Posted on 01/03/2016 4:13:57 PM PST by Kaslin
There’s a lot going on as regards the standoff in Oregon involving three of Cliven Bundy’s sons and the federal government. Jazz has already offered his opinion on the matter, and I mostly agree with him. But I’m not sure the term “armed troops†is appropriate to describe Bundy’s group because that suggests they’re in tactical gear. That doesn’t appear to be true based off what Ammon Bundy’s video posted on Facebook.
Standing for the rights of men & womenBREAKING! SHARE! Standing for the rights of Men & Women. Calling all freedom loving people to come to Harney County Oregon, come to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.
Posted by Bundy Ranch on Saturday, January 2, 2016
He repeated the comments to CNN this morning, calling his group "concerned citizens" who are acting to make sure ranchers have land for their children. It makes sense for Bundy to be concerned about ranchland, given what’s been going on with his father, but his methods are questionable because of how it can be spun in the media. The group showed foresight in taking over a remote, empty facility, but the way it’s being portrayed publicly is different. The Oregonian certainly seems to be ramping up the rhetoric against Bundy’s group (emphasis mine).
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
The problem is The Oregonian is overblowing what Payne actually told Missoula Independent about what the “militia snipers” were doing during the Bundy Ranch situation last year.
“We locked them down,” Payne says. “We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy—sometimes two guys—per BLM agent in there. So, it was a complete tactical superiority. … If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would’ve died.”
That’s a lot different than the vague term "federal agents," and suggests Payne was just making sure his men could beat the Bureau of Land Management if it came to that. It’s also possible Payne was just bragging to puff up his own self-image, as BLM denied using snipers. But it’s ridiculous for The Oregonian to not provide better context to Payne’s statements. It’s also foolish to emphasize the fact Payne was armed whenever he talked to people. This may be a bit of a shock to the Left, but Oregon is an open carry state so Payne can carry a handgun without a problem. It doesn’t appear he was walking up to people, showing the gun and yelling, "WHO DO YOU SUPPORT?" but just carrying the gun for protection. It probably seemed odd to some people, but to others in rural Oregon it may not have been an issue. One thing which is an issue is the fact people in Burns don’t want Bundy’s group there. Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has a piece pointing this out, and how it could end up hurting more than helping.
These militiamen seem to be forgetting a key fact: a force opposing government only has a measure of philosophical legitimacy if the people want their support. In this instance, the Hammonds simply want to turn themselves on Monday and finish serving their time.
These militiamen need to stop attempting to hijack the Hammond case in an attempt to stay relevant, and let Dwight and Steven Hammond peacefully turn themselves in and finish serving their time.
So what happens if Bundy’s group decides to stick around and won’t leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Hopefully, not violence. This is where authorities need to show patience, and not do anything which ends up endangering the lives of anyone. Bundy’s group isn’t hurting people, and, at worst, is guilty of trespassing. Yes, they’re armed but that doesn’t mean SWAT needs to go rolling into the refuge or a drone be used to end the standoff. That would be the worst thing to happen, and bring back memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Federal and local authorities will just have to wait out Ammon Bundy and the rest of the occupiers, until they decide to leave. It may take a while, but it’s well worth it if no lives are lost. Bundy’s group needs to go, but having it happen through a haze of gun smoke and bodies is a bad idea.
Two important ones:
(1) If you believe someone is illegally altering a contract, why wouldn't you take them to court yourself?
(2) Why would you build facilities on land you don't own and the use of which you are disputing?
(3) Why would the article not mention that Bundy had been grazing without a permit, and without paying a dime, for 20 years?
Why do you always assume government agencies are right and that government corruption doesn’t exist?
I don't make the assumptions you allege.
I assume that both sides are working toward their respective self-interests.
The government abuses the rights of citizens all the time through corrupt practices, legal actions and intimidation.
Previous owners; all the way down.
There ya go; businesses pay NO taxes.
They buy raw materials of all sorts and produce an item for someone to buy. “Taxes” are just another ingredient like steel, plastic, wages or electricity.
Checks and balances.
The government will never be perfect, so it needs to be kept small and accountable.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Nice try, but for this land it dates back to conquest in the 1800s.
The immediate previous owners we are talking about here are the state of Oregon and various private landowners.
Exactly!
Taxes are merely another “ingredient” that is hidden in the price.
If the government needs to provide other services, fine! Tax people in the most transparent and least costly to collect manner to cover the cost of these services. Don't turn property owners into renters.
A tenant has no right to dispose of property yet still pays rent - rent which generally covers all of the owner's property taxes plus a substantial amount over and above those taxes.
An owner has the right to dispose of the property as he sees fit - to sell it, devise it, and leave it to heirs.
Characterizing property tax as rent is simply not correct.
And property tax no longer just supports title as it did in the olden days when there was no electrical grid, no public sewerage, no public fire protection, no paved roads, no public schooling etc.
If you want medieval taxes, you'll get medieval infrastructure.
There are numerous ways to collect the taxes needed to provide government services that are far more transparent.
There are many other forms of taxes that are far more transparent that are already in existence that can an do fund ( in part) these government services . .
Again, you don't seem to get the concept of what rent is.
You claim the purpose of government property tax is to defend the title. The cost to do this is very very minimal. The government is under no obligation to protect the property. Courts have ruled that this is so.
Ok...So...Government services are needed and taxes are needed to support community services. There are other means of taxation that are far far far more transparent that hiding them in property tax and essentially turning the “owner” into a government renter.
Property taxes are MOST onerous to the poor! Their property taxes are **hidden** in the rent they pay and in the prices of every service and good they purchase. These taxes are paid by all of us but these property taxes are extremely regressive. No one can't escape them or structure their lives in any way to reduce them. Property taxes hit the citizen ( especially the poorest) on the three items they absolutely need for survival: Food, clothing, and shelter!
One of the major factors in homelessness is lack of affordable housing. Well! Property taxes are a **major** factor in causing lack of affordability.
Just wondering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.