

he doesnt slow down though - the vehicles behind him stop with zero problem - finicum did not attempt to stop

edit to add - i was refereing to a lack of deceleartion in my previous reply

and further - as you ignored all other points i made do you accept that he was stopped for 3 min and could have ended the chase there and then

and lastly - its clear he must have seen the roadblock - but didnt decelerate - that better ?

hint - the vehicle behind him stopped with ample clearence

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: Gryphon66
And still not a single link to back your claims of things that are "obvious"---not one. It does seem that you could find at least one video to provide as some sort of evidence for what you are saying but you haven't and now you claim that providing evidence is unnecessary.
Come on man, if it's so obvious just indulge us with one evidential link.
My posts were linked to specific events and specific language of Jefferson, a radical, revolutionary Constitutionalist whose words you accused me of twisting but conveniently neglected to show how I had twisted them.
Attack, attack but it's useless to attempt attacks and expect them to be successful when you have no ammo! (or video)

You are requesting a video of the contents of the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution that I provided for you?

Read the documents. Not everything is "on a Youtube video."

You are now being ignored for irrational requests.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If the land is returned to the states as is constitutionally required, with no restrictions on how the state may use it, big business will still win. I would like to see a sensible solution brought forward where the people may benefit from this, and not just large companies. Some mining operations require a large effort, I get it; so do some logging operations. Neither the solution nor preserving the status quo really benefits the people in any way I can see, however.

I agree completely. I think what we're seeing is a three-way fight between government, corporations, and people. And even that could be broken down into smaller battles between state governments and federal governments, between this company and that company, even between government critters who were bought off by one corporation fighting another government critter bought off by another corporation who both want the same land for mining or whatever.

The land should be offered for homesteading -- just as it should have been 150+ years ago. Create more homes for people to live and build a life. (And bring down outrageous home prices -- supply and demand). Create more farms and ranches to feed the people. Conserve the water for the people (and livestock and wildlife) to live and thrive.

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: MrSpad
i think at the core their gripes are sound.
but i agree, they have gone about this bass ackwards.

Which are? First they took over the reserve to protest the Hammond's prison sentence. Then when the Hammonds rebuked them it became about federal land grabbing and other some other stuff. Oh and at one point or the other, one of the Bundy brothers seemed to suggest he was on a mission from god. Now it appears the remaining four won't leave until they get a promise not to be arrested.

So if you have a good idea about what their gripes are, I'm all ears, because to me it just looks like directionless bitching.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's astounding to me is that so many of you are supporting these interlopers. Are you not for local control and States rights?

Why does the Bundy Gang have any say in the affairs of Harney County or the State of Oregon, eh?

It can't be because they are American citizens, because they spit on the Constitution and the American way.

Reminds me of Al Sharpton sticking his nose into Ferguson more than anything else, LOL.

The Paiute don't want the Bundys there, the Actual People of Harney County dont' want the Bundys there, and neither do the People of the State of Oregon.

If they try to trespass, they should be arrested and tried for same. No one is above the laws of the land.

Least of all deadbeat ranchers and traitors.

Yea compare the outrage about the shooting of finicum to the response I received in this thread. It seems that folks are bending over backwards to justify shooting someone who couldn't have possibly had a firearm, but this guy is a victim that didn't deserve to be gunned down...