Oregon Wildlife Sanctuary Occupiers Acquitted

[The_Patriot21]

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

Pat, I may be uninformed on this subject, but the little I've read is they were not peaceful, they did not have the right to trespass, these guys agreed to pay, at a substantial discount, grazing fees, then refused to pay.  Some have collected large sums in tax dollars in the form of subsidies, they have illegally grazed which greatly damages the land when overgrazed.  I am greatly surprised you support breaking the law?  Whether the land should legally be the governments or not, these individuals did not own said land.  Would you say I could haul my cattle out there and graze, trespass, and collect tax dollars for doing so?  I don't know much about law, but I can't believe any protester should be allowed to trespass.

i think your thinking of the incident on bundys ranch, this incident, involved a rancher whom the government was coming down upon for grass fires beyond the ranchers control if I recall. Bundy was involved either time. And the government does make it sound like it was "trespassing" and "grazing fees" but heres the issue, if the land is truly public land like the government says it is, how can they be trespassing? the issue, is whether the government owns the land-which is unconstitutional-or whether or not it is truly public.

And neither case, were the protests violent. The bundys never shot anything up. They never burned down any buildings or smashed in cop cars. In fact, I dont believe the Bundys ever, fired a shot at anyone. The presence of firearms, does not make a protest violent, anymore then me carrying a firearm (which I do regularly) make me violent. it is an irrational argument to suggest that. Now, if someone were to actually present an incident where the bundys starting shooting at people, well I will rescind my statement, but to my knowledge, they never fired a shot.

[FresnoJoe]

War

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

It Most Certainly Is

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

And The Love Of The LORD Is The Prize

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

~

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 (King James Bible)

Love, Your Brother Joe

~

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 (King James Bible)

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament

[Churchmouse]

I'm outta here. You guys have fun!.

[hmbld]

9 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

i think your thinking of the incident on bundys ranch, this incident, involved a rancher whom the government was coming down upon for grass fires beyond the ranchers control if I recall. Bundy was involved either time. And the government does make it sound like it was "trespassing" and "grazing fees" but heres the issue, if the land is truly public land like the government says it is, how can they be trespassing? the issue, is whether the government owns the land-which is unconstitutional-or whether or not it is truly public.

And neither case, were the protests violent. The bundys never shot anything up. They never burned down any buildings or smashed in cop cars. In fact, I dont believe the Bundys ever, fired a shot at anyone. The presence of firearms, does not make a protest violent, anymore then me carrying a firearm (which I do regularly) make me violent. it is an irrational argument to suggest that. Now, if someone were to actually present an incident where the bundys starting shooting at people, well I will rescind my statement, but to my knowledge, they never fired a shot.

It could be a separate case, however, one must leave land, even if it public land, if officials ask you too, which did happen here.  I've read a much different account of the fire, and who lights a fire they can't control?  Presence of firearms is legal, willingness to use them against people, "the law", is not a peaceful protest.  Point is, these protesters were protesting after taking tax dollars.  If they really want to protest the arrangement, maybe they should stop trying to benefit from both ends at the same time.  Protesters don't need firearms or have the right to take over buildings they don't own.  

[The_Patriot21]

6 minutes ago, hmbld said:

It could be a separate case, however, one must leave land, even if it public land, if officials ask you too, which did happen here.  I've read a much different account of the fire, and who lights a fire they can't control?  Presence of firearms is legal, willingness to use them against people, "the law", is not a peaceful protest.  Point is, these protesters were protesting after taking tax dollars.  If they really want to protest the arrangement, maybe they should stop trying to benefit from both ends at the same time.  Protesters don't need firearms or have the right to take over buildings they don't own.  

they did neither. In the case of the bundy incident, it was over BLM land, no buildings present. Carrying a firearm is legal, even in a protest, using one to hurt another, is not. And in the case of the wildlife sancturary, again, it wasnt inside buildings, they didnt prevent anyone from going to work, they just refused to leave so called public land. which, if its honestly government land, then the government, has no right to ask them to leave, unless they are actively hurting someone else or actually breaking a law-which, according to the jury, these people never did. If you are breaking the law, and the officials ask you to leave, then I would be on your side-but the fact is the officials, were unlawfully trying to get them to leave as they were breaking no laws.

[RustyAngeL]

On 10/28/2016 at 4:10 PM, The_Patriot2016 said:

There's plenty of honor. They are right, the government has no right to own land like that, and the government has been slowly encroaching on peoples rights moreso every year. You may not like how they did it, you may not like them, but they were willing to take a stand for what they believe in-even if it meant going to jail, or worse, while most "Christians" are scared to even admit they are Christians outside of the church doors. You can quote "those that live by the sword" to me all day long, its not what these men are doing. There is a difference between being willing to use violence, and living violently. By your definition, Jesus Himself should be put to jail for running people out of the temple with a whip.

I agree with you on this Pat.  We are in the mess we are in now because Believers are not speaking up and standing for what is right and Holy.

Three cheers for you brother!

[nebula]

9 hours ago, hmbld said:

Pat, I may be uninformed on this subject, but the little I've read is they were not peaceful, they did not have the right to trespass, these guys agreed to pay, at a substantial discount, grazing fees, then refused to pay.  Some have collected large sums in tax dollars in the form of subsidies, they have illegally grazed which greatly damages the land when overgrazed.  I am greatly surprised you support breaking the law?  Whether the land should legally be the governments or not, these individuals did not own said land.  Would you say I could haul my cattle out there and graze, trespass, and collect tax dollars for doing so?  I don't know much about law, but I can't believe any protester should be allowed to trespass.

I'm having difficulty finding the sources I've read from when events were going down, but the news media narrative isn't the whole, unbiased story.

The Bureau of Land Management had been driving all of the ranchers out of business and property via increasing restrictions and regulations. The Hammonds were the only ones left, and they were suffering the BLM's squeeze-play. For example, and I forget the details, but the BLM did something that cut off the Hammonds from the water supply for their cattle. Also, the BLM quite often conducted "controlled burns" on public/federal land that went out of control and burned  private property - which even killed livestock of the ranchers. (The point being it is hypocritical of the BLM  for charging ranchers with their burns going out of control into federal lands when their fires went out of control into private lands.) As far as the cattle grazing on public land, this was a practice that had been allowed from the beginning. It was only recently that the BLM created restrictions on this.  This is only a taste of the grievances the Hammond family was dealing with. 

Oh - I just managed to find something! Before continuing, this is a valuable read on the situation:
 

On Tuesday, Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, whose district encompasses the county where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located, took to the floor of the House this week to give the back story that led to the occupation and protest that is currently underway.

http://personalliberty.com/defense-oregon-protesters-floor-house/

 

The Bundy's had been undergoing the same kind of BLM oppression, likewise being the "last man standing" in their territory. Was their take-over of the ranger station a legal protest? Of course not. But for perspective, the station was empty when they took it over, no ones' lives were ever threatened nor in danger; the point being that the force taken against them was more aggressive than  the level the protesters had gone.

A lot of people have been digging around what has been going on with this and discovered some very disturbing things involving land grabs, minerals rights, and even foreign governments (translation, protecting the environment has been a cover for the real government dealings). But I don't have the time nor resources to conduct a complete fact-check analysis of the situation, but the more I read about how aggressive the government was getting and the injustices the ranchers had been facing trying to maintain their family businesses, the more something outlandish like that makes sense. 

And for another perspective on the whole thing, go to YouTube and search for "INSIDE LAVOY'S SUV AS HE IS SHOT" - this shows the video a passenger was taking inside Lavoy Finicum's vehicle interposed with the areal footage. The woman started video'ing after the feds fired on them (from the woman's personal testimony of the event - not included in the video link). Imagine yourself in the vehicle and how you would be reacting. 

Anyway, I hope you spend a little time considering what I've shared.

[WilliamL]

15 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

You can dance around with this Ideology all you want to and spend as much time fighting for the rights the government gave you in the first place.  What the government givith, the government takith away. The government, on the other hand can't touch what God has given us and that's who I look to for my priorities.

We don't have any rights in this country.

Once again you have promoted the false belief that our rights come from the government. This is in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that our rights come from the Creator. Likewise, it is in direct contrast to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights which says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article 10

15 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

how many do you see barricading themselves on someone else's property  in another community. 

The government had no right to the property in question, which was illegally purchased by the government in the Great Depression from private owners, and illegally added to the Federal Wildlife preserve, in violation of Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17 which I quoted above. Therefore the occupiers were attempting to legally assert the right of adverse possession of property having no valid title under Constitutional Law. They were perfectly within their rights to do so, and the government violated their rights in every way, even unto the point of taking innocent life during an unlawful action. That constitutes murder, because they killed someone during the commission of a crime.

[Churchmouse]

I'm a Christian I can't say this even if it needs to be said. I have left this thread. Have a wonderful day and God Bless.