by Justin Robbins
Robbins is a frequent and popular contributor to the Cowgirl Blog. You can follow him on Twitter at @JustinRobbins15
I’ll offer the obvious disclaimer that “I wasn’t there”, but not without the qualifying claim that I didn’t need to be. The revolution, such that it was, was televised; or streamed, as the case may be.
That said, and having watched the armed occupation of the Mahleur National Wildlife Refuge unfold in real time, it was not surprising to learn that Robert “LaVoy” Finicum had to be put down, nor to watch the reaction of those who mistook these men as patriots. The Bundy family Facebook page reacted by basically claiming this armed defender of Liberty died at the hands of an oppressive government to which he was trying to surrender. Maybe…but, I doubt it.
Watching these clowns perform for the past three weeks, several things became clear. Primarily, that these men are, and were self-aggrandizing, hypocritical fanatics; disgruntled with bureaucracy for a variety of reasons (who isn’t), and brandishing the type of entitlement rarely held outside of Caucasian circles. The kind of delusional malcontents who reap all the benefits of this great country, yet insist they are victims. They swear an oath to their pocket copies of the Constitution and think the too common act of owning an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is the equivalent of freedom.
Here’s what gets missed. This is a country taken by force, under the convenient authority of Manifest Destiny, from its indigenous and otherwise current occupants. While far…very far…from perfect, it has always strived to be better, and to make things better for all of its people. To that end, our governments at all levels provide roads, education, protection, water (outside the greater Flint, Michigan, area), recreation spaces and myriad lifestyle opportunities for its 319 million citizens.
It is all made possible by the consent of the governed and the process by which it may be changed, and it is all subject to change, is spelled out in black and white (honest
…check your pocket). So, if “The Government” does something you don’t like, you…like everyone else…follow the process to change it.
If you think owning a firearm and having like-minded friends makes you somehow unique; you ain’t from around here. If you think brandishing it makes you brave; you are a stranger to courage. If you think the willingness to die for your personal ideals somehow engenders nobility, you are simply foolish.
The men who commandeered a bird sanctuary and used threats and intimidation in an effort to enforce their interpretation of the Constitution, have no moral claim to the label of “patriot.” In fact, I’d argue quite the opposite. Their actions were criminal in the extreme, and they served only to seize their fifteen minutes of fame at the expense of the citizens whose interests they first fabricated, then claimed to champion.
This is the unedited FBI video of the roadblock incident from Oregon. At about 9:00, you see the truck driven by Finicum speed away from the first stop and nearly hit an officer while trying to skirt a roadblock. You may judge for yourself whether these are the actions of a surrendering patriot.
LaVoy Finicum was no hero; nor was he a victim. He neglected his duties as a foster parent in order to strut and preen in a masterbatory wild west fantasy role-playing game. Unlike his peers, he failed to recognize an actual well-regulated force when one approached. His legacy is not that of martyr, but rather a symbol of the danger and craven stupidity of the radical ideologue. He died needlessly and senselessly, proving only that Cabella’s camouflage can neither conceal arrogance, nor reckless folly.
If physical death is the price that I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing can be more redemptive.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
What kind of idiot compares Dr. King to Finicum? You apparently cannot tell the difference between a civil rights leader being murdered by a racist and a cracker, fkstk on a mission. No need to call you a retard. YOu have already proved that yourself.
There is a very good look at the real LaVoy Finicum in the video featured at this article. Even collectivist/statist progressives should know the truth about the man in his own words, so here ya go.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/lavoy-finicum-takes-blm-to-school/
And to those misguided souls who persist in claiming that Cliven Bundy did not want to pay “grazing fees”, it’s time you dig deeper and learn the truth on that one matter. The Bundys were paying grazing fees all along untl the BLM came in there in the 1990s and changed the rules, insisting that ranchers in Clark County, Nevada must pay grazing fees to the Federal government instead of to their County/State systems. That was, and still is, what Bundy was objecting to. Bundy is glad to pay grazing fees to his County and/or State government(s), but refuses to pay grazing fees to the Federal government, which has no Constitutional authority to manage public lands in Nevada.
Thanks for the venue, Cowgirl.
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor for Oath Keepers
You are wrong on the Constitution. Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the property clause, gives the federal government the power to many federal public lands. There’s a long line of Supreme Court cases that make clear this power is absolute.
Cliven Bundy owes grazing feed to the federal government. If he doesn’t pay them, there will be adverse legal consequences. He could lose his ranch, his cattle, his melons, even his freedom.
Well, I must thank you for your interest in this dispute. I shall answer with this —
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 tells us what property the federal government may own. Article IV section 3 Clause 2 deals with territories, Not States. The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state all rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Hence, the ten square mile territory called Washington D.C. is fully under the managerial of the Federal government, as are all “Postal Roads”, military forts and the several other designated places where the Federal government may purchase from the respective States land for Federal offices etc. However, what is not given or granted to the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8, is certainly reserved to the States, or to the People.
Your argument about Federal authority to manage public lands in *Territories* is correct, and I agree with you, but when a Territory (which initially all western States were) is brought into the Union by an Enabling Act, a little diddy called the “Equal Footing” rule is in play, and the Federal government is under lawful obligation to transfer land management to the State being granted Statehood within a reasonable time. A century is a bit too long to fit that requirement, yes? ;)
Nice try.
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor for Oath Keepers
Oh, please. If one runs stock on federal land they pay the feds. It’s sophomoric nonsense to try and con folks into the idea the Bundys had some objection to paying the feds to run cattle on federal land. If I told my landlord I felt it right to pay my rent to some other entity it wouldn’t fly. Give us a break.
bernie, I agree with you. If Cliven Bundy was running cattle on Federal land, he should pay federal grazing fees. His, (and my), point is that the Federal government does not own Nevada, nor the vast public lands in Nevada. It is Federal land only in the eyes of the uneducated people who have not studied into the wording and spirit of the Constitution for the united States of America. Get yourself a copy and dig in, but if you want to get it in every-day language, watch that video in the article to which I linked in my above post. LaVoy Finicum is right there telling you what you need to know to understand why western farmers and ranchers have had it with the Federal government’s interference in their States.
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor for Oath Keepers
Fortunately for the vast majority of citizens, we live in a relatively law-abiding country. We don’t cotton to folks claiming they know more than everyone else and are the smartest folks in the room, to include the folks trained in law. I’m not sure where you got your law degree or your advanced degrees in history and government, but you seem to have some serious gaps in your education. These lands and their ownership have been litigated and it is settled law. Trying to go back and re-litigate the issues as to ownership is a schoolyard exercise. Claiming there is some legitimacy to any movement of this or that it is backed up by the constitution is not borne out by any court anywhere. We remain, thankfully, a culture and society of laws. It ain’t perfect, but it sure beats the mob mentality and anarchy you are trying to pass off as patriotic.
Well said. Guys like Elias combine the worst of “commonsensism”, that delusion that your opinions are actually deep wisdom capable of trumping conventional knowledge, science, etc. and the unique delusion that since God created America and the Constitution, He approves of these modern day seers and blesses their actions. I would note Elias’s quote: “why western farmers and ranchers have had it with the Federal government’s interference in their States”. Where are these fed up ranchers and farmers, Elias? Did I miss the convoy of hundreds of ranchers and farmers descending on Malheur? Or did the guy with the sheep horn just not toot it loud enough? As regards God writing the Constitution… I would refer you to the Bible, where the only political systems represented are kingdoms and empires. No mention of democracy, no mention of inalienable rights. Was God napping during the Greeks?
Elias.. Here’s some actual data as opposed to wishful thinking. Your thoughts? http://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/federal-lands-performance
Here’s the Cliff Notes version of Mr. Finicum’s video. Rights are established by three actions: claim, use, defend. Analogy given: You are first in line at the DMV, you say loudly that you are first in line and fight with anyone who challenges your place in line. (Although he doesn’t touch on what happens when you lose the challenge, we can presume that the “winner” gets the place in line). Otherwise known as “might makes right”. Finicum states that this “might makes right” doctrine precedes the Constitution in the form of some vague natural law (aka “brute force”). All of this doctrine is consistent with how the Native Americans were treated by settlers. They failed to defend with sufficient strength and lost their rights. Finicum’s beef (pun intended) is that a claimant of superior strength, the federal government, is now taking his “rights”. Finicum is essentially whining about being on the losing end of his own cherished doctrine (and, oddly, invoking the Constitution which he has just declared is not the source of his rights). Then there is the specious argument that introducing a foreign animal to the environment so it can utilize what is perceived to be an underused resource, grass, grants the rancher and his foreign livestock rights which supersede those people who had been in line for thousands of years and have a different view of the use of the resource. This is as logical as a saying that a coal company can simply claim Finicum’s ranch and exploit the coal underneath it by a: claiming it, b: using it and c: defending it. By Finicum’s logic, anyone with a big enough stick can take his land to use for whatever purpose they want, as long as their stick is big enough.
Finicum’s “claim, use and defend” is a painfully simplistic maxim for a long bygone era of cavemen and medieval kings and is antithetical to American values, the Constitution, rule of law, etc.
Salute!
We’ll never forget you, LaVern Precum
Some time the wheels of Justice turn slowly. But in the end, Justice will prevail. The Bundys own ego of superiority was strengthened when the Feds left in Nevada. And this was shown once again by their arrogance in the Malheur Refuge take over. But thankfully we still have people in our Government that use patience and diplomacy as a first line of defence to solve problems.
Wonderful article.
Thank you.
I did not follow this story closely, nor did I the events in the occupation of the BLM land in Nevada. If I remember correctly, the Nevada group argued the government had no right to charge a rancher grazing fees for livestock on publicly owned land. I don’t recall the Oregon bird sanctuary occupation people saying anything beyond vague calls for constitutional rights and a return to freedom. Did they specify what they wanted? Did they have a list of unique grievances, like grazing rights? A man gave up his life for what in particular?
The Nevada issue was as you say. Cliven Bundy, alone among his peers, saw no reason to pay fees to graze his cattle on public land.
The Oregon issue was catalyzed by the mandatory federal sentences given to two Burns area ranchers; and, of course, God telling Ammon Bundy he should take his guns to Oregon and grace us with his interpretation of the constitution.
More madness. Another is dead. What drives otherwise civilized people to such violent rage? There is rage in the postings here. I re-read your article, Mr. Robbins, and I’ve read all the comments posted here so far. I think we all need to re-read what we have had to say, pull back and think whether we have expressed ourselves as gracefully as rational, even-tempered, truly thoughtful citizens should. Many of the statements posted have been, in part or in whole, downright hateful. Mean and nasty adjectives has been thrown around carelessly. Certainly, we can do better. Enmity serves no master well.
Amen Justin! Well said! Notice how these so called “Freedom Fighters” completely forget about the original occupants of this nation we call the United States. They are called Native Americans and they were damn near wiped out by the genocidal acts committed by our white ancestors and the US government because we wanted what they had and took it by force. When idiot Bible Thumpers talk about how this country was founded on Christian principles, I as a white woman, feel ashamed to be white! Talk about white privilege! Let’s just rewrite history and forget about the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Native Americans! Five of our first seven Presidents were slave owners. This country has a hell of a lot to be ashamed of, some history to be proud of, and a lot of work to be done if we insist on calling ourselves the greatest nation on this planet.
I do believe I remember a story being published that the first slaveowner in this country was a black man…..more than a few of my Scots-Irish ancestors were near enough to be classified as slaves…I did nothing to anyone, have never been a slaveowner, obviously, so I have nothing to be “ashamed” of…if it makes you feel better to be ashamed of being who you are, more power to you…I am not ashamed of who and what I am…
It isn’t a question of being ashamed. None of the folks living today were directly responsible for the sins of the past. However, it is incumbent on anyone who has benefited from the institution of slavery to at the very least be aware of the fact they have benefited, which includes virtually every citizen of this country. Our economy would not have survived the early stages of our country had there not been slavery. The industries of textile, cotton, timber and others in the south were totally dependent on slave labor. So, although none of us owned slaves, we are the direct beneficiaries of that institution and we owe it to those who suffered under it to admit it and own it.
The only thing these idiots managed to do was make a joke out of themselves and draw attention to farm subsidies. Just remember who caused all the problems when subsidies get cut!
There are still 4 of them at the wildlife refuge. Are they allowed to come and go as they please — for groceries, lube, etc. — or will they be arrested as they leave?
they won’t leave ‘cuz one of them will be arrested for an outstanding warrant. or that was the excuse-i imagine all three have a warrant now.
Always in our thoughts Larry Giffen AKA Blue Tarp Man.
Justin Robbins certainly dances about the grave
kicking dirt upon the very real tragedy of Finicum getting shot.
No Finicum didn’t need to “put down”……
Robbins doesn’t have to mock the man’s admittedly, senseless death
with his asshole Cabela’s camo remark.
Self righteous dweebs with pens,
throwing weak little stones don’t move the discourse along in any positive way……
I weighed fhe stone first. It seemed just the right strength.
I took no pleasure in this man’s death; however, it is important to properly illuminate the true mockery these men made of the concepts of civil disobedience and patriotism. Finicum, in particular, bragged about not being taken alive, and placed both his colleagues and genuine patriotic, sworn law enforcement officers at serious risk.
It was a tragedy…a completely avoidable one save for his actions. He was not robbed of his humanity; he shed it voluntarily, and has now caused another man to live with taking a life.
Weep If you must. I will endeavor to keep his behavior, and death, from being characterized as anything more than weapons-grade idiocy.
It’s the least I can do to move the discourse along in the proper direction.
Take the last word…I’ve said enough.
You sir, Mr. Justin Robbins, display the qualities of a soulless ass.
Given that this post has more than 1000 FB likes (which is a lot, by any standard) I’d say a lot of people agree with it. I’ll add that I also thought it was a very good post.
Perhaps, Charles. But I would submit that, between Mr. Finicum and myself, it was he who placed so little value on human life as to endanger so many, and to forfeit his own with such cavalier disregard for those who depended upon him. The story of his death is that of a life squandered; it should be neither celebrated, honored, nor (I regret to contend) spoken of kindly.
Playing quick-draw with the Feds, a sure way to get ya dead!
I hear this often and it pisses me off. “We are christians, We are freedom fighters” Really? What great evil is out there that threatens their homes and loved ones? and for some reason never threatens my family’s ranches and homes? What monster do they see we do not? You want to use something that doesn’t belong to you, you ask to use it, you pay for the use, and if you break it you pay for the repairs. Isn’t that the moral answer? The right thing to do?
I go to Yellowstone and Glacier every year and pay at the gates to use the national parks I love. That money goes to the maintenance of those parks for my Future enjoyment. The same thing can be said of any federal land we use. Americans use federal lands for many things including an extension of our ranches for grazing cattle. It is and has been the same since the 1800’s for almost everything we do in America. Privately we don’t expect to use a carwash for free, get a ride in a taxi for nothing, babysitters deserve to be paid for watching your kids don’t you think. why would we allow grazing to be any different?
If you look at it in the urban setting, Ill gladly plunk out 50 cents to use a cleaner toilet, and not an fiberglass outhouse. who wants to sit on a toilet that is not maintained. I don’t need a freedom fighter for a cleaner place to pee do I????? US Property that is maintained so you can use it costs.and it is still quite cheap, unlike anything else we do.
Think of the government as that baby sitter for our peace of mind. that when we go back to admire nature that little bit of money you payed for its use will help insure it for the future, for you and others to enjoy. If you couldn’t afford to buy 100,000 acres right off the bat, you lease the rest that is maintained. there is no difference. you get what you pay for. Yet the Bundy’s don’t want to pay for anything, and I gotta say neither does the republicans
Another thing I want to point out, there is an old adage here that bears repeating to all concerned: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The roots of this saying can be traced to the Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52. It was said by Jesus to rebuke Simon Peter from drawing his sword against those Roman soldiers who came to arrest him. Christ wasn’t intimidating folks, he never pointed a sword at folks to make them believe in him.
Basically he just said…. That if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you.
It comes up again in Revelations chapter 13: verse 10:”He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
From the get go the Bundy’s little christian militia troupe was the aggressor against the people of the United states regarding the taking that sanctuary . They so scared the townsfolk in Burns Oregon miles away that the schools were closed for the safety of the children. How frightened did he make those people to do such a thing? Would you say the MIlitia was Christ like?
The Bundy troupe were the invaders in Burns and threatened to kill anyone who came to arrest them. They walked around with loaded guns, they beat other Militia members who disagreed with them. They were Takers, and Thieves of Burns Oregon’s peace, and tranquility, and way of life without violence. that town will never be the same. Mistrust and fear will be a part of life there now.
However these Christian Militias want to twist it, the very words in their Bible foretold their demise. They got what they paid for…. Nothing but what they put out.
Apparently, that last four there, are not bright enough to see it yet either. There is a penance you pay for your actions, when you can’t even follow the faith you profess too, let alone not following the laws that keep the peace.
Bless you, Norma.
No more need be said, as you’ve said it all.
Have a great day, for the rest of your days.
Amazing response, Norma.
This is a thing of beauty. Standing ovation.
Amen!
Good description of those morons’ actions. Robert should’ve kept his hands on the wheel. Of course he had a death wish.
Is this a responsible statement for a county commissioner to make? https://twitter.com/49Commissioner/status/692896708439617536?p=v
Here’s a thing about guns. I know, I own em. Handguns and “military style” guns in particular. If you own them, you have fantasized, daydreamed, imagined, visualized.. call it what you will.. having a shootout with bad guys. Think Travis Bickle. It’s the nature of guns, particularly handguns. Wear them daily, one on your hip, one in a shoulder holster and you reinforce those fantasies even more. Likewise, LaVoy Finicum and the rest of the Merry Militia had all imagined the scenario where they either fought or surrendered. They’d all watched enough cop movies and real cop videos. They knew that in order to stay alive, you kept your hands on the wheel, in the air, on your head.. wherever they told you to put them. They knew the cops don’t say “Take that six-shooter out REAL slow and kick it over here”. They knew cops are people, not machines, as susceptible to emotion and snap judgement as anyone (particularly after being nearly run over by a scofflaw). They knew that if you go for your gun, or your chapstick or your pocket sized Constitution, your life is going to end like a B-movie. Yet LaVoy Finicum seemed to think he would exit his vehicle, mired in the snow, wheels still spinning, after nearly running over a cop, hold up his hands and debate the Constitutionality of the roadblock. Was he reaching for a gun or his copy of the Constitution or for a Snickers bar? Doesn’t matter. Darwin Award.
Finicum was classic Suicide By Cop. He may have had a death wish anyway. Also, he was the guy who illegally accessed governemnet computer systems on site. Which is a felony.
Thank goodness nobody killed any of the “tyrants” that made up the various Occupy movements. The author’s description of the Mahleur protests was pretty apt for the Occupy clowns:
“Watching these clowns perform…several things became clear. Primarily, that these men are, and were self-aggrandizing, hypocritical fanatics; disgruntled with bureaucracy for a variety of reasons (who isn’t), and brandishing the type of entitlement rarely held outside of (liberal) circles. The kind of delusional malcontents who reap all the benefits of this great country, yet insist they are victims.”
Occupiers didn’t use force, they didn’t intimidate with Guns. I was an Occupier I flew to DC for the Occupy movement there and I would do it again. I would follow the tenets of MLK and Gandhi of peaceful protests. to make myself and others heard.
Well said Norma. Finicum declared GLOBALLY that he wouldn’t be taken alive to be put into the confines of a jail. Actions have consequences and if even Ryan Payne, the fierce warrior and combat veteran (I commend his service but he perverted the Constitution), was more prudent with the rest to surrender, then Finicum had his intentions.
Finicum left the vehicle with hands up and was checking out the situation when he looked around and decided to reach inside his coat and that’s not good when the situation is highly-charged. Finicum should have stayed by his vehicle, got down on his knees or at least
both hands on the vehicle to show he no aggressive intentions. Finicum cost have easily killed a law officer with his speeding truck and almost did and the outlaw was driving a ‘deadly’ weapon and I can only imagine he conversation between Payne and Finicum at the very end, and I guess that will come out.
Wow. This was very well written. I have been following the story closely and I could not have expressed my sentiments better.
The Mormons want to take over the United States. Here is a link you should read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/constitutional-crisis-in-the-heart-of-dixie/#_ftn1
The Mormons want to take over the United States. Here is a link you should read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/constitutional-crisis-in-the-heart-of-dixie/#_ftn1
I have two questions that would help me better understand these folks. Seriously, I’d like to know, so if you have the answers, thank you.
1. How many of the occupiers were Mormon?
2. How many of the occupiers served in the military?
The bundys are mormon! levoy finnicum was mormon, there was a guy arrested with them who called himself Captain Moroni after a Mormon hero on some distant planet. but they called themselves christians as well. and lets face it the republicans, when Romney ran in 2012 accepted Mormons as christians while he campaigned for the white house. Romney Pretty much brought his religion out of the shadows in the United States media wise.
Now heres the funny part, the mormon church immediately distanced itself from the bundy militia. heres what they said:
“While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can – and should – be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.”
Ill give you a couple of links I found useful, but all and the right treated them as christians during this occupation.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735830/bundy-mormonism/
As for veterans there was maybe four of them at first, but 2 were found out to be liars. That left Ryan Payne from MOntana and the one who surrendered to the FBI in Arizona.
I would sanction the Bundy Outlaws with the term ‘occupy’ and would reserve that for the thousands of peaceful, UNARMED Americans who Occupied Wall Street, where ultimately the most obscene and dark OUTLAWS rule with Oligarchs and ain’t no friends of hard-scrabble farmers and ranchers and as Woody Guthrie wrote in his song ‘Pretty Boy Floyd’, some will rob you with a six-gun, and others (WALL STREET) with a fountain pen’………
correction: I would NOT sanction Bundy Outlaws being referred to as ‘occupy’ dissenters who behaved peacefully and unarmed.
I have to say that it’s most fitting, in view of his unswerving devotion to the 2nd Amendment, that the last thing that went through LaVern Precum’s mind was a bullet.
Kenneth, “I did not follow this story closely…” Allen, it is painfully clear you didn’t realize these self described patriots are criminals nothing more nothing less. Claiming you are injured by the government does not give you the right to damage property and threaten lives. The fact that the Bundy Bunch violated the very spirit of the US Constitution while claiming they were acting as saviors of same document should describe their actions and character far worse than you chastise writers here. Justin and Cowgirl chroniclers, you owe no apologies here. Not so incidentally, Charles and Kenneth, the right to opinions and commentary are promised in this very document these NUTJOB CRIMINALS claim to have traveled to Oregon to protect. Instead they pillaged and whined with no consequences while real protestors were tear gassed for rightfully and legally protesting.
Robin, you have misunderstood what I had to say. Though I did not closely follow the particulars in the events in Nevada and Oregon, I did to the extent that I came to believe the actions of those who forcefully took control of public property in the two states engaged in serious criminal activity and not simply in a protest or civil disobedience. Like you, I believe the armed occupiers to have been misguided and terribly wrong in what they did. There are those who disagree with you and me, but I do not believe them to be “clowns” nor “idiots.” I chastised no writer, but rather expressed my concern on how some have used inflammatory language to define those who engaged in the takeover actions. Name-calling people “NUTJOB CRIMINALS” only flames the fires of anger. I think a softer use of language, by all of us, pro or con, is a better way to conduct public discussion on the issues herein. Calling people names, using derogatory epithets and the like is barroom parlance and inappropriate language for intelligent people to use when trying to work through all that has happened. This is serious stuff and calm is needed. I pray no other person is killed.
How about the SBA subsidized Bundy with possibly pre-meditated plan to commit acts of crime in Burns?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ammon-bundy-oregon-protest-sba-loan
Actually ‘nutjob criminals’ is mild-speak compared to terms of exasperation and condemnation that would have resulted from militant seizure of most any Federal wildlife refuge!
‘Nut job criminals is mild-speak for the people who piped good clean water to satisfy the General Motors request for non-corrosive water, but repeatedly failed to satisfy the requests for clean water from Lake Huron, to be again piped to Flint, Michigan.
The purpose of government is to protect the people from the rich and the powerful(Federalist Paper #10.)
Thesedays, all too often the purpose of Government is to protect the rich and the powerful. Like with tax breaks to those who sell oil, gas and coal out from under the surface of Montana.
In a sense, the Bundy operation has for too long been protected at local levels. It’s the protectors that have earned my wrath.
Absolutely! Who were they to pick and choose what parts of the U.S. Constitution were appropriate. The Hammond Case followed the judicial process as layed out in the U.S. Constitution. It reached a Court of Appeals, and then was rejected by The Supreme Court. While these vigilante morons “seized” public land for “the U.S. citizens”, in relaity, they created a dangerous atmosphere for anyo be who might have wanted to visit the bird sanctuary during this occupation.
Kenneth, I did understand what you were saying and I agree with you that civil discourse is always best when at all possible. However, there comes a time you must call a spade a spade. No civil words exist to describe the character and actions of the criminals participating in the armed robbery and numerous additional felonies at the refuge and in the town of Burns.
I hear you, Robin. Life is brief; death is certain. Some, by choice, travel that short road to certainty much more contentiously than do others.
Supporters of the Y’all Queda occupiers now want to designate a federal highway in Oregon as the “LaVoy Finicum Memorial Highway.” It seems that they haven’t contemplated the irony of naming a federal roadway for a guy who was all about hating the federal government.
This is about who should own these lands. Read your constitution. When a territory is accepted into statehood all federal lands become owned by that state. The feds don’t want to part with the lands west of the Mississippi River and the states have had to fight to attain ownership. Montana is one of these states which never received the federal lands that were promised. It is not about people and land ownership, it is about which entity controls the lands of the west.
Prairiegram. First, you surmise that if all Federal lands in the west were given to the states that all the citizens of those states would agree, through their legislatures, on a single course of action for management of those resources. There is nothing to suggest that if, in fact, the transfer were to happen, that the Bundy/Sagebrush Rebellion/Wise Use, etc view of land management would prevail. In fact, it might well be that things became much MORE restrictive for ranchers. And secondly, if you are worried about what was “promised”, talk to a Native American about binding treaties made with sovereign nations..long before the western states existed.
I have read my Constitution and Article IV, which addresses the formation of states amongst other issues DOES NOT have the language you assert is in the Constitution. However, it does say:
“The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” Article IV, Section 3.
Check your history. I believe Montana agreed to the Federally owned land when it became a state.
If by “your constitution”, you mean the Constitution of the State of Montana, here is a link to the 1889 constitution: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/113/library/docs/1889cons.pdf
At page 69, in Ordinance No. 1, you will find the following: “I. That the people inhabiting the said proposed state of Montana, do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States, . . .”
Ordinance No. 1 was adopted by the territorial legislature before Montana became a state. If you look at Article I of the 1972 Constitution, you will find that the ordinance “. . . continues in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.”
You might also take a look at Kleepe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976) for the explanation of the United States Constitution.
This is some excellent analysis and context from Kristin Ruether, who works with Western Watershed’s Project.
Malheur was taken over by ranchers long before the Bundys came along:
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/02/03/malheur-was-taken-over-by-ranchers-long-before-the-bundys-came-along/
Well said
Good riddance Bundy Outlaws, and ya’ll got your wish to Occupy federal land – inside a federal jail!
Very well said!!!!!
LaVoy Fini. Oaf Keeper tell funny lies. Idaho 3%’ers are Traitor Tots. Follow the Kock money.