Militants occupying Oregon wildlife refuge say they won’t leave until US ‘restores’ the Constitution
Source: Reuters
Militants occupying Oregon wildlife refuge say they wont leave until US restores the Constitution
Reuters
05 Jan 2016 at 10:02 ET
A standoff at a remote U.S. wildlife center in Oregon rolled into a fourth day on Tuesday with self-styled militiamen vowing to press on with the protest against the U.S. government even as local officials told the group to go home.
Saturdays takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside the town of Burns, Oregon, was spurred by the imprisonment of two ranchers for setting fires that spread to federal land.
The occupation marked the latest protest over federal management of public land in the West, long seen by political conservatives in the region as an intrusion on individual freedom and property rights.
Protest leader Ammon Bundy, whose fathers ranch in Nevada was the scene of an armed standoff against federal land managers in 2014, said his group had named itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and was defending the Constitution and personal liberty against the federal government.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/militants-occupying-oregon-wildlife-refuge-say-they-wont-leave-until-us-restores-the-constitution/
Human101948
(3,457 posts)They never seem too clear on that.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)You know giving women the right to vote and getting rid of slavery must get to them.
MurrayDelph
(5,294 posts)the 10th Amendment, which they interpret as States can do whatever they want.
And what they want is for all public land to become theirs.
Joe Bacon
(5,165 posts)They want that 3/5 clause reinstated!
wordpix
(18,652 posts)since the Constitution mandates that federal laws are passed by Congress, and those laws include wildlife protection and the wildlife refuge system.
If you asked these anti-American, anti-federal residents about the Constitution, I'm sure they'd have no clue what it contains.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)nut jobs? If the media left, these wimpy warriors would melt away quickly.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)The Constitution is just rationalization; this is really all about greed. They think they should have the right to convert publicly owned resources into their own private wealth by simply taking it. That's OUR wildlife refuge they want to give to cattle ranchers and loggers.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)sarge43
(28,941 posts)Then, give the land back to the original owners. They would take better of it.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... which was expanded by buying out ranchers.
Whatever the land WAS, it is now an apparently important wildlife refuge, and it belongs to US. If the BLM or Fish & Wildlife or whoever aren't managing the public lands properly, then let's fix the damn problem rather than privatize it.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)2naSalit
(86,610 posts)"unclaimed government land" it was claimed and inhabited by American Indians.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)I agree, the altruistic, high purpose rationalization is propaganda and smokescreen. These guys are an armed gang trying to weasel out of paying their debts to the rest of us.
Sorry, you don't get to steal part of Oregon because you want the rest of us to provide your own little country. Sorry, no Morania, OR, in your future, but we have great prisons. How do people become so delusional? Oh yeah, religion helps give the voices in their heads authority.[center]
tenderfoot
(8,432 posts)muntrv
(14,505 posts)hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)If the media wouldn't give them a stage to vent, there would BE no issue! There's nothing happening there because the authorities aren't "cooperating" like the idiots want them to.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)Can Obama go on TV, wave his hand over the constitution, and say "restored"?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Thanks for the explanation.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)One slip-up and we will all be pledging oaths to uphold a turkey, and eating parchment for Thanksgiving.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Looks Like they can make do w/o wimin and just pertend some slow dance music coming out of their boombox.
japple
(9,825 posts)if it has been seasoned? If not, everything will stick to it.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)The image came from an earlier guardian post made here. I hope they don't get any ideas about deep frying just anything around them.
Botany
(70,504 posts)Idiots!
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)they think they have special rights given to them by gawd... ei, the part they have conjured up in one of the two brain cells that functions just enough to keep them breathing.
Botany
(70,504 posts).... have been feeding these mouth breathers lies about Obama and the Fed. Goverment's
unconstitutional actions and these idiots are too stupid to know that they are being used
and lied to for political reasons.
Good God in Butter! President Obama went to Columbia, Harvard Law, and then taught
Constitutional Law @ the U. of Chicago.
2naSalit
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)I don't like tuna salad, got ptomaine from it once and that was the end of my tuna salad days, but it was the name of my last feline overlord whom I miss dearly.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)is the Scary Black Man out of "their" White House.
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)They want to take over federal lands that belong to all. That is it. Period. These are the people who steal the stocks, bonds and jewelry when mama dies so the rest of the family gets nothing.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)It should only take a week or so before they're starving, then they'll either die of cold or eat each other while they sit and wait. Gene pool improved dramatically.
mercuryblues
(14,531 posts)brand of religion believes the constitution to be inspired by God. Ammon Bundy has said that God is not pleased with what was happening in Oregon, so they are answering his call.
The Bundamentalist also believe that the federal government needs to be abolished, IRS, BLM, sell off all state and federal public lands (parks, reserves, sanctuaries, Eliminate the laws separating church and state. No unions, discrimination laws and definitely no minimum wage.
Their stand offs have nothing to do with anything else other than to force their religious beliefs onto the rest of us. I'm guessing Quenn Ann approves. Why are the Rmoney's not denouncing them? Where is Beck? Why isn't he labeling them as religious terrorists? Where are the rest of the Mormons claiming that Bundy and friends do not represent their entire religion? By their silence they are condoning and agreeing with the Bundamentalists
niyad
(113,303 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Putting on a costume and dressing like a cowboy does not make you a militant. Using a gun to steal property makes you a criminal. Can we call them criminals yet? Maybe wait for the conviction, so I'm quite happy with just calling them Morans for now.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Calling yourself a rose when you're really a POS is the same
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)Once the government does this the constitution will be restored.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)William Seger
(10,778 posts)... except for what it actually says and the whole theory of democratic government behind it.
DFW
(54,378 posts)The constitution is intact!
Of course, it was that beforehand, too, so they could have saved themselves some trouble............
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)Maybe we can have the constitution restored by the "artist" who did this one:
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)Excellent!!
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And bill them for this crap...I want my money back for the trouble they are causing and costing!
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)sorry asses too!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)may be. OTOH, I do seem to remember having read somewhere recently that some of the more odious for-profit prison schemes here involve charges to the detainees or inmates for the costs of their incarceration.
It's an interesting question and conjures up visions of Dickensian 'debtors' prisons'.
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)suspect you are correct about the debtor's prison aspect. Perhaps they should lose their citizenship... something akin to what France has proposed for dual citizens who promote or engage in acts of terror against the state.
Whatever it is, they need to suffer the consequences of their actions and inciting aggression against the government within other gangs of miscreants.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)peers for seditious conspiracy and other related charges. I only pause at the notion of charging them for the costs of their incarceration (while still acknowledging the emotional gratification for doing so).
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)I was going for the emotive value in making life more like that of the real oppressed in our society... but I digress at that point.
I have been observing the Bundy issue for decades, was a case in my polisci classes back in 90s. I live in the general region so I'm familiar with some of the militants in the area, some I would be really concerned about, the rest are home preppers with big mouths.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)to meet the bill, because at least Shay was acting at the behest of some local civilians, IIRC. Likewise, Fort Sumter doesn't seem appropriate either since, much as I despise P.G.T. Beauregard, the frères Buindy make Beauregard look like von Clausewitz. Maybe John Brown's raid on the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, since Brown hoped his raid would inspire a general slave uprising in the Shenandoah Valley. But, as harebrained as Brown's scheme now seems, next to Bundy Brown comes off looking like Marshall Zhukov.
Maybe the Feds could repurpose the compound as a new facility to house the criminally insane?
-none
(1,884 posts)Maybe install a 10 foot high, double fence, around the place, topped with razor wire. Forget putting any gates in the fences.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)They will not have to pay for their incarceration---no one does---but they certainly should pay for any damage the arsonists and supporters cause to federal lands. That includes this standoff---no doubt the wildlife refuge is losing thousand$ per day in lost entrance fees.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)due process of law. No ex post facto law nor bills of attainder.
I had read that the facility is closed to the public in the winter months, so not sure it is losing money from lost entrance fees. But I readily take your larger point.
niyad
(113,303 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)2naSalit
(86,610 posts)comments in response to the plea for socks and "gear" and I laughed so hard!
Cheezy poofs don't fill you up until you eat a few bags of them...
arcane1
(38,613 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)So i'm sure they would like to roll back to the constitution that allowed slavery at least!
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Nothing is more effective than holding something for ransom based on abstract ideas.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
turbinetree
(24,701 posts)have one roll of toilet paper sent to them, with the words written on each section you are a traitor with Article III Section 3 stamped on each section of the roll, just to remind them of what they really are "TRAITORS", and what the Constitution says for starters
Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
0rganism
(23,953 posts)perhaps -- and this is just a wild hare -- the gov't could offer them jobs doing off-season trail & facilities maintenance?
"Well, gee, we're really bummed about the whole restoring your constitution thingy, but since you're going to be up there for a while and you're threatening the regular employees, could we ask you to do some cleanup around the visitor center? Also, there's a shipment of new calendars due to hit the gift shoppe tomorrow, can you get those onto the shelves? Thanks guys."
starroute
(12,977 posts)(It may take a couple of tries to get the link to work -- I suspect their server is overloaded.)
http://www.breakingburgh.com/enraged-birders-to-retake-oregon-wildlife-refuge-in-dawn-offensive/
Enraged Birders To Retake Oregon Wildlife Refuge In Dawn Offensive
The armed militants who have occupied the Oregon wildlife refuge may be encouraged the apparent lack of response by government authorities. But their stand is reportedly doomed anyway, since they picked the worst possible location to make their point, according to a source at the American Birding Association.
The Malheur sanctuary is home to approximately 320 avian species beloved by birders. BIG mistake.
The nearby town of Burns has seen a rapid influx of birders who are determined to eject the illegal occupiers. The birders possess a number of advantages when it comes to combat in open terrain, according to those familiar with the hobby.
They are masters of disguise who know how to blend into the outdoor environment, whereas the enemy, with their pickups, massive guns, and loud obnoxious personalities, tend to stick out like a sore thumb.
dobleremolque
(491 posts)They are masters of disguise who know how to blend into the outdoor environment, whereas the enemy, with their pickups, massive guns, and loud obnoxious personalities, <<and beer bellies>>, tend to stick out like a sore thumb.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)My husband's great grandfather who was a noted bird watcher (he co-wrote The Birds of Minnesota published in 1932) carried a Marble Arms Game Getter: "The upper barrel was chambered for .22 short, long and long rifle. The under barrel, a smooth bored .44, could handle shot or ball."
He used the 22 for taking birds for anatomical samples and could take a bear (though no family stories indicated he ever did) with the 44.
Quoted on the website: "From Customers: Twenty four flying ducks out a 25 shots, deer at 50 to 100 yards (one 220 pound bucks neck broken at 130 yards), Bear and moose killed at 50 yards, all from a 12 inch barrel. (The unlucky moose quickly became the companys famous symbol)." http://www.marblearms.com/game-getter-gun.html
Too bad the gun is now illegal except as a disabled collector's item. The barrel is too long for a hand gun and too short for a rifle. from what I have been told.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)It seems to come from this 2003 book, which argues on the basis of a combination of originalism and "natural rights" that the courts have unconstitutionally chipped away at individual freedoms. But clearly in the minds of these yahoos, "restoring the Constitution" is something that could be done with the stroke of a pen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_the_Lost_Constitution
http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Lost-Constitution-Presumption-Liberty/dp/0691159734
The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost.
Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people.
2naSalit
(86,610 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)There are deep ties between the gun nuts, the "wise use" folks, and the white supremacists. I hadn't thought of ALEC as one of the links, but perhaps it is.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/20/468146/fringe-gun-rights-advocate-with-ties-to-white-supremacists-helped-build-up-alec/
As the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) works to distance itself from the NRA-bill it backed as a model adopted in dozens of states, it may be hoping that people will not continue to dig into the damage done by its long love affair with gun groups, like the gun-industry funded NRA and fringe groups with ties to white supremacists like Gun Owners of America (GOA).
GOAs Executive Director is Larry Pratt. In the early 1980s, Pratt and the GOA were outspoken supporters of the white rulers in South Africa during apartheid, calling a press conference in 1984 to present evidence that allegedly tied Bishop Desmond Tutu to an effort to violently overthrow the white minority regime in the country. In 1990, Pratt wrote a book titled Armed People Victorious based on his study of death squads in Guatemala and the Philippines, and advocated for similar citizen defense patrols in the United States. The idea reportedly caught on in 1992, when Pratt addressed a three-day meeting of neo-Nazis and Christian Adherents organized by white supremacist Pete Peters. He shared the stage with a former Ku Klux Klan leader and an Aryan Nation official.
Pratt also held leadership roles in ALEC for many years. His relationship with ALEC began in 1978, when ALEC began an effort to oppose a constitutional amendment giving the District of Columbia full voting rights in Congress. When Pratt was elected to the Virginia State Legislature in 1981, he took a leadership position in ALEC. He sat on ALECs board even after he left the legislature, serving as its treasurer into the 1990s.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)So the decisions are part of the processes which fall under the auspices of it even when we (or they) don't agree with them. They can't pick and chose what parts of the Constitution to consider legitimate or ignore the amendments they find objectionable. They have to accept the entire thing or work through the mechanisms set out in it to make the changes they wish.
I've disagreed with quite a few of the SCOTUS decisions, particularly when they appointed a president without waiting to see what the choice of the people was or when they overrode the Congress on election funding. But I did not take up arms to "restore" the governing of this country to some arbitrary point that satisfies my views.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Reading a lot of history of the Apache tribes lately. The Apaches were not necessarily a warlike people but life was hard in the arid Southwest without the pumped water, gas heat and motorized vehicles of today. When the Mexicans and later the whites would establish themselves in the most well watered, well timbered valleys with their cattle, displacing wildlife on which the Apaches depended and the native people themselves, they raided. And vice versa. There were as many Mexican and white depredations on the Apaches as the latter caused, if not more.
Beowulf42
(204 posts)What is there about the way the Constitution is being interpreted that these idiots want to change? The Constitution is a document that was designed to adapt to changes in life's circumstances. Every poll take of public opinion demonstrates that our political leaders lag behind the feelings and hopes of the public. They are just poor losers who have fallen behind the national movement to a more progressive future, and they are throwing a temper tantrum worthy of a hundred spoiled babies. The majority doesn't want the nation these people hope for.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)underpants
(182,803 posts)sakabatou
(42,152 posts)red dog 1
(27,802 posts)jmowreader
(50,557 posts)There are two ways to approach the Constitution, in regards to what the document allows the government to do.
Sane people believe the Constitution allows the government to do anything the Constitution doesn't forbid. The Framers were smart enough to realize they couldn't think of everything and the world would change over time, so they made a list of a very few things they DIDN'T want the government to do, most of which were designed to prevent the abuses of the English court system, and left it to future generations to create a peaceful and just world.
INsane people believe the Constitution only allows the government to do exactly what the Constitution explicitly says it can. In this case, the government is not explicitly authorized to own land (Article IV, Section 3 alludes to it, but that's not good enough for sovereign citizens - if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY say the government can own land, the government cannot own land.) They also believe most, if not all, of the amendments are illegal.
In essence, "restore the Constitution" means eradicating the entire federal and all the state governments.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Rafale
(291 posts)Turbineguy
(37,329 posts)it would have to include the 2nd Amendment, that's for sure.