The notion of an FBI Special Agent harassing locals, and trying to stir up violence is laughable. This is not Mississippi Burning, and it's not 1962. This is what the problem is: anyone can say or write anything, no matter how absurd, and there are people who will buy into it if it feeds their ideological agenda. The biggest fear most FBI Agents have is making a mistake (real or perceived) and being held in violation of the myriad of complex rules they must follow.
Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms
- Thread starter ndcent
- Start date
20DYNAMITE07
New member
No doubt!
No doubt because that private land has been effectively managed.
Absolutely not... my whole point in all of this has just been to point out that land management is needed and is in fact vital when it comes to maintaining large herds, which you no doubt know from your own experience on the ranch you referenced. On that private property, that management comes down to the owner, and on public lands, it comes down to the BLM FWS. That's all. I think you may suspect that because I am in favor of regulating public lands, that I am in fact against ranchers/ranching... but that's not the case. You also seem to think that anyone who would support an effective land management program that maintains the viability of public lands for long term use for multiple activities, including (now get this), ranching, somehow wants to see that tool abused or used to oppress someone. You seem to really want to keep putting words in my mouth.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to polish my jackboots and practice my goosestepping. :rofl:
Boyswithtoys
New member
I gots some stuff for you fellers. If you wear these tinfoil hats and link some paper clips together, then hook one end on your belt loop, run it down the inside of your pants leg, then let it drag on the ground, it will ground you. Those black helicopters won't be able to read your thoughts. If you do that, those SWAT teams will be no match for you. You did see real soldiers on TV and figure out how to sling that M4 so you can rest you pencil arms on it.
BrianSD_42
New member
There is precident for undercover agents acting as agent provocateur for things like property damage BUT I don't believe a Fed would want to incite actual violence.
Based on the history of Ruby Ridge and Waco, the gov would prefer this to be resolved peacefully and quietly. They've learned the lesson after those disasters.
Last edited:
Jimmy_D
Member
I wholeheartedly agree. Overgrazing can result in the introduction of any number of invasive plants that have no real value and can dramatically reduce the productive potential of the acreage. That topic is ancillary to what this thread is all about though. A conversation regarding how the BLM and the FWS could better interact with local populations in order to improve relations and find some common ground with respect to how the land is to be used by the general public and the policies implemented by those agencies in dealing with the public is certainly worth having, but the retaliatory conduct of the agencies involved in the Hammond case would make something like that exceedingly difficult.
ndcent
New member
This is trolling for anyone confused about the definition.
nevada
Senior Member
because the government has never done anything deceitful against its citizens.
willbgood
New member
Are we blind followers of "we" contracts I, or you, never signed or agreed to.
Just stirring the pot, but hoping folks will think before they bandi about terms such as traitor and comparisons to ISIS. Most of our founders, who were a diverse bunch, with very little consensus among each other, were called names and branded as evil men by most of their neighbors.
The right to assemble, to disagree, and yes to even take and hold the open federal, (public) property was something they believed in. These men have not taken a port, an armory, attacked a US installation, or caused any actual harm to any citizen of the united states or Oregon. They have occupied federal buildings, which are normally, open to the public, and should be since they are owned by the enigmatic, "we the people". They have not denied anyone entrance as far as I know.
This location has no strategic importance, unless your a nanny stat'er and believe adult Americans should be sheparded like junior high students to protect them from themselves, and you from them and their wild notions of liberty.
I can say that I can neither confirm or deny my personal position aligns with this or not, but it is an interesting and worth the read, no matter what side you on.
Lysander Spooner was a Yankee, abolitionist( who actually believe they were Human, unlike Lincoln," supported John Brown, and stood solidly against the civil in support of the South's right to succession. Read his Wiki for more info.
Here is an article he wrote on treason, with the link to full article below
"Lysander Spooner
mega.nu
No Treason
Introductory
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle---but only in degree---between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that---in theory, at least, if not in practice---our government was a free one; that it rested upon consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown".
read the rest here: No Treason by Lysander Spooner
Just stirring the pot, but hoping folks will think before they bandi about terms such as traitor and comparisons to ISIS. Most of our founders, who were a diverse bunch, with very little consensus among each other, were called names and branded as evil men by most of their neighbors.
The right to assemble, to disagree, and yes to even take and hold the open federal, (public) property was something they believed in. These men have not taken a port, an armory, attacked a US installation, or caused any actual harm to any citizen of the united states or Oregon. They have occupied federal buildings, which are normally, open to the public, and should be since they are owned by the enigmatic, "we the people". They have not denied anyone entrance as far as I know.
This location has no strategic importance, unless your a nanny stat'er and believe adult Americans should be sheparded like junior high students to protect them from themselves, and you from them and their wild notions of liberty.
I can say that I can neither confirm or deny my personal position aligns with this or not, but it is an interesting and worth the read, no matter what side you on.
Lysander Spooner was a Yankee, abolitionist( who actually believe they were Human, unlike Lincoln," supported John Brown, and stood solidly against the civil in support of the South's right to succession. Read his Wiki for more info.
Here is an article he wrote on treason, with the link to full article below
"Lysander Spooner
mega.nu
No Treason
Introductory
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle---but only in degree---between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that---in theory, at least, if not in practice---our government was a free one; that it rested upon consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown".
read the rest here: No Treason by Lysander Spooner
Last edited:
willbgood
New member
I wish I could believe the Government learned their lessons, but truth be told, no government ever learns its lessons.
Not since Abraham left Egypt can I find one instance of government becoming kinder and gentler and resolving conflict peaceably. In fact, even before that, and to this day, I am pretty sure no centralized government ever had the peoples best interests in mind.
Government, and government employees, have only one thing in mind, like everyone else, protecting their own self interests (in the name of the children of course). The difference between "we the people", and I, and the government, is that government has nearly unfettered power, and supposed endorsement of 50% plus 1, the mythical majority. (not actually true, if one considers what 9 gorillas in women's dresses can do).
Consider, if 50% plus 1 ever decide to make cock sucking, by males, a mandatory annual event, the 49.99% will have to comply or face the force of the united states government.
The government will do anything to maintain the myth that they have the support of 50% plus 1, but even if they do not, they will stop at nothing to maintain control, and ensure their fattened pay checks, benefit packages, pension plans, and the system that supports it. (All in the name of the children, or as is now the case, the environment).
willbgood
New member
Liberty or slavery...just another tinfoil have post...
Lysander Spooner
mega.nu
No Treason
II.
What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?
If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz.: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow.
If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered:
First. that two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a government.
Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most numerous; for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely because the latter were the most numerous. And as matter of fact, it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party. They are usually, if not always, established by the most numerous party; their superior strength consisting in their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert . (my note: the power of best armaments help to).
Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the majority; but by "the people;" the minority, as much as the majority.
Fourth. If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a ma jority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.
Fifth. Majorities, as such, afford to guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and more likely to be equally---perhaps more than equally, because more boldly---rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of a majority, than of a minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.
Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments---although established by force, and by a few, in the first place---come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps in nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain the governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards providing that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.
Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that---however bloody---can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.
read:No Treason by Lysander Spooner
As true today as the day it was written. The only difference is that the minority, government and her employees control most education, most religion, and most information. Dissenters are not permitted to exist other than to the degree that myth of the right to dissent needs to be believed by those who cherish it and believe that with one more election, (50% plus1,) they will be in the majority and free bubble up will flow from the mountain springs.
Lysander Spooner
mega.nu
No Treason
II.
What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent?
If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz.: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny; a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow.
If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered:
First. that two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a government.
Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most numerous; for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely because the latter were the most numerous. And as matter of fact, it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party. They are usually, if not always, established by the most numerous party; their superior strength consisting in their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert . (my note: the power of best armaments help to).
Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the majority; but by "the people;" the minority, as much as the majority.
Fourth. If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the principle that a ma jority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.
Fifth. Majorities, as such, afford to guarantees for justice. They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and more likely to be equally---perhaps more than equally, because more boldly---rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of a majority, than of a minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.
Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments---although established by force, and by a few, in the first place---come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps in nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain the governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards providing that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.
Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that---however bloody---can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.
read:No Treason by Lysander Spooner
As true today as the day it was written. The only difference is that the minority, government and her employees control most education, most religion, and most information. Dissenters are not permitted to exist other than to the degree that myth of the right to dissent needs to be believed by those who cherish it and believe that with one more election, (50% plus1,) they will be in the majority and free bubble up will flow from the mountain springs.
willbgood
New member
You forgot this part: (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
I wonder what our founders would have thought about this if it was authored in 1776?
willbgood
New member
Sedition Act of 1918
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
willbgood
New member
Totalitarian Government Is Doomed
"The Totalitarian Impulse vs. Two Words: "Oh, Yeah?"
...The free market involves widely dispersed markets. A particular good may be sold in 1,000+ outlets. It is sold online: one sale, one market. It is available everywhere. The more volume of sales there is, the greater the income to the company.
This is not true of government agencies. A bureaucrat has to take a specific person to court in a specific jurisdiction. Everything has to go through one court. Then the case goes up the chain of appeals courts. One bureaucrat's decision ties up agency resources and court resources. The bureaucracy has to make its entire case in one court. All of its resources must be concentrated on this single court.
This is completely different from the free market, in which the court of public opinion is broad and decentralized. In the case of a business, the decision of one customer not to buy the product is not a life-and-death decision. In the case of a bureaucrat who brings a case against an individual, it can be a life-and-death decision with respect to his career. He can lose his career if he makes a fool of himself in a specific court in a specific case. So, the goal of the bureaucrat is to prosecute only those cases which the bureaucrat believes he is likely to win. All of the other cases, he ignores. All of the other prosecutions, he ignores. All of the other risks that he might take, he ignores. He bets it all on one case in one court...
...Totalitarianism comes when a special-interest ideological group gets in control of the machinery of government. This attempt never lasts very long. Totalitarianism must be implemented by bureaucrats, and third-generation bureaucrats are not driven by a desire to change society. They are driven the desire to protect their jobs. That desire, above all other desires, will shape any government that attempts to impose the vision of the anointed on the masses of Americans.
Americans have a two-word response to all such attempts: "Oh, yeah?" They have a follow-up: "You and who else?"
If the Communists could not pull it off in the USSR, the anointed will not pull it off in America"...
The Totalitarian Impulse vs. Two Words: "Oh, Yeah?"
The whole article is worth reading, but most will not take the time.
I personally do not believe that our current macro economic system can survive. Systems like the fed have never survived for long. Centralized governments, try as they will, can not control the macro economy by controlling the individual market decisions of individuals, either the free market takes over, or the free black market does. This was Great Britons mistake in 1776, and in fact, right through 1946...they had good run, but as always, empires who attempt to control the micro economy fail.
When it comes to the centralized government trying to control and manage local resources, and thereby the local markets, they might as well be trying to control the sun rise and set. Eventually, their centralized planning and control of the micro economies of distant places becomes financially impossible because they spend themselves and theirs slaves into bankruptcy.
A period of near chaos, uncertainty, insecurity follows.
Next follows a season of prosperity. The local, micro economic decisions of individuals operating in the free market take over. For a season, the lack of centralized government, and its army of bureaucrats, allow for local rule. Liberty, freedom, the utilization of local resources, and subsequent growth of wealth are enjoyed by the people previously enslaved and deceived into believing they were free, safe, and secure, and that they needed a centralized government to provide for this security.
There is nothing new under the sun. Unfortunately, most individuals fail to recognize this and get impatient. They can not think long term and prepare, (in some cases for their heirs,) they want a quick fix, that inevitably is no better then the last election.
The change in seasons is coming, but not in Oregon, and not because of this little occupation by men with good intentions.
"The Totalitarian Impulse vs. Two Words: "Oh, Yeah?"
...The free market involves widely dispersed markets. A particular good may be sold in 1,000+ outlets. It is sold online: one sale, one market. It is available everywhere. The more volume of sales there is, the greater the income to the company.
This is not true of government agencies. A bureaucrat has to take a specific person to court in a specific jurisdiction. Everything has to go through one court. Then the case goes up the chain of appeals courts. One bureaucrat's decision ties up agency resources and court resources. The bureaucracy has to make its entire case in one court. All of its resources must be concentrated on this single court.
This is completely different from the free market, in which the court of public opinion is broad and decentralized. In the case of a business, the decision of one customer not to buy the product is not a life-and-death decision. In the case of a bureaucrat who brings a case against an individual, it can be a life-and-death decision with respect to his career. He can lose his career if he makes a fool of himself in a specific court in a specific case. So, the goal of the bureaucrat is to prosecute only those cases which the bureaucrat believes he is likely to win. All of the other cases, he ignores. All of the other prosecutions, he ignores. All of the other risks that he might take, he ignores. He bets it all on one case in one court...
...Totalitarianism comes when a special-interest ideological group gets in control of the machinery of government. This attempt never lasts very long. Totalitarianism must be implemented by bureaucrats, and third-generation bureaucrats are not driven by a desire to change society. They are driven the desire to protect their jobs. That desire, above all other desires, will shape any government that attempts to impose the vision of the anointed on the masses of Americans.
Americans have a two-word response to all such attempts: "Oh, yeah?" They have a follow-up: "You and who else?"
If the Communists could not pull it off in the USSR, the anointed will not pull it off in America"...
The Totalitarian Impulse vs. Two Words: "Oh, Yeah?"
The whole article is worth reading, but most will not take the time.
I personally do not believe that our current macro economic system can survive. Systems like the fed have never survived for long. Centralized governments, try as they will, can not control the macro economy by controlling the individual market decisions of individuals, either the free market takes over, or the free black market does. This was Great Britons mistake in 1776, and in fact, right through 1946...they had good run, but as always, empires who attempt to control the micro economy fail.
When it comes to the centralized government trying to control and manage local resources, and thereby the local markets, they might as well be trying to control the sun rise and set. Eventually, their centralized planning and control of the micro economies of distant places becomes financially impossible because they spend themselves and theirs slaves into bankruptcy.
A period of near chaos, uncertainty, insecurity follows.
Next follows a season of prosperity. The local, micro economic decisions of individuals operating in the free market take over. For a season, the lack of centralized government, and its army of bureaucrats, allow for local rule. Liberty, freedom, the utilization of local resources, and subsequent growth of wealth are enjoyed by the people previously enslaved and deceived into believing they were free, safe, and secure, and that they needed a centralized government to provide for this security.
There is nothing new under the sun. Unfortunately, most individuals fail to recognize this and get impatient. They can not think long term and prepare, (in some cases for their heirs,) they want a quick fix, that inevitably is no better then the last election.
The change in seasons is coming, but not in Oregon, and not because of this little occupation by men with good intentions.
Last edited:
ndcent
New member
So anyways.
Looks like one of these geniuses finally got arrested on a snack run in a stolen government vehicle, lol. What's more, dudes on probation.
Oregon Militiaman Arrested for Stealing Government Vehicles
Looks like one of these geniuses finally got arrested on a snack run in a stolen government vehicle, lol. What's more, dudes on probation.
Oregon Militiaman Arrested for Stealing Government Vehicles
nevada
Senior Member
for those of you on the other side of the country that don't think this is a problem, take a look at this.
Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West
you aren't bothered by this, because you aren't affected. that doesn't make it OK, nor does it make it, "not an actual problem" because it is, a big one.
Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West
you aren't bothered by this, because you aren't affected. that doesn't make it OK, nor does it make it, "not an actual problem" because it is, a big one.
Ammon Bundy, the leader of the self-proclaimed “militia” that seized a wildlife refuge to protest federal management of land in the Western U.S., has been captured, according to reports from KATU in Portland. One person is dead, and as many as eight of his followers were also arrested.
One dead, Bundys arrested after confrontation with FBI on highway | News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KATU
One dead, Bundys arrested after confrontation with FBI on highway | News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KATU
willbgood
New member
I believe the state of AZ recently took the children away because of belief and interpretation of the constitution.
Believe it or not, he was a kind and gentle man.
ndcent
New member
I don't know many people who have vowed not to be taken alive by government authorites to be "kind and gentle" but I'll take your word for it.
