Aa
Bundy's alive cause he's white ??
One’s a 'Patriot.' One Is Dead: Ammon Bundy, Tamir Rice and the Real Story About Race, Oregon and Whiteness in America
Oregon is about guns, right-wing media and state violence as well as race. But it shows our racial inequity clearly.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ones-patriot-one-dead-ammon-bundy-tamir-rice-and-real-story-about-race-oregon-and
Oregon is about guns, right-wing media and state violence as well as race. But it shows our racial inequity clearly.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ones-patriot-one-dead-ammon-bundy-tamir-rice-and-real-story-about-race-oregon-and
Thanks desert. That land was stolen from the original inhabitants and Bundy's has no right to it.
As to the original question .....
I don't know if being White will keep Bundy alive, but it'll probably keep him from being shackled and force marched 300 miles through knee-deep snow like the last people kicked off that land.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/5/these_arent_the_first_armed_whites
I don't know if being White will keep Bundy alive, but it'll probably keep him from being shackled and force marched 300 miles through knee-deep snow like the last people kicked off that land.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/5/these_arent_the_first_armed_whites
http://www.cato.org/blog/no-good-guys-west
"There are no good guys to cheer for in the militia takeover of an Oregon federal office building on January 2. The ostensible issue is the re-sentencing of two Oregon ranchers–Dwight Hammond and son Steven Hammond–for arson, while the underlying issue is federal land ownership of much of the West.
The arson fires lit by the Hammonds in 2001 and 2006 may have actually represented sensible land management, but the Hammonds lost the high ground by their failure to coordinate with the government agency managing the land they burned. Prescribed fire is a tool used to improve wildlife habitat, increase land productivity, and control wildfire. The 2001 fire aimed at improving productivity, but the government says the ranchers didn’t bother informing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) they planned to burn until two hours after they lit the fire. While they lit the fire on their own land, it escaped and burned 139 acres of federal land, but that burning probably did not do serious damage to the grassland and they put the fire out themselves.
The 2006 fire was more questionable. A wildfire was burning on BLM land near the Hammond’s ranch, so to defend their land they lit a backfire on their own land. That would be standard procedure except, again, they didn’t tell anyone and when their fire crossed over onto federal land it endangered firefighters who the Hammonds apparently knew were located between the wildfire and their backfire. Due to severe fire hazards, the county had a no-burn rule which the Hammonds apparently violated, but this was hardly a terrorist act.
For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate considering they endangered people’s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced. Having already served the first year, they were scheduled to be re-incarcerated for four more years after the New Year. It is always disturbing when the federal government uses laws aimed at foreign terrorists to oppress citizens who have political differences of opinion with government policy. The Hammonds, who have paid $400,000 in fine related to the fires they lit, probably should not have been re-sentenced to four more years in prison, but that’s a problem with mandatory sentencing laws and overly aggressive prosecutors, not federal land management.
Enter Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher whose use of BLM land in that state became a hot issue in 2014. The Bundys and their allies believe that federal land should belong to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Thus, they ignored limits the BLM placed on the number of cattle they could graze on federal land near their ranch and refused to pay legally mandated fees for grazing those cattle.
Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to yield land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he persuaded the Senate to approve it
The Supreme Court has heard hundreds of cases involving federal land and has never ruled that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to own land in the West. So any battle against federal ownership would have to be fought politically, not in the courts.
That may be what Bundy and his friends think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, the “militia’s” occupation of a Fish & Wildlife Service building that was closed for the holidays might be a way to raise public awareness of alleged federal mistreatment of ranchers. The problem with this tactic is that 90 percent of western residents are urbanites who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.
Decades ago, ranchers grazing their livestock on public lands paid enough fees to earn the Forest Service a profit. But in 1978, ranchers persuaded Congress to adopt a grazing fee formula on national forests and BLM lands that is designed to guarantee ranchers a profit even as grazing costs taxpayers more than $100 million per year. Thus, many people, including some agency officials, view the ranchers as freeloaders and their livestock as invasive species damaging the habitat for native fish and wildlife.
The Hammonds shouldn’t have lit the 2006 fire without coordinating with the BLM. The federal government shouldn’t have prosecuted them for prescribed burning using an anti-terrorist law. The Bundys shouldn’t have occupied the Fish & Wildlife Service office.
Property rights advocates who want to change public views need to find ranchers more appealing than the Bundys, who want to overgraze other people’s land without paying for the right to do so, or the Hammonds, whose unauthorized fire on federal lands threatened firefighters’ lives. Without better representatives–preferably ones willing to pay their own way and not rely on taxpayer subsidies–they won’t be able to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, which means the future of ranchers who depend on federal lands is dim."
"There are no good guys to cheer for in the militia takeover of an Oregon federal office building on January 2. The ostensible issue is the re-sentencing of two Oregon ranchers–Dwight Hammond and son Steven Hammond–for arson, while the underlying issue is federal land ownership of much of the West.
The arson fires lit by the Hammonds in 2001 and 2006 may have actually represented sensible land management, but the Hammonds lost the high ground by their failure to coordinate with the government agency managing the land they burned. Prescribed fire is a tool used to improve wildlife habitat, increase land productivity, and control wildfire. The 2001 fire aimed at improving productivity, but the government says the ranchers didn’t bother informing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) they planned to burn until two hours after they lit the fire. While they lit the fire on their own land, it escaped and burned 139 acres of federal land, but that burning probably did not do serious damage to the grassland and they put the fire out themselves.
The 2006 fire was more questionable. A wildfire was burning on BLM land near the Hammond’s ranch, so to defend their land they lit a backfire on their own land. That would be standard procedure except, again, they didn’t tell anyone and when their fire crossed over onto federal land it endangered firefighters who the Hammonds apparently knew were located between the wildfire and their backfire. Due to severe fire hazards, the county had a no-burn rule which the Hammonds apparently violated, but this was hardly a terrorist act.
For these actions, they were sentenced to a year in jail, which possibly was appropriate considering they endangered people’s lives. But the federal government, citing an anti-terrorism law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for arson on federal land, demanded that they be re-sentenced. Having already served the first year, they were scheduled to be re-incarcerated for four more years after the New Year. It is always disturbing when the federal government uses laws aimed at foreign terrorists to oppress citizens who have political differences of opinion with government policy. The Hammonds, who have paid $400,000 in fine related to the fires they lit, probably should not have been re-sentenced to four more years in prison, but that’s a problem with mandatory sentencing laws and overly aggressive prosecutors, not federal land management.
Enter Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher whose use of BLM land in that state became a hot issue in 2014. The Bundys and their allies believe that federal land should belong to the states or the ranchers themselves since the ranchers have grazed their cattle on it for so many generations. Thus, they ignored limits the BLM placed on the number of cattle they could graze on federal land near their ranch and refused to pay legally mandated fees for grazing those cattle.
Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control land in the nation’s capital, but nowhere else. If you believe that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states, then the Bundys are correct. However, the federal government has owned land outside the capital since 1790, when Alexander Hamilton convinced the states to yield land west of the Appalachians in exchange for federal assumptions of state debt. A few years later, Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase even as he persuaded the Senate to approve it
The Supreme Court has heard hundreds of cases involving federal land and has never ruled that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to own land in the West. So any battle against federal ownership would have to be fought politically, not in the courts.
That may be what Bundy and his friends think they are doing. Just as tree sitters raised public awareness of issues related to old-growth forests in the 1980s, the “militia’s” occupation of a Fish & Wildlife Service building that was closed for the holidays might be a way to raise public awareness of alleged federal mistreatment of ranchers. The problem with this tactic is that 90 percent of western residents are urbanites who are much more likely to sympathize with spotted owls and sandhill cranes than with cattle and sheep.
Decades ago, ranchers grazing their livestock on public lands paid enough fees to earn the Forest Service a profit. But in 1978, ranchers persuaded Congress to adopt a grazing fee formula on national forests and BLM lands that is designed to guarantee ranchers a profit even as grazing costs taxpayers more than $100 million per year. Thus, many people, including some agency officials, view the ranchers as freeloaders and their livestock as invasive species damaging the habitat for native fish and wildlife.
The Hammonds shouldn’t have lit the 2006 fire without coordinating with the BLM. The federal government shouldn’t have prosecuted them for prescribed burning using an anti-terrorist law. The Bundys shouldn’t have occupied the Fish & Wildlife Service office.
Property rights advocates who want to change public views need to find ranchers more appealing than the Bundys, who want to overgraze other people’s land without paying for the right to do so, or the Hammonds, whose unauthorized fire on federal lands threatened firefighters’ lives. Without better representatives–preferably ones willing to pay their own way and not rely on taxpayer subsidies–they won’t be able to capture the hearts and minds of the American people, which means the future of ranchers who depend on federal lands is dim."
I'd have to go back and find the original articles... they were armed, but I'm not sure who they were "challenging"...
But were they armed and challenging the feds to a gunfight??? Being armed and challenging the feds to come challenge them is a whole new ballgame, isnt it???
"The former Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, participated in the armed takeover of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters at Columbia University in 1970.
Holder admitted participating in the takeover, according to the Daily Caller.
“I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard,” Holder said during Columbia’s 2009 commencement exercises. “I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia—we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around—but we ran out of issues by that third year.
“[S]everal of us took one of our concerns — that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus—to the Dean [of Freshmen]’office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office.”
The incident is similar to the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge center by Ammon Bundy and others, but the corporate media has yet to deem Holder a terrorist or, for that matter, even mention it.
Columbia’s Black Students Organization was responsible for the takeover. It lasted five days. Black activists also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman.
According to the Daily Caller a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization at Columbia, a successor group to the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), the students were armed.
Although then-Dean Carl Hovde said the occupation was illegal and a violation of university policy, members of the group were not prosecuted.
Holder was a leader of the SAAS. The group demanded the ROTC building be renamed “Malcolm X Lounge” in “honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”
The university ultimately relented and agreed to the name change. Future president Obama often visited the lounge when he was a student at Columbia in the early 1980s, according to David Maraniss, author of “Barack Obama: The Story.”
It is doubtful Ammon Bundy and his companions will receive the same treatment as Holder and escape prosecution if they leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge center, that is if they are not killed by the federal government in a standoff."
http://www.infowars.com/eric-holder-involved-in-armed-takeover-of-rotc-building/
Holder admitted participating in the takeover, according to the Daily Caller.
“I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard,” Holder said during Columbia’s 2009 commencement exercises. “I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia—we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around—but we ran out of issues by that third year.
“[S]everal of us took one of our concerns — that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus—to the Dean [of Freshmen]’office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office.”
The incident is similar to the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge center by Ammon Bundy and others, but the corporate media has yet to deem Holder a terrorist or, for that matter, even mention it.
Columbia’s Black Students Organization was responsible for the takeover. It lasted five days. Black activists also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman.
According to the Daily Caller a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization at Columbia, a successor group to the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), the students were armed.
Although then-Dean Carl Hovde said the occupation was illegal and a violation of university policy, members of the group were not prosecuted.
Holder was a leader of the SAAS. The group demanded the ROTC building be renamed “Malcolm X Lounge” in “honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”
The university ultimately relented and agreed to the name change. Future president Obama often visited the lounge when he was a student at Columbia in the early 1980s, according to David Maraniss, author of “Barack Obama: The Story.”
It is doubtful Ammon Bundy and his companions will receive the same treatment as Holder and escape prosecution if they leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge center, that is if they are not killed by the federal government in a standoff."
http://www.infowars.com/eric-holder-involved-in-armed-takeover-of-rotc-building/
For the record, your beloved media labeled Bundy as a "patriot".
Why would the Government want to make a move when they have time on their side? Apparently they learned something from the David Koresh at Waco fiasco and how everyone blamed the government for provoking it? The people involved aren’t going anywhere.
The original post was such a crock; I'm not going to waste my time tearing it apart. It would do some of you well to research it for your selves, (not that I think it would do any good after all any news that goes against what you choose to believe will be labeled" Right Wing Media." If anyone knows where I can pick up my "White Privilege Card, I would appreciate it.
The original post was such a crock; I'm not going to waste my time tearing it apart. It would do some of you well to research it for your selves, (not that I think it would do any good after all any news that goes against what you choose to believe will be labeled" Right Wing Media." If anyone knows where I can pick up my "White Privilege Card, I would appreciate it.
"In all, there is something profoundly wrong with America’s sense of civic virtue and righteousness when some would hesitate to call Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Black Lives Matter activists freedom fighters, but those same people enthusiastically embrace using such language to describe right-wing militias and anti-government activists who want to suck off the public teat while avoiding paying any taxes or fees to do so."
Dr Martin Luther King "was" a freedom fighter... Black Lives Matter and all these other militias and activists do not fit the category... They are rebelling for self-serving purposes, not for the purposes of all Americans.
I don't see this situation as a whole lot different from when Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake allowed Balitmore to be trashed by dissatisfied black people back in April... talk about kid gloves.
It's wrong to trash a city you and your family live and work in and it's wrong to take a government building hostage... things might not be the way you want them, but those kinds of violence aren't the way to change them.
I totally agree that we will never see the faces of the ones who will profit most from this, just as we'll never see the faces of the ones who profit most from Black Lives Matter - you can bet it's not the black person on the street...
Dr Martin Luther King "was" a freedom fighter... Black Lives Matter and all these other militias and activists do not fit the category... They are rebelling for self-serving purposes, not for the purposes of all Americans.
I don't see this situation as a whole lot different from when Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake allowed Balitmore to be trashed by dissatisfied black people back in April... talk about kid gloves.
It's wrong to trash a city you and your family live and work in and it's wrong to take a government building hostage... things might not be the way you want them, but those kinds of violence aren't the way to change them.
I totally agree that we will never see the faces of the ones who will profit most from this, just as we'll never see the faces of the ones who profit most from Black Lives Matter - you can bet it's not the black person on the street...
the ones who will profit most whichever way this goes.
http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/
I'd like to hear Bundy's rationale for how he's being ripped off by the Bureau of Land Management when he'd be paying ten times as much to run his cattle on someone else's land.
Don't be distracted by the fact the upfront players are white 'fire arm enthusiasts' with backdoor ties to Supremacist groups. This isn't about race or guns. This is about trillions of $$$ in land rights, mineral rights, and eminent domain. The YeeHaadists are distraction. You'll never see the faces of
I'd like to hear Bundy's rationale for how he's being ripped off by the Bureau of Land Management when he'd be paying ten times as much to run his cattle on someone else's land.
Don't be distracted by the fact the upfront players are white 'fire arm enthusiasts' with backdoor ties to Supremacist groups. This isn't about race or guns. This is about trillions of $$$ in land rights, mineral rights, and eminent domain. The YeeHaadists are distraction. You'll never see the faces of
Black boy playing with a toy gun gets killed......
A militia group takes a federal building, says they aint leaving and basically challenges the gov to a old fashioned gun fight and we gotta handle them with kid gloves.
Well now if that dont make sense.../s
If on the otherhand it was a band of muslims, or blacks or even mexicans,,,would we still be handling them with kid gloves? You tell me....
A militia group takes a federal building, says they aint leaving and basically challenges the gov to a old fashioned gun fight and we gotta handle them with kid gloves.
Well now if that dont make sense.../s
If on the otherhand it was a band of muslims, or blacks or even mexicans,,,would we still be handling them with kid gloves? You tell me....
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
