43
   

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

 
 
layman
 
  0  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:10 pm
@George,
After studyin that Salon article I posted, I can see that what you're sayin is obviously true, eh, George? Thanks for putting it all together for me!
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:13 pm
Oregon standoff: FBI stages at Burns airport
Source: Oregon Live

Must be the Federal negotiators. The Feds vs. the militia that doesn't have a quarter master.

Jan 09,2016 updated 1:17 pm

BURNS — The FBI has staged at the Burns Municipal Airport, blocking entrance to a U.S. Bureau of Land Management base there used to fight fires during the summer.

Men in FBI gear were posted Saturday in a sport utility vehicle along Airport Road about five miles east of the city, keeping cars and trucks from entering a BLM "SEAT Base" where another large vehicle sat equipped with FBI signage, numerous antennae, a satellite dish and other gear.

The men declined to answer questions or identify themselves and asked a reporter not to enter the SEAT Base on foot. SEAT stands for "single engine air tanker," a small agricultural airplane used to drop fire retardant on wildfires. Law enforcement officials have been posted there for days.

The FBI's presence was another reminder of the armed occupation more than 30 miles away at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which entered its eighth day Saturday. A group of militants led by Arizona businessman Ammon Bundy and joined Friday by an armed group of self-styled patriots from Idaho has commandeered the bird sanctuary to protest the federal government's ownership of public land in Harney County.

More at link

Read more: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_standoff_fbi_stages_at.html
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:15 pm
@George,
I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
layman
 
  -1  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

I, for one, welcome our new overlords.


Ya didn't hafta tell us, Bobby. We knew it already.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 02:05 pm
@layman,
You're right relative to police bullies in Philly and elsewhere. I tend to be defensive of the police because a) Most of them are good people who want to do a good job b) Their critics can't help but spout hyperbolic generalizations that are divorced from reality c) More than once, the reflexive caterwauling about murderous cops has been grossly incorrect - Witness Ferguson and the fact that there are still no few cretins insisting that an innocent man was gunned down by a homicidal cop and d) In most cases, it is the quintessential crap-ass job that somebody has to do, and which the loudest and most strident critics would never attempt. One solution to the problem of rogue cops, I would think, is for all the crusaders who are so concerned about the treatment of young black men by cops; to, themselves, become cops. Since they obviously know just how policing in rough, crime ridden places should be properly done, their joining PDs across the country (but specifically in urban centers of poverty) would be a huge boon for justice and young black men.

The job of a cop in a big city sucks. I would never do it. They aren't paid enough for performing such an important function and with the constant risk of being injured or killed . They are surrounded, on a daily basis, by the dregs of our society, and not only witness the worst conduct of which humans are capable, but charged with dealing it with. Unlike the rest of us, they can't quickly turn their heads and walk away from the sight of the aftermath of some heinous crime...they have to immerse themselves in the gore and depravity.

They are under intense scrutiny from a generally hostile media, and reliably hostile liberal politicians and "community activists." Any time a member of a minority is shot and/or killed, there is a very widespread presumption that the cop did so because he or she is a racist rogue. Even if this is true, the cops who are not bad will still be tarred with the same brush and be required to simply stand and take the literally "in your face" obscenity laden squalling of demonstrators. For those cops who are innocent of the hysterical charges, the chances are pretty good that their lives are either turned upside down or ruined, despite exoneration. Some leave the force; some feel forced to relocate to a neighborhood where they can feel that their families are safe. The media barely mentions the fact that these cops and their families receive numerous death threats, incidents of valandalism, and general harassment. If such actions were directed at the family of the perpetrator injured or killed by the cop, it would be headline news. Vile claims about them are plastered on social media, and every ass-hat on the internet thinks he or she knows enough about the cop or the situation to proudly pronounce that the cop needs to burn in hell or be subject to treatment that, if it was meted out to a criminal, would drive them insane with outrage.

(These ass-hats, BTW, are everywhere and shooting off their vile mouths about all sorts of things. I am constantly bemused by the cretins who claim to be so big-hearted and loving towards animals, but who will wish the most cruel of fates on not only anyone who they believe has abused an animal, but anyone who dares to suggest they might be wrong in what constitutes abuse. You'll find the same thing with on-line critics of parents who don't match up to the ass-hat's profiles of the perfect mom or dad)

But, while I tend to defend cops, I'm well aware that there is a significant number of bad eggs who should not hold the job. I don't know whether or not if, proportionately, there are more bad eggs in policing than other professions (I would guess not), but any number of them in law enforcement is significant because of the disproportionate harms they can cause. Proportionately there may be as many or more bad egg Trash Collectors or Store Clerks than bad cops, but no one is worried about rouge garbage men or slimy 7-11 slurpy sellers.

I think it safe to say that there are plenty of people who are drawn to the profession by the promise of wielding power not available to the average citizen. I suspect most of these folks turn out to be bad eggs, and most of the cops who are bad eggs are so because of a desire to exercise power. I'm also pretty sure there is a fair number of cops who go bad because of the stress of the job and the constant exposure to the worst people have to offer. It doesn't excuse any abusive acts they commit, but to the extent that it is the case, it's something policie officials need to be aware of and guard against.

Most of us have learned what we know about cops and police procedures from the plethora of cop shows on TV. Obviously this isn't a reliably authoritative source. Some of these show depict a process whereby the PD has staff or associated psychologists who attempt to intervene and assist cops who are going down hill because of job stress, however if the PDs in urban centers are anything like all the other government bureaucracies, the quality and pay of the psychologists are low, there aren't enough, of them to properly do the job, and the entire process is as much distrusted as welcome by the cops themselves.

I have yet to see anyone argue that all cops are shining Paladins for Justice. Most of those who strongly criticize cops however, will only begrudgingly admit that it isn't the case that 100% of them are bad eggs, but then they will usually throw in that the ones who don't commit the offenses themselves are just as bad if they don't rat out the guys upon whom their lives could easily depend.

Everyone loves Frank Serpico (or at least his myth), but part of his story is all the grief he had to endure because of his firm adherence to principles. Cops, like everyone else, including their critics, are not perfect, and will often take the path of least resistance...especially when the resistance on the preferred path is brutal.

The critics of police will often argue "Well, if they find the job too tough to do properly, they should quit." I agree that they should quit, but then I don't know why any of these people join or stay on the force. Of course "just quitting" is not quite as easy as the critics imply. Far more than one of these folks is, I'm sure, perversely stuck in a destructive situation from which they can't seem to be able to extricate themselves, even though they know they should.

For the moral relativists that most of these critics are, and particularly when it comes to criminals, it's ironic how absolutist they become when the subject is cop behavior.

Bad cops are a big problem and extraordinary efforts should be made to purge them from PD, because of the extraordinary danger they present, but there is no more benefit to be gained from generalizing, exaggeration, prejudging, and demonizing than there is as respect young black men.
George
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 02:07 pm
@layman,
Get the story behind the story.
It's what I do.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 02:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
One solution to the problem of rogue cops, I would think, is for all the crusaders who are so concerned about the treatment of young black men by cops; to, themselves, become cops.


really

As you recall, I feel the same way about war/s. You didn't seem to think much of it as a solution in that instance.

<saving>
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 02:54 pm
@layman,
Of course Salon can't leave alone an objective and accurate assessment of this group without tossing in a sop for their readers: "Cleary for all of the most important reasons, Bundy & Co. can't be considered "terrorists," but if you are among those hyperbolic, uber-partisans who made refexive, hysterical claims that they were terrorists, and maybe even should be gunned down by federal agents (for no other reason than the "Authorities" owe you some right-wing, white dead bodies after the MOVE bombing in Philly), then not to worry. You weren't the sort of nit wits we would have accused conservatives of being if they made similar grossly inaccurate claims, because Bundy & Co. are kind of like terrorists...to be sure!"

When did the slavery "admiring" Cliven Bundy show up at the station, or is Salon casting the sins of the father at the feet of his son (not to mention the other occupiers who don't all seem to regard father or son as even their tactical leader, let alone the ideological founts of their "movement.")?

Just a point of correction, but even if one wishes to mischaracterize Cliven's statement as an indication of admiration for slavery rather than a blatant, racist, derogatory comment about blacks, ISIS more than just admires slavery, they practice it.

Killing people because they are not members of your religion is religiously framed and motivated behavior, protesting goverment ownership of land is not.

Perhaps some people believe some or all of the occupier's beliefs are extreme, but the same can be said about the beliefs expressed in Salon or by Black Lives Matter. Since when is holding a belief that many people feel is extreme reason to make a comparison to terrorists rational? That nutty guy on Discovery Channel with the Erasehesd doo who believes aliens have been crawling all over the earth for thousands of years, a whole of people think his beliefs are extreme. Would Salon find a comparison of him to Osama bin Laden understandable as a result?

Who are the Bundy inspired militants who committed atrocities, and what were their crimes?

Let's say this is precisely accurate. While al Qaida was disavowing the atrocities it inspired in others, it was committing it's own that were more numerous and larger in scope. Have either of the Bundys committed or directed atrocities? I seriously doubt it since if they had, they would have been featured in Salon's absurd list of similarities. By this ridiculous standard, Salon would have to say a comparison between terrorists and Mohammed and/Jesus is reasonable. Now they probably wouldn't have a problem with a comparison to Jesus, but they would destroy their servers, and close their doors before they would ever make such an insensitive Islamaphobic comparison to The Prophet - Blessings be upon his name.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 03:49 pm
A degree or two off topic but do take a look at this you vulgar, rotting, rat-tongued Americans
Quote:

Finally! Science proves that Canadians are way more polite than Americans.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/7/10729110/canadians-polite-twitter
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 05:00 pm
Tea Party and the Right
The Bundy Boys' Bizarre Anti-Constitutional Agenda
People like Ammon Bundy don't actually believe in or care about the Constitution.
By Thom Hartmann / AlterNet
January 9, 2016

Print
Comments

Ammon Bundy speaking at a forum hosted by the American Academy for Constitutional Education (AAFCE) at the Burke Basic School in Mesa, Arizona.
Photo Credit: By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America (Ammon Bundy) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The armed, right-wing militia members who are occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge out in Oregon say they believe in and want to defend the Constitution.
Shop ▾

Here, for example, is Ammon Bundy, the leader of the occupation, talking to news reporters about why he decided to take over a public building on public land.

That's pretty standard right-wing militia-type rhetoric, but the ironic thing is people like Ammon Bundy don't actually believe in or care about the Constitution.

They say they do, and can probably quote a few of its most obscure sections to "prove" that the federal government is evil, but when it comes right down to it, they're a lot more like the people that opposed the Constitution than the people who wrote it.

Yesterday, Twitter user @BillMon1 explained why this is in a brilliant series of tweets.

He wrote, "Funny thing about Bundy types & their pocket Constitutions: They're in ideological tradition of those who OPPOSED it - Anti-Federalists Fears of a tyrannical central government, exaggerated claims of state sovereignty, localism and suspicion of elite conspiracies are all arguments and emotions that were used to agitate against ratification of the document Cliven Bundy claims to hold so dear."

But the irony doesn't stop there.

The Bundy types aren't just opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. They're opposed to what it actually says, too.

They don't want the federal government owning land in the West, but at the time of ratification, one of the major selling points of the Constitution was the fact that it did just that: It put the feds in charge of public land.

And what's more, as @BillMon1 points out, the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to regulate the lands it manages on behalf of the "We the People."

Right there in Article 4, Section 3, it says that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting Territory or other Property belonging to US."

In other words, the government owning and protecting a patch of land in the west isn't tyranny. It's quite literally what this republic was founded on.

Here, we rather like our Constitution, so either learn to deal with it or get packing.

There's also a bigger picture issue here that goes beyond Ammon Bundy, the militias and their really bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

And that's the whole debate over who should control the commons.

The Bundys and their militia friends might look and sound extreme, but the basic argument driving their occupation - that private forces, not the "We the People" and our elected government should control the commons - is about as Republican as it gets.

It's the same argument Tea Partiers make when they rant against single-payer health care. It's the same argument that Republicans make when they scream "socialism" at people who want to make college free for all. It's the same argument that cable industry shills make when they oppose municipal broadband, and so on and so on.

But the thing is, public ownership of the commons is about as American as it gets, and there's no better proof of this than the Constitution giving the federal government (and thus "We the People") control over public lands including those out West.

In other words, what we're seeing out in Oregon right now isn't just a fight over federal land; it's also fight over the fundamental meaning of the Constitution, and Ammon Bundy and his friends are on the wrong side of that fight.

Let's hope they learn the error of their ways before anyone gets killed.



Thom Hartmann is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America — and What We Can Do to Stop It."
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 05:06 pm

‘Pissed as Hell’ Rancher Blows Up at Bundy Militants: ‘I’m Not Going Let Some Other People Be My Face’

Georgia Marshall has been described by local residents as “the most soft spoken person in town.”
By David Edwards / Raw Story
January 7, 2016



Rancher Georgia Marshall speaks at a Harney County meeting.
Photo Credit: screen grab

Harney County resident Georgia Marshall delivered a scathing condemnation of Ammon Bundy’s militants and called on them to end their armed occupation of the nearby Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

At a county meeting on Wednesday night, Harney County Sheriff David Ward expressed frustration that Bundy’s group had refused to leave the federal property even after they had been ordered to do so. Bundy has maintained that he will “go home” when local ranchers begin to assert their rights over federal lands.

Marshall has been described by local residents as “the most soft spoken person in town,” but she was fired up when she took the microphone on Wednesday.

The Harney County resident of 64 years explained that she was a rancher and had devoted years working with officials to modernize the handling of federal lands.

“The progress we’ve made in this community compared with the sh*t we went through years ago when you could not stand in talk to a manager,” she told the crowd. “Granted, it’s not a lot of progress but it’s coming.”

Marshall pointed out that an organization called the High Desert Partnership was already working “damn hard” for the residents of Harney County.

“We are the poster child of the ranching community, of the environmental community, of the government community!” she exclaimed. “Have we ever had anybody put together a refuge plan in this god damn nation? Hell, no, we haven’t! But it happened here and it happened in Harney County.”

The rancher begged residents “not to destroy everything we’re doing because we have to make a stand for everything in the god damn past.”

“This is our time now! It is not what we did 100 years ago or 60 years ago or 30 years ago!” Marshall shouted. “It’s our moment right now. We don’t know our future, but I’ll tell you what. It’s better than what we had.”

“Let’s try to keep going, let’s not get caught up like I’m pissed as hell right now,” she added. “And my boots are shaking, but I’m proud to be a rancher and I’m not going to let some other people be my face!”

“I am me! This is my home!”

Watch the video below.
roger
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 05:11 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Just thought I ought to alert you all that, in order to make this thread safer for everyone to speak their mind without fear, I've brought in a loaded handgun.


Oddly, I felt safer when I was the only one packing.
George
 
  6  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 05:17 pm
@roger,
I don't have a handgun, but I got loaded last night.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 05:28 pm
@blatham,
Is it red plastic?
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 06:28 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Oddly, I felt safer when I was the only one packing.

You have a gun?! I did not know that! I'm going right back to Biff's Bazooka Barn and get two more.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 06:29 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Is it red plastic?

No, that's a marital aid.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 06:34 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
That video is incredible. Thank you!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 07:00 pm
Quote:
On Saturday, Ammon Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, sent an email to supporters asking them to send her son's group supplies from a list of more than 80 items, including sleeping bags, wool socks, cigarettes, toiletries, food, coffee and "French Vanilla Creamer."
http://bit.ly/1Zf8z5U

Don't laugh. This is serious **** these patriots are up to here. They have been driven damn near into the deprivations of severe poverty by government. You can see this easily just in noting their $70,000 pick up trucks (fancy wheels and manly truck-doodads on top of that).
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 07:17 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
One solution to the problem of rogue cops, I would think, is for all the crusaders who are so concerned about the treatment of young black men by cops; to, themselves, become cops.


really

As you recall, I feel the same way about war/s. You didn't seem to think much of it as a solution in that instance.

<saving>


Well I don't think of it much of a solution either. I don't think the public would be any better saved by having cop haters as cops than NYC is served by having Deblasio as mayor. It seems to be though that they might have at least thought of it and in some places actually tried it but that would mean taking on a dirty job no one in their right mind wants.

If I recall correctly, your suggestion was for the people who want to see war waged to fight the wars they want. (If that's not accurate, please correct me)

Like it or not we are going to have wars and someone is going to fight them. We have a group of men and women who have volunteered to do so. No one, not even you, I believe, is complaining about the job they do the way the cop-haters are complaining about police. Even if there was a group complaining about the conduct of our men and women in uniform there can be no reasonable expectation that having 73 year old Senators and grossly overweight Congresswomen fight wars would solve that problem. That the problem doesn't even exist, make the solution that much more meaningless.

To be honest, a lot of the cop-haters would probably not make very good cops but a goodly number of them (in that a huge swath are young) could meet the standards for becoming one. By the appearance of cops in most places, the standards do not to be particularly stringent so I think we could probably replace all or most current cop deemed unfit with those who believe they know how cops should best act.

If I read your suggestion correctly the crucial outcome would be the exposure of those who call for war to the experience of war. Again that might prove satisfying to you but it won't improve the operation of our armed forces and it certainly would reduce our ability to win. I suppose there is also an element of my suggestion that incorporates a goal of introducing cop-haters to the conditions cops face but that is at most secondary, whereas your desire for war-starters to fight wars seems primary.

In fact though, there are people who call for war who have experienced it first hand, and there are cop-haters who have first hand experience with the world in which cops spend their days. If John McCain, for example, was physically capable, a requirement that he fight in any war he advocates would not be likely to cause him to change his position, and if a young black man who has grown up in a depressed and crime ridden locale were to serve as a cop, there's no reason to believe he would immediately begin to appreciate cops more.

In the end though, my "solution" is not only actually possible while yours is not, mine is based on voluntary action while yours is based on coercion. People who believe that there are too many bad cops in PDs throughout the country and/or that police officials don't know how to best police inner-cities or minority communities, could possibly effect the change they are looking for if they voluntarily sought to become members of these PDs. I don't see it ever happening but it is not entirely a fantasy.

Your solution, on the other hand, requires forcing people who advocate for war to fight those wars in the hope that it will reduce the number of wars and even if not, it will put the people who want them at risk, and not the people who do not. Aside from the fact that this will never happen you have either not given it much thought or presumed that the people who now fight our wars don't want to. I wouldn't say that we have hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform who wake up every morning itching for a war to fight in, but we also don't have a military made up entirely or even largely of pacifists.

So the bottom line is "my" solution which I have raised, but not called for, is one that could actually happen and conceivably be a positive thing to the people who volunteer as well the citizens whose neighborhoods they police (I'm not at all sanguine that this would be the case but it is a possibility), whereas "your" solution actually is yours in that you have called for it (even if only to make a point), but can never be realized.

I thinks those are major distinction, but perhaps you do not.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Sun 10 Jan, 2016 08:48 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Don't laugh. This is serious **** these patriots are up to here. They have been driven damn near into the deprivations of severe poverty by government. You can see this easily just in noting their $70,000 pick up trucks (fancy wheels and manly truck-doodads on top of that).


So by using the language you use here to belittle the fine people holed up in Oregon, what is you are hoping to do? Entertain your audience? Maybe get some of those precious thumb's up? You and your like minded fellows keep doing that like the people you are talking about come here, read your posts and go back all flummoxed about how "them darn liberals are talkin' 'bout us again on the interwebs."

I think the only reason you share these stories and commentary is to show everyone how superior you are to the people actually doing something instead of just bitching about stuff on the net. How dare someone be so principled as to actually DO something?! They could sit at home and arm-chair general it all over the internet instead. Everyone knows that accomplishes stuff... :rolleyes:
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 02:54:17