A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#1 Post by Artemis » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:30 pm

Funny piece from the Chicago Tribune.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

A letter to the armed militia members currently occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Dear fellow patriots:

I applaud your bold overtaking of a remote, unoccupied federal building in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. (OK, technically the "federal building" looks more like a cozy stone cabin, but that takes nothing away from the aforementioned boldness.)

Without question, your clearly defined objective of staying in the building for years to come and doing patriotic things there is right in line with the constitutional ideals envisioned by the Founding Fathers. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of unoccupied federal wildlife refuge buildings."

Your rebellion brings to mind that great moment in American history, weeks before the Revolutionary War began in 1775, when two unemployed patriots, Abner Farnsworth and Phineas Snotgarden, formed their own militia and occupied a large rock outside Lexington, Mass., for a full five days, after which they got bored and left.

I expect your occupation of federal land in Oregon will go down as the Quiet-breaking-into-of-one-of-America's-premier-migratory-bird-habitats Heard Round the World.

And it's already accomplishing great things, including a weeklong closure of schools in Harney County (keeping local children away from federal "teachers," aka "knowledge indoctrinators"), and a one-day closing of the county courthouse, the engine of tyranny.

Much of this success can be attributed to your leader Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, famous for his 2014 armed standoff with U.S. Bureau of Land Management rangers. Along with encouraging others to come to Oregon and "bring your arms," the younger Bundy said the occupied wildlife refuge "will become a base place for patriots from all over the country to come and be housed here and to live here."

Sounds like a heavily armed paradise of campfires, moderate paranoia and infrequent bathing. And it will be, as long as you all hold firm against your critics.

You say you're there to stand in solidarity with local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, who are returning to federal prison Monday because they were convicted of burning federal land. You say you will remain there until the government cedes control of federal land back to the people.

Others, including the prison-bound Hammonds, question your motives. Harney County Sheriff David Ward said in a statement that you are attempting "to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

Whether you're supporting arsonist ranchers or angling to overthrow the government, please know that I support you and hope that your like-minded compatriots across the country swiftly follow your lead. And by "follow your lead," I mean "find a remote, unoccupied federal wildlife refuge building and then threaten to stay there pretty much forever."

We've all had enough of President Barack Hussein Al Qaeda Benghazi Obama and his tyrannical policies, and it's high time that people who truly love America gather up their guns and plaid outerwear and head to sparsely populated areas with promises to never leave. Ever.

Just stay there, and know that we patriots who remain trapped in the country formerly known as America have your backs and wish we could join you on your decadeslong camping trip for freedom. It's just that we're busy with work stuff and whatnot.

You know how that goes.

Maybe.

Anyhoo, keep on keeping on and please disregard the sound of construction equipment you hear along the perimeter of your occupied areas.

We're just building large, barbed-wire-topped walls around your remote enclaves to keep you safe from any potential threats, like "the feds," immigrants, Hillary Clinton, actual constitutional facts or Muslim terrorist squirrels.

You might notice armed guards in watchtowers along the walls. They are there only for decorative purposes, as reminders of the oppressive government you despise, and to protect you from accidentally trying to leave the pris… I mean Occupied Arena of Liberty that you willfully sought out.

In conclusion, kudos to all you brave souls who have taken time away from your busy government conspiracy blogging schedules to hunker down in the middle of nowhere for years to come.

We promise to never forget you or the principled stand you took, beginning with the 2016 wildlife refuge occupation in … Idaho?

Or was it South Dakota?

Utah?

Whatever.

rhuppke@tribpub.com

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#2 Post by mockbee » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:37 pm

I thought this article was quite interesting.

I think unfortunately these activities are only a harbinger for what's to come.

There are a lot of angry people out there. Some of them are just stupid, but some truly feel desperate. It's unfortunate they don't know how to appropriately resolve their desperation. They don't like being tenants of the government, but it's a guarantee that's a better alternative to being tenants to a corporate land owner.
This Land Is Your Land. Or Is It?

Image

Despite its appeal to conservatives, the idea that history alone explains private property is hard to justify.


By Justin P. McBrayer January 5, 2016 8:35 pm


Since last weekend, armed men have been in control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Incensed by the sentencing of local ranchers to jail time for burning public lands, the protesters want the federal government out of the land business. Their stated goal is to return the refuge to the locals so that “people can reclaim their resources.” But this raises an important question: Why does justice demand that the land and resources belong to the locals instead of the commons? What makes property private?


This is not a question germane only to a standoff in Oregon. It’s a question that applies to each and every one of us. If you’re reading this, you probably own a smartphone. You think you justly own your phone and that it’s wrong for the government or anyone else to take it from you. But why is your phone your private property? You might say that you are entitled to it because the law says that you are entitled to it. But that’s a bad answer.

There are lots of cases where legal ownership and just ownership come apart. You know full well that slave ownership was once legal, but you probably don’t think it was just. And if the law changed tomorrow to outlaw smartphones, you probably don’t think that your entitlement to your phone would vanish. You’d think the government had made a mistake and that it would be O.K. to resist. So what explains why some property is your private property?

An idea common among conservatives — and surely an assumption of the protesters in Oregon — is that the past fully explains private property. For example, perhaps you paid for your phone or were given it as a gift. That’s why you are entitled to it. So in general we might say that if you paid for something or were given something, then you are entitled to it.

But is that true? Suppose I steal your car and sell it to my friend Dugald. Is Dugald entitled to the car because he paid for it? You probably want to say “no.” Buying something doesn’t give you entitlement unless the seller was entitled to the thing first. So a transfer of property from one person to another is rendered illegitimate if the seller got the property through unjust means.

But now think back to your smartphone. What are the chances that the money you used to buy your phone can be traced backward through your employer, your employer’s customers, and so on back through history without passing through the hands of a serious injustice? Slim to none. The same can be said for the seller’s side of the transaction. Chances are excellent that your phone arrived in your hand only after the exploitation of workers, abuse of the environment, theft, fraud, human trafficking, or any number of deal-breaking injustices.

And, as the situation in Oregon makes clear, deciphering the boundaries of private property for real estate is even more troubled. Eastern Oregon was once populated by the Northern Paiute tribe. Like the history of your smartphone, the shift of property from the Paiutes to the white settlers is surely marred with various injustices. And if injustices render a transfer of private property illegitimate, then the protesters in Oregon have little to complain about.

So far we’ve only entertained an historical explanation of how private property gets transferred from one person to another. But this raises a deeper question: if history explains private property, how does anyone come to be entitled to previously unowned stuff in the first place?

This is a very hard question to answer. We probably don’t want to say that the first person to see or find something is thereby entitled to it. That’s the finders-keepers model of private property. The United States certainly didn’t want to say this a few years ago when a Russian submarine planted a flag on the Arctic seafloor and declared the oil reserves therein the property of the Russian government. And, again, the protesters in Oregon should be handing the refuge over to the descendants of the first humans to find that land (probably not members of the Northern Paiute tribe but some earlier group).

John Locke — one of the main philosophers to set out a theory of property entitlement — agrees that the finders-keepers rule is too loose. However, he claims that if a person finds an unowned resource, mixes his labor with that resource, and leaves enough and “as good” (“as good” meaning enough of the same quality) of the resource for others, then the person is entitled to that resource. Locke’s theory informs much of the property law here in the United States. Take, for instance, water rights in the western part of the country. The laws currently allocate water rights to people according to historical first-use. If a rancher pumped a certain amount of water out of the river back in 1875, made good use of it, and left enough water in the river for downstream users at the time, then he gained a right to that same amount of water year after year.

But does allocating rights to resources in this way make sense? Locke’s historical theory of initial ownership seems to raise more questions than it answers. What does it mean to say that someone “mixes his labor” with something? When I find an unowned field and fence it in, did I mix my labor with it? That’s how most of the land in the West was carved up. And do I just get rights to the surface pasture or the mineral rights deep within the ground, too? Or suppose I find a beach and build a house on it. Did I mix my labor with the land? How much of it? Just what is under the house? And why is it that mixing my labor is a way of gaining property instead of simply losing my labor?

Consider Locke’s second requirement on initial acquisition, namely that the appropriator leave enough and “as good” of that resource for others who want it. The intuitive idea is something like this: You can’t take something out of the commons for your own private use unless you leave everyone else the same opportunity to appropriate a similar amount and quality of the resources for their own private use. This is a sensible requirement but difficult to meet. Which others should count? When British settlers first landed on North American shores, did they leave enough for everyone else in Europe?

So despite its appeal to conservatives, the idea that history alone explains private property is hard to make good on. On this theory, the mere fact that we were given things or paid for things won’t determine whether we are entitled to those things. At worst the historical theory implies that no one is entitled to any private property. And if our property isn’t legitimately private, it’s hard to see how it’s unjust for the government or anyone else to take it from us.

This is not to say that liberal views of private property don’t face their own share of challenges. They do. But we should be honest about the intellectual bankruptcy of a prominent explanation for private property. We need a theory of private property that makes sense if we are to make any progress on answering fundamental political questions about the disparity of wealth, taxation and the government control of land. It takes more than a gun to make property private.

Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#3 Post by mockbee » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:58 pm

Cruz urges armed protesters in Oregon to 'stand down'


By Timothy Cama - 01/04/16 12:40 PM EST

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday slammed the protesters who have taken over a federal building at a wildlife refuge in rural Oregon, urging them to lay down their arms.

“Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds,” Cruz told reporters at campaign event in Iowa, according to NBC News.

“But we don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others,” he said. “And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.”
:yikes:


:lol:

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#4 Post by Angry Canine » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:40 am

Image

Makes it pretty hard for the white christian people that deny this little reality, to keep denying.

These idiots are a bunch of clowns. This land they want "returned" is land the government bought up above market value, mostly almost 90 years ago. It is also part of the Louisiana Purchase, which means at one point the government owned all of it. Of course if it should really be "returned" to anyone, it is the native tribes that the government pushed the few they didn't just kill into tiny little pockets of.

It is also very bad precedent to be letting this slide. Letting it, pretty much assures that next time they won't settle for armed occupation a tiny little shed in a remote park, it'll at least be a county courthouse somewhere if not something more major.

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#5 Post by Angry Canine » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:03 am

mockbee wrote:IThis is not a question germane only to a standoff in Oregon. It’s a question that applies to each and every one of us. If you’re reading this, you probably own a smartphone. You think you justly own your phone and that it’s wrong for the government or anyone else to take it from you. But why is your phone your private property? You might say that you are entitled to it because the law says that you are entitled to it. But that’s a bad answer.

There are lots of cases where legal ownership and just ownership come apart. You know full well that slave ownership was once legal, but you probably don’t think it was just. And if the law changed tomorrow to outlaw smartphones, you probably don’t think that your entitlement to your phone would vanish. You’d think the government had made a mistake and that it would be O.K. to resist. So what explains why some property is your private property?
Ownership of a manufactured product is a far different thing than "ownership" of land. A product that was created is definitely private property that can be bought and sold, assuming it was not stolen, or made of stolen content. Exploitive or "unfair" labor can easily be seen as wrong, but is not the same as stolen, unless it is actual slave labor. As long as the worker is not physically not free to walk away from the job, they are not slave, even if they are rather economically trapped in the job. Of course I would hardly be surprised if there isn't plenty of actual slave labor being used by global corporations, and in that case the entire chain of command from shop foreman to CEO should be imprisoned in my opinion.

As far as land ownership goes, I philosophically subscribe to the notion that there should be no such thing. But that just couldn't realistically work. There would be no order whatsoever, just a never ending battle royale of a world full of private armies killing each other for a turn at exploiting 100% of the Earth's resources with nothing whatsoever protected.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#6 Post by mockbee » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:07 pm


Opposing Factions Take to Facebook in Oregon Wildlife Refuge Dispute


By JULIE TURKEWITZ and KIRK JOHNSONJAN. 22, 2016


Image

PRINCETON, Ore. — As more people beg the armed antigovernment protesters who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge here three weeks ago to go home, the protesters this week embarked on a new quest: a search for allies.

So far, few people seem to be lining up behind them. Residents of the town of Burns, the largest nearby community, turned out in force on Tuesday to demand that the protesters vacate. The governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, exhorted federal officials to roust the group, which is led by the brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy and an ally, LaVoy Finicum. The F.B.I. tried talking to them this week, apparently with no luck.


On Wednesday, the protesters tried to enlist support from the Burns Paiute Tribe. The message — that the federally owned land of the Malheur refuge should be returned to its original owners — might seem like one that would appeal to the tribe, but it did not.

The Bundy group is also trying to recruit local ranchers. On Saturday, they plan to hold a ceremony for ranchers to renounce federal ownership of public land and tear up their federal cattle grazing contracts — an act they are calling a “declaration of emancipation.” Just one person has confirmed attendance, a rancher from New Mexico.

The conflict has spilled over into social media. One flashpoint was a trove of ancient tribal artifacts belonging to the Burns Paiute and housed at the Malheur refuge. The protesters asserted in a Facebook video that the relics were being neglected, and the government workers also took to Facebook to say they were safeguarding the items at the tribe’s request.

In one video posted to the Bundy Ranch Facebook page, Mr. Finicum is seen examining boxes that he said contained grinding stones, projectile points and other Paiute artifacts, which he said were near a rat’s nest. “This is how the Native Americans’ heritage is being treated — to me, I don’t think it’s acceptable,” Mr. Finicum said.

At the refuge, Mr. Finicum agreed to take a reporter to see the artifacts. Entering one of the Malheur buildings, he climbed down a narrow stairwell into a dark basement. Then he began pulling items from boxes stacked on a metal shelf — a flint knife, obsidian arrowheads — each one wrapped in a plastic bag and carefully labeled.

Mr. Finicum rolled his hands over a grinding stone. “Why does the federal government get to keep these things for 30 years down in the basement? Either put them out on display or give them to who they belong.”

He said he wanted to return the items to their owners — the Burns Paiute Tribe. “We want to have a powwow or a confab, and we are trying to see what we can do to help them,” he said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Facebook page for the refuge immediately fired back, pointing out that under federal management, the Burns Paiute Tribe had access to

collect material for making of traditional crafts like baskets, cradle boards, mats and boats. The artifacts were stored “with the full knowledge and blessing of the Burns Paiute Tribe,” the posting said.



“The illegal occupants violated the security of the refuge,” the posting said. “These artifacts have been curated and stored under lock and key.”

The chairwoman of the Burns Paiute Tribe, Charlotte Rodrique, said in an interview this week with the Indian Country Today Media Network that the tribe was “really worried about the status of the artifacts down there.”


The article said that about 4,000 artifacts belonging to the tribe were stored in buildings controlled by the protesters, and that the tribe was demanding federal action under a provision of a treaty signed in 1868 that guarantees government protection against “bad men.” The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 also makes it a federal crime to remove, damage, deface or traffic in artifacts from public land.

Ms. Rodrique did not return telephone calls or an email on Friday seeking further comment.

In addition to their overtures to the tribe, Mr. Bundy and other leaders of the occupier group have also spoken with the F.B.I., in a visit on Thursday to the barricaded entry to the small airport in Burns, Ore., where federal law enforcement agents have established their command post. On Friday, a new video was posted to the Bundy Ranch Facebook page in which Mr. Finicum said that any speculation about a withdrawal was erroneous.

“The F.B.I. has reached out to us,” he said in that video. But the talks did not change anything, he said, about the group’s commitment to shift control of the refuge lands into local hands.

Refuge employees, in a letter posted on the refuge website, reminded residents of Harney County that government workers are part of the community, too.

“We can have effective disagreements and either find resolution, find compromise, or simply agree to disagree,” the letter said. “But we do it with respect for the rule of law.”


:jasper: :jasper: :jasper: :jasper: :jasper: :jasper: :jasper: :jasper:


This fucktards terrorizing Harney County need to get the hell out of there, and then go straight to jail.

If this isn't white privilege, I don't know what is........ :no:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#7 Post by mockbee » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:11 pm

Pretty scary stuff.



Courtesy of Peter Walker, Professor of Geography, University of Oregon.


Image
It was a three hour meeting. The first two hours consisted of the Bundys, LaVoy Finicum, and Ryan Payne lecturing on "natural law" and the duty of the people to overthrow the government. Payne said, "If you want to be free you have to be willing to give it all up," and Finicum warned they've tried signs and peaceful protests, and it didn't work... so... so scary.
Image
There were about 30 Harney County ranchers present.

Image
A lot of people present were skeptical that they should overthrow the government by arms and give their lives in the process (including the guy whose wife is pregnant in this photo). The Bundys in essence told people who expressed doubt about giving their lives for the cause that they were cowards. They kept saying the time is now and the place is Harney County. Why don't they go commit sedition and collective martyrdom in their own counties?
Image
According to their view you don't need to have a driver's license because it's not in the Constitution. And you should resist arrest when you're arrested because not resisting arrest also isn't in the Constitution. In fact everything (case law, codes, regulations, etc.) are all "unlawful" in their view because they aren't in the Constitution. Wildlife refuges are also not in the Constitution... so, you get the idea.
These guys don't appear to understand that the constitution says what the government can't do, not what it can do. Where did he get his Jurisdoctorate in constitutional law?

Image
They read from a copy of the Constitution that has annotations that support racism (it's the same booklet that motivated their father Cliven Bundy to say that black people might have been better off as slaves). They gave out copies--I got three.
Image
I forgot to take many pictures of Finicum (center), but he was the one who more or less directly called on the citizens of Harney County to give their blood for the revolution. Arguably Finicum is the intellectual leader of the group. He published a novel to teach the principles of "natural law" which is "given to us by God"--the title of the book is "Only by Blood and Suffering: Regaining Lost Freedom". In the book he argues that when government violates individual rights, it is the duty of the people to rebel.
Image
That's "Fluffy Unicorn"? I thought he was supposed to be in prison now. Scary dude.

Image
This rancher said he's not sure he's prepared to sign an oath to not pay his grazing fees (for his cattle on public land). He said the authorities would crack down and it would ruin his family's livelihood. He said "it's asking too much" to give up everything. The Bundys replied that if every rancher refuses they'll win. This rancher shook his head.

Image
This rancher also spoke up against the Bundy plan.

Image
This rancher said the Bundys idea of governance only through the counties (i.e. no federal government) was unrealistic. He got an earful from the Bundys about that.

Image


Image
I was proud of Harney County ranchers. This man continued after the meeting ended, telling Bundy his model of government is crackpot. Fluffy Unicorn didn't look happy. (But maybe he needed a snack.)

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#8 Post by Angry Canine » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:59 pm

These idiots need to be arrested, and shot if they resist.

They wrap themselves in the Constitution, but clearly have no concept of what it actually is. It sets forth the framework for the Government, and lawmaking, not a list of all of the laws that can ever be. Clearly the only part they've ever read is the Second Amendment, apparently, they think that is the whole of it.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#9 Post by Pandemonium » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:39 pm

Looks like the party's over for these chumps. Now they can occupy a jail cell.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: A letter to militiamen in Oregon (Commentary)

#10 Post by mockbee » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:45 am

Image

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Cliven Bundy, the father of Ammon Bundy, the arrested leader of the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, was booked in Multnomah County Jail Wednesday night.

It was posted on the Bundy Ranch's official Facebook page Wednesday night that Bundy would be heading to Burns and in a brief FBI release.

The announcement was made amid news that the FBI had surrounded the four remaining armed occupiers at the refuge near Burns. The occupiers said that they would surrender Thursday morning.

More: Refuge occupiers say they'll surrender Thursday morning

Bundy flew into Portland International Airport Wednesday night, where he was detained by the FBI and booked into the jail at 10:54 p.m.

He was being held on a U.S. Marshal's hold.

In an unusual move, the Multnomah County district attorney's office has sealed Bundy's booking mug. Sgt. Steve Alexander told KGW Thursday morning it was for investigative reasons. Without explanation, the mug was unsealed about 7 a.m.

The Oregonian reports the arrest was made in connection with federal charges for a 2014 standoff in Nevada.

Further information on Bundy's charges will be announced Thursday morning, the FBI said. Any media questions should be directed to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Las Vegas.

Cliven's arrest comes more than two weeks after Ammon was brought into custody.

It was a trap to get Cliven, allowing the four holdouts to stay at the refuge. :noclue:

OREGON! :rockon:

Post Reply