Montel Williams Calls For "Shoot To Kill" In Oregon Showdown; Militiamen Respond They Are "Ready To Fight"
In the latest development in the ongoing saga of Ammon Bundy's seizure of a Federal wildlife reuge office in Oregon, the members of the militia said they're ready to fight, but they won't say what they would actually do if federal authorities try to remove them by force as reported in the clip below.
However, while we noted the shortcomings in Bundy's latest standoff last night, what is even more notable is that as Shepard Ambellas of Intellihub points out, Montel Williams he tweeted that the National Guard should be mobilized to “kill” protesters who have currently overtaken the federal building in Burns, Oregon.
Then let's give them some - put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders. https://t.co/KSzUZzUor6
— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) January 3, 2016
Moreover USA Today has reported that “militia members used the ranchers as a ruse,” in what I and others feel may be the planed catalyst to start a civil war in America.
Monday, Rick Jervis wrote:
The Oregon sheriff whose county is at the heart of an anti-government call-to-arms said Sunday the group occupying a national wildlife refuge came to town under false pretenses.
Sheriff David Ward said protesters came to Harney County, in southeastern Oregon, “claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers.” In reality, he said, “these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”
In a statement issued Sunday afternoon, Ward said he was working with local and federal authorities to resolve the situation as quickly and peacefully as possible.
Intellihub adds that its staff has identified a few suspicious individuals who claim to stand with the militants which may attempt to provocateur, escalate, the situation further. As we noted last night, this also is a distinct possibility.
Finally, in an interesting tangent, the WaPo, which admits that there "are gun rights issues, religious overtones, broad strains of anti-government sentiment and even the tactics of the Occupy Wall Street movement" as underlying motives behind the seizure, focuses on "very particular question of how much land the government controls in the state -- the same question that animated the dispute with rancher Cliven Bundy in Nevada two years ago -- and that helped motivate Bundy's son Ammon to take a lead role in the Oregon standoff."
It then provides several charts, alongside the following analysis, to show this curious aspect of what may be the core motive behind Bundy's actions. To wit:
More than half of Oregon is owned by the federal government, with a large percentage of that land owned by the Bureau of Land Management -- an agency widely reviled in the West and known by its acronym, BLM. (Ammon Bundy was forced to clarify on Twitter that his use of "BLM" didn't refer to the Black Lives Matter movement.) Data from the U.S. Geological Survey shows the amount of federal land in the state.
(This map and the ones below only show areas of 600 or more acres held by the government.)
The takeover occurred near Malheur Lake, at a building that's part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That lake is at the upper center of the BLM's map of the surrounding area, which shows just how much is controlled by the government. (The original protests over the Hammonds' sentencing began in Burns, Ore.)
Part of the issue is that there isn't much population in the eastern part of the state. Mapping Oregon's population, you can see Portland and a corridor near the coast, which is about it. The area around the wildlife refuge has almost no population.
There's a historic link between population and federal land ownership. In 2012, the Congressional Research Service looked at the history of tensions between the government and the population out West -- particularly ranchers and farmers who, like the Hammonds and Bundys, use federal land for grazing and other purposes.
Early in the history of the country, the government took over land that was then distributed to citizens for farming and economic growth. As the United States expanded westward, the land was increasingly inhospitable, including the Rockies and the deserts of Nevada and Utah. By the end of the 19th century, a new focus was placed on conserving the land, with Yellowstone becoming the first national park in 1872. At that point, very few people lived in the area, as this 1890 Census Bureau map suggests.
Over the course of the 20th century, the government's emphasis shifted away from releasing the land to private citizens and toward managing it itself. The passage of 1976's Federal Land Policy and Management Act made that policy concrete, keeping the land as the property of the government. After the federal government's shift, there was a push from some in the West, including governors and members of Congress, to shift control from the federal to the state or local government. The Sagebrush Rebellion, as it was known, tapered off during the relative friendly administration of Ronald Reagan.
The longstanding political and legal dispute was summarized in more depth by the conservative Heritage Foundation, but the Congressional Research Service makes one additional point that's important to consider.
"From the earliest days," the CRS researchers write, "these policy views took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view the lands as national public property, and westerners more likely to view the lands as necessary for local use and development."
That's one reason for the objection from Westerners. The other is that the lock-down on the land came after the East was heavily settled but before the West had been. In the East, land was turned over to farmers. In the West, settled later in the country's history, there were fewer people to hand it to.
Compare the Dakotas to Oregon, for example. In 1910, here's how the population was distributed. Even the Dakotas had pockets of population.
It's still sparsely populated.
But very little of the land is federal.
On that 1910 map, notice that Nevada has very little population -- thanks in part to its landscape being even less hospitable than the Dakotas. Its population is still small, save Reno and Las Vegas.
The vast majority of the land -- including the land around the Bundy ranch -- is owned by the government to this day.
The conclusion: "The fight isn't new, as the Congressional Research Service report notes. What's new is the way in which the broader political moment has cross-pollinated with longstanding objections to how the government manages land out West. The takeover in Oregon has its roots in the Sagebrush Rebellion. They way it's being manifested, though, is as modern as it gets."
* * *
It remains to be seen if the National Guard will take up Montel on his "shoot to kill" advice.
(24 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fuck Montel. I'm waiting to hear from a REAL CELEBRITY. What does Oprah think about all this?
Its OK to shoot whitey. Its OK to take their guns away so our mobs can beat and kill the shit out of them with baseball bats using swarm techniques coordinated with Obama phones. No wonder Obama wants to take guns out of the hands of whitey.
PLEASE, Williams is just a Jive Ass (nigger)
Don't insult Turkeys
"shoot to kill orders."
That does it!
I'm turning in my Black Lives Madder™ membership card
Montel is not a CIA shill. Montel is an ONI shill, however (from the other side of the Potomac River).
Read this, guys.
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4163331&postcount=68
Overfed
Whoa People need to read this because it makes a lot of sense (been done by FWS and BLM before).
The whole thing is a harassment grab for their land. Long term it has to be something underground the government wants.
Very possible. Along with the Agenda 21 push to get more people concentrated into large cities for easier control.
Its a 'Brave New World' TM, mang.
Holy Shit! Why am I not surprised.
I liked the guy's preface about anybody that can't read for 10 minutes lol.
"During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM. (note: Hello?! Do I have to make a "note" here? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?!?!?)"
How about an idiot or: (<< None of the above)
@FS,
Correction: Feds don't own it. It was signed over to the Chinese...collateral for debt.
Constitution suspended since 1933.
That's why when chalky implements his next EO, it's gonna get interesting.
Re. China. More Agenda 21? China, does the same thing in the wide open spaces of Tibet. The locals are cleared out of the mountains and forced out of their traditional life and into high-rise appartment blocks by the highway ... for progress or something. But really because the free people in the mountains are too hard to control. Force them down to the highway, make them dependent on the .gov for food, water, everthing and they're easier to keep an eye on and control.
"Let's get this straight, the Feds do not "own" the land they may say they "own". The land is within the territory of the sovereign State of Oregon.
Legal brief on Federal Jurisdiction here: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm"
Silly Fukushima Sam. Our Forefathers gave up State Sovereignty when they came up with the 2nd Constitution and gave up the 1st Constitution ( Articles of Confederation )
That point was driven home during the Civil War.
Nigga, please!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRoVjQ-l5vY&feature=youtu.be
The more I hear the prog responses, the more I want to shoot them in the faces. Montel first.
let's give them some
Who the fuck is the implied "we" here? Does Montel have a mouse in his pocket?
He knows how to point a glock with his arm twisted sideways (cause he saw 'McLovin' do it on TV once & it looked 'cool')... After he caps your @ss, he'll get ya a payday loan for a 'reduced' 73% interest rate.
Nope, thats a turd.
Nope, he is the turd.
Who the fuck is the implied "we" here?
That would be the gerbil up his ass.
Can we get Edward Snowden to chime in on the NSA cred of Montel?
Hedgeless,
This pic is too peaceful to make your point, they are not armed like they are in Oregon. Add some looting pics, if you can find pics with guns, and your point will come across just the way you want it to.
Why? There is nothing illegal about bearing arms, if you are not a felon. Both armed and unarmed protests are protected under the Bill of Rights.
You and I know this.
Folks are saying that the protest in Oregon is ARMED millitia, while the demonstations in Fergusen and elsewhere were technically not armed ones. Their arguement is that whites get a pass when they demonstrate "armed" and threaten to use their arms, while blacks get harassed, roughed up, tear gassed and shot up when they protest unarmed. They got national guard in Fergusen, while these guys have not gotten anything so far.
Meanwhile, there was a lot more disordely and outright dangerous conduct going on in Fergusen. I would post pics of those things to make my point (that you can't suggest shooting a bunch of blacks and be okay if you are white) if I was you. That is all I was saying (some of my professional work involves editing, it is in my blood, no offense was intended. The only reason I would comment is to make a message stronger).
Better yet, where are all the black protesters supporting the ranchers?
If obama had a infomercial shill for a cousin
"unarmed protests are protected under the Bill of Rights. "
The only problem with the 'Bill of Rights' is that it doesn't exist anymore since the United States of America became a 'corporation' in 1871
That is 100% correct, Francis.
Onay Rancisfay, Eeksay.
Oodgay Ointpay.
Hhhhhhsay....
And I thot latin was a dead language. ;)
And you speak Latin. Fantastic.
I just saw these Thomas Jefferson quotes in someone else's link where he mentions bearing arms.
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
"The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." - Thomas Jefferson
Why does being an ex-convict override the 2nd amendment?
Why does Governmental restriction of my ability to own a Thermonuclear Warhead, if I can afford one, override the 2nd Amendment?
The right to bear arms did not restrict the people from owning state of the art weaponry.
Privateers, Private Citizens, owned large bore CANNON...the most destructive of all 18th Century and, for the most part of the 19th Century, weaponry
That was changed after the Civil War in order to stop any possibility of another Civil War. The people suffered during that war and were quite willing to surrender that right in the hope of peace.
The obvious answer is that Government does not care about your God given Rights as they have continually have sought to restrict them. They can care less about the Bill of Rights.
The US Constitution is dead and anyone under the illusion that they are free, that they have Liberty, are either asleep...or in outright denial...or they are in the Oligarchy, the Ruling Class.
MSCreant or Hedgeless:
http://1drv.ms/1RmGNDF
And yes, guns were fired AT cops in Ferguson. Ironically, Oathkeepers were asked to show up to provide armed protection against looters and they did.
Oathkeepers helped everyone, regardless of race. A black woman who had a bakery reported very positive results when they were protecting her (a fairly new business she had started and had destroyed once by protestors). Oathkeeper guarded property was NOT fucked with.
Cops did not like them there. Thing is, as the Oathkeepers pointed out, the cops were not doing their job. They were not arresting law breakers and protecting protestors. They laid out easy plans on their website that showed how with cones you could establish a path through the roads that created a center lane to let cops come and go freely, while letting protestors protest, without interfering with them. Very well thought out and easy to do. Not those cops.
My hubby joined Oathkeepers, he listened to me go on and on about how impressed I was with them. ;-)
Sorry, I'm not impressed. Oath Keepers always have a reason to stand down. The "oath" is about protecting the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Any impartial observer can see that the OKs are way late on performing their stated purpose. Facing off against Fergeson rioters will not put them in jeopardy and is not facing off against the tyrannical government, which is their stated purpose. Conclusion - limited hang out.
I can see that happening. Meanwhile our US troops serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have all kinds on rules of engagement which forbids thm from protecting themselves.
No the dickhead sherriff: YOU are the final law authority. You need not consult with federal agencies. Grow a pair of balls and do your job.
Montel Williams? Who cares what he thinks. He used to pray at the altar of Sylvia Browne.
I'd prefer to hear what Maury or Jerry Springer think.
"I'd prefer to hear what Maury or Jerry Springer think."
Better yet....how about some of Jerry's guests. You know them, the inbreds fucking their parents and siblings.
---><--- That's how much I care about what that "paycheck loan" hawking scumbag has to say.
Here's his face plastered all over the web page of one of the "Get your money in an hour! (at 30% interest)" loan sharks:
https://moneymutualinstallmentloans.com/?promo_id=39253&zoneid=562703&p=...
30%!!!!!!! Damn, I'm in the wrong line of work.
If you like your soul, you can keep your soul [by not doing immoral things].
If I only keep half of my soul can I get 15%? That seems fair.
Damn. Monkey see, monkey do. It's really true!
Hey now! Watch it!
;-)
Thanks for having my back on that other thread yesterday when I told my story about my aunt and her grapefruit tree.