Saturday, January 9, 2016

Oath Keepers message for Ammon Bundy



CNN is reporting that Armed anti-government protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land. One of them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action. He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the "people's constitutional rights."

I have in the past spoken about the Oath Keepers with great respect and admiration. That group was founded in 2004 by Stewart Rhodes, a former U.S. Army paratrooper and a Yale Law School graduate who once worked for Congressman Ron Paul to protect the U.S. Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. They call themselves oath keepers because they believe in keeping the oath US civil servants make to protect the Constitution which most have broken.

Some of their supporters have championed a specific cause related on the right of ranchers to have their cattle graze on public land. Now I am somewhat familiar with civil liberty and the sacred principles in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which is very similar to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Free speech, lawful assembly, the freedom from unnecessary searches and seizures, the need to be charged with a criminal offense before being arrested. The right to a lawyer and a speedy fair trial. These are all sacred rights in any democratic society. Canadians visiting the United States are denied these fundamental rights because they are not American citizens. That is an abomination. I'm left scratching my head over the obsession with the right of farmers to have their cattle graze on federal land.

My message for the protesters in Oregon is what the f*ck are you doing? We have serious breaches of civil liberty and the Constitution everywhere and you have completely lost that focus by being completely distracted by cattle grazing on public land. Who cares? Denying people the right to a lawyer and a fair trial while they are tortured in black prison sites is a colossal concern. Comparing that with cattle grazing on federal land is an absurd tangent.

Stewart Rhodes has posted his proposed exit strategy for the protesters in Oregon and it sounds like it was written by George Washington himself. He states that although he personally has immense respect for Ammon Bundy he opposes what Ammon chose to do by occupying the wildlife preserve in Oregon, specifically because it is not being done with the consent of the locals or at their request.

Stewart Rhodes states "I propose that you return to and adhere to your own stated principles of respecting the right of the people of Harney County to self-determination, self-government, and their right to stand up, on their own two feet, with our support and protection. Therefore, you need to submit yourself to the authority of the Committee of Safety and the people of Harney County at large, and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they are now in charge, and you will comply with whatever they decide must be done, whether you agree with it or not. So throw your sword at the people’s feet, and pledge and swear that you will abide by their decision, whatever it is, and defend them in doing whatever they decide is best, so long as it is ethical, moral, and constitutional. But it must be their decision, not yours. That is the honorable, ethical, moral, and constitutional way to go. That is an honorable exit plan." Indeed it is. Peace.

9 comments:

  1. lots of men with beards and guns. usually that gets all sorts out to kill them, but it turned out the men were all white so it was O.K. to have beards and guns and threaten the government.

    Bundy's a jerk who didn't want to pay his grazing fees. He's managed to turn that into a political movement for othe white guys with guns.

    The men who they say they were supporting, reported to jail as required. they distanced themselves from the Bundy buddies.

    The ranchers who were sent to jail, burnt federal land. the real problem here is the minimum sentences those right wingers love so much. Sometimes it isn't just black men who get sent to jail for excessive amounts of time. The white boys with beards and guns need to get a grip and return to the land of reality.

    They wanted the federal government to turn over the land to the locals. Well that isn't going to happen. Once that happens you can bet vast sections of the U.S.A. would be purchased by corportions for corporate needs. ranchers such as Bundy want to be able to graze their cattle on federal land for free. That's free loading. they object when people need welfare or other assistance, but hey because they're ranchers and white, its considered O.K. if they want things for free.

    if these men were black and armed and wanted things for free, they'd all be dead, shot by cops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few years ago I met an American from Chicago in Abbotsford. Our kids both went to the same symphony. He said that when the Chicago riots broke out he lived in the suburbs. He and his neighbors went outside with their guns and said to the rioters if you come to our neighborhood and try to burn it down and steal our property we will shoot you dead. It's amazing how effective and armed militia can be against a lawless mob.

      Delete
  2. AND THIS ISN'T CHICAGO.

    The problem is had they opened fire and the rioters returned fire, it would have been a real nasty situation. One does wonder where the police where in all of this. Having lived in Vancouver most of my life, I could not imagine rioters coming into a neighbourhood to loot and steal. yes, Vancouver did have a couple of big hockey riots but when you think about it, the VPD kept them contained in the down town area. No need to any citizens to take up arms. Had a citizen taken out a guy to defend their store what would have happened. Most likely dead people and no property is worth that.

    the point I was trying to make was that the guys with beards and guns in Oregon are a bunch of idiots. They local people don't' want them. the men who they allegedly are trying to support went to jail peacefully. IF these men had been muslims or men of colour they would have all been dead by now.

    this isn't the wild west. the days of boys trying to play cowboy with real guns is over. If you go through life with a gun expecting violence, its time to change how and where you live. /there is something wrong with your society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just saying it worked there. Unfortunately gun violence is not over here. Our system where only the criminals have guns just isn't working. If everyone in Surrey stood outside with their guns and said f*ck with us and we'll f*ck with you, that would be a significant deterrent. Will Smith liked the wild wild west:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zXKtfKnfT8


      Delete
  3. I don't agree it would be a solution in Surrey, it would simply result in deaths, dozens. Our system works fine. its the American system which isn't working. With all those people carrying and using guns, they have a lot of dead kids from either accidental shootings because they got hold of a parental units gun or more drive bys. when some many citizens have guns, they get stolen and used by criminals.

    The "f with us and we'll f with you" attitude doesn't work. We need a more civilized approach. we are not longer the wild west. As a country has more guns, they have more deaths. in Australia where they drastically reduced gun ownership the number of teen suicides dropped by about half. they have had no mass shootings except the one in the coffee shop.

    If you want to avoid having a lot of criminals, you look at how you raise children. However, the various levels of government aren't interested in investing in children the way they are in mines, oil, gas, LNG, whatever.

    The problem in Surrey is it grew at such a rapid rate there was no infrastructure to deal with all the social problems which come along with that growth. then they had a citizenry which didn't want higher property taxes, so no money for social programs. they had politicians who didn't care and they have an RCMP detachment lead by someone who just might have issues and is understaffed to top it off.

    Can you just imagine what would really happen if people started that wild west stuff. yes it may have worked for the person you met, but I'd say that is only a very slight minority. In the vast majority of cases we would have dead citizens, dead cops, perhaps the only ones who wouldn't be dead would be the criminals.

    this is one of those topics we don't agree on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. No worries. No two people agree on every issue. Likewise no two people disagree on every issue either. Letting all the criminals have guns and doing nothing about it isn't civilized. Surrey has always had problems. It's got nothing to do with natural gas or taxing the people more to hand out free needles and crack pipes. The problem is Bill Fordy and his superiors who refuse to arrest the crack dealers.

      Delete
  4. This is one of those issues you're not going to change her mind on. She like many Canadians was raised to believe this stuff, (my mother tried, it didn't stick, a little thing called reality got in the way) and it's an article of faith to many that "we don't want to be like those Americans".

    Prof. Gary Mauser (good name for a guy who does research on social issues and guns, huh?)of SFU did landmark work in this area, torpedoed everything she said here but "progressives" as usual refuse to acknowledge reality because it clashes with their cherished but flawed world view. Surrey may not be Chicago (and you should be grateful it is not, I lived there for 12 years) but people are people.

    What eaf fails to recognize is that problem children when confronted with effective (often armed) resistance, they leave and go elsewhere. They are looking to get paid, not shot. This faux moral high ground that she is so comfortable with in fact attracts predators who see it for what it is, weakness. I'm not sure exactly how far eaf's delusions go in this regard, perhaps she is one of these women who find the idea of hurting another human being so abhorrent that for instance, they would rather submit to a rape than shoot their attacker. Offering both cheeks you might say.....They will tell themselves all the things she has said here to justify such an outlook, and feel that she is morally superior because of that. Often it takes such an experience to happen to them personally to jolt them into reality.

    Weakness or the appearance of it invites aggression from predators and others who are disposed to it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe before an attempted rebuttal, EAF needs to study Pr. Mauser's work.

    Why yes, my good man, I do just happen to have a link to provide her so she can undertake just such a venture:

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    ReplyDelete