@ Old JakeYou're wrong about all of us feeling they are at
least partially right. I don't, and from what I have read on these boards,
very few people have much sympathy for terrorist activities inflicted on society
by the Bundy's.
Are these terrorists assuming they are better stewards of the land than the
government? I can't imagine the townspeople they are terrorizing would
agree with that. Do these terrorists believe in following the laws of the land?
Obviously not. They are behaving as though they are above the law and they
aren't. The people enforcing the law at least have to attempt to follow it
while the terrorists don't have rules they are following, either federal or
local laws or those in a civil society. They need to go home, where I hope
justice will catch up to them.
The radical right revolution starts with people armed with high powered rifles
playing military in a bird refuge take over in the middle of nowhere. History
will not treat this incident kindly. The Internet on the other hand will relish
in the disgraced attempt to allow a few to try to take the publics land.
They basically took over an outhouse or a glorified information booth.
@JRL in AZ --"I'm rather confused. The condemnation of the
Bundys and their ilk has been pretty strong in the comments here at Deseret
News"Just look to the responses from people like
procuradorfiscal and samwise to alleviate your confusion. And we have lots of
"law and order"-type commenters who are frequently seen in other threads
but are conspicuously silent on this topic as well.
@procuradorfiscal --"Exactly the same as every Occupy Wall
Street action..."You keep conveniently ignoring the
"armed" part. None of the other protesters you mentioned have been
carrying assault weapons -- and, in fact, some of the Black Lives Matter
protesters have themselves been shot by right wingers.And no, The
Obama administration does NOT count as armed insurrection, however much you may
disagree with its policies. "over a few hayseeds parading
around..."Well, I'm glad to see you at least characterize
them as hayseeds. But "parading around with guns" is kind of the point.
If you want a peaceful protest, guess what -- DON'T bring your guns with
you."the terroristic actions of hippies, thugs, commies, and
even jihadists... so long as the bad actors are left-leaning marxists."LOL.No, hon. So long as THEY AREN'T CARRYING GUNS.KKK wants to parade? Fine, let em -- NO guns. Westboro Baptist Church
wants to protest? Fine, let em -- NO guns. Just don't bring guns and keep
trying to pretend that you're peaceful. Even the guys who mounted the
actual peaceful protest in support of the Hammonds don't want anything to
do with these armed thugs.
"No, there's no significant difference at all. Only one of degree,
perhaps. Certainly not of intent."So we are to the point that
there is no difference between armed people threatening violence against
government officials, and people who hold a sit in? It really does say
something about the moral foundations at work here. Law enforcement has had to
move their kids to neighboring towns out of fear.... same as people chaining
themselves to a tree. I wonder if people like procuradorfiscal
thought the black panthers of the 60s were also just a harmless group.... no big
deal... just like other "leftist" activist. I don't how the color
of the skin of the one holding the gun, aiming it at police, makes the act by
one group acceptable, and yet if another group does the same thing it is the end
of society.A conservative holds a gun to someone.... its ok. A
liberal does it... and we are all doomed. The politics of hate is alive and
"....Anybody who feels terrorized over people occupying a federal building
either already has serious emotional problems or is a paid crisis
actor...."______________________________I assume that the
guns they used to seize a government office are loaded with real bullets. So
far, Federal law enforcement authorities have avoided a confrontation that might
result in people getting killed. That’s not easy when dealing with armed
fringe fanatics who seem determined to command national attention.
Re: "This is armed insurrection. Treason."Of course it is.
Exactly the same as every Occupy Wall Street action, the Ferguson, MO protests,
tree huggers hanging from bridges to clog shipping channels, students forcibly
occupying deans' offices until they get "free" tuition, and an
Obama administration's armed enforcement of illegal gun controls, as well
as adding to its perfidious refusal to do its job, by its armed prohibition of
states and counties protecting themselves from the effects of federal political
malfeasance.It's just funny to watch liberals work themselves
into a veritable, foaming-at-the-mouth foment over a few hayseeds parading
around with guns 30 miles away from anyone who cares, while, at the same moment,
tying themselves in knots to justify the terroristic actions of hippies, thugs,
commies, and even jihadists that have real effects on real people, so long as
the bad actors are left-leaning marxists.
contrariuss mid-state, TNFrom Oregon Public Broadcasting
-- I'm ready for you "moderate" Mormons to start condemning this
radical Mormon extremism any time now.---------------@contrariuss - I'm rather confused. The condemnation of the Bundys and
their ilk has been pretty strong in the comments here at Deseret News every time
they show up in the news. Either you haven't paid attention or you are
Samwise says that it is silly for cops to confront criminals in the act of
committing a crime. That kind of thinking would have police stand down from
entering the bank until the robbers have left. And if the police see some people
carrying guns as they enter a church should they just assume that they are just
protesting the no-carry policy. Armed rebellion is not an
acceptable form of protest, it is a declaration of war and must be recognized as
such. The purpose of a gun is to kill people or to keep other people from
killing you. In either case if your opponent is your government it is a crime
against that government. Enter comment
Oh please. Anybody who feels terrorized over people occupying a federal building
either already has serious emotional problems or is a paid crisis actor.Anyhow I think this whole thing is just a stunt in order to Glorify
Obamas Gun Control executive orders. These Militia people are probably Feds if
anything else. It would make perfect sense if they were.
This is the American version of British Soccer Hooligans.Except the
Brits don't let the hooligans wander the countryside with AK-47s and
AR-15s, threatening to topple the government.Why don't these
Bundy brothers go help their dad find the stray cattle he grazes on land owned
by the rest of us? (In a way, we're all subsidizing this
It’s a fight the Bundy brothers have no more chance of winning than their
father had in his standoff with Federal authorities over grazing rights in
Nevada. Their invoking of scriptural passages probably has less to do with any
extreme interpretation of Mormon beliefs than with their intense anti-Federal
"...armed conflicts between citizens and an out-of-control federal
government who is grabbing more land and more power and more constitutional
rights away from states and private citizens..."Funny. I've
never been an Obama fan, but I've consistently seen my civil rights expand
and be officially recognized under his administration. The worst things
I've seen are Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, and both were SCOTUS. On the other hand the Obama administration has consistently moved to
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (a very central purpose of
the Constitution) and to ensure citizens in every state - even those with a
theocracy oriented legislature - are treated equally under the law, another
hallmark of the Constitution. Those who see the need for treason and
armed rebellion are white Christians who are less able to legally bully and
mistreat their neighbors because "God said".The antics of
this group of would-be terrorists is likely to sear the awareness of the average
citizen with the idea that terrorism is terrorism, and it doesn't matter
what religion is used to justify it.
@SamwiseSo threats of violence are okay, as long as they are not
@Billy BobMy post was written largely in satire. Also,
if I am not mistaken, this statement came out today...after my comment.It was in reference to all the posters on here to who want Muslims to denounce
acts of terrorism, and largely attribute guilt by association to the entire
community; despite repeated condemnations by leaders world wide. I was merely
asking the same standard be applied to ourselves.I do find it
refreshing that there is strong condemnation, and not people jumping on the
bandwagon and praising them as I feared would be the case.
@Max PowerThe Mormon church did come out with a strong statement against
these terrorist. Same as American's muslims did last month in the So. Cal
shootings. Let's just hope some crazy Presidential candidate does not call
for the deportation of all Mormons based upon the actions of a few terrorist.
At the moment, despite these extremists/protesters/whatever you want to call
them being armed, no one is in immediate physical danger. The government is not
going to send in the National Guard to attack them when that would most
definitely result in loss of life. The difference between this and some Black
Lives Matter protests is that those protests occur in highly populated areas,
and there are some (of course not all, but some) Black Lives Matter
"protestors" who purposefully do harm to others and the property of
others. It is apples and oranges, and their are significant differences between
this protest and the various BLM protests. The peaceful BLM protests are allowed
to continue. If lives are not immediately in danger, they have largely been
allowed to do whatever the heck they want, even in downtown Baltimore or other
large cities. In short, to cry racism over the difference in response to this
protest and BLM protests is just silly.
MaxPower"The silence is deafening"What silence?
The LDS Church has come out with an official statement condemning these anti
government extremists (you know how to comment on an online news paper comment
board, I am sure you also know how to use google) and every member of the LDS
Church I have personally heard speak about this also condemns it and thinks
these guys are wackos. As a matter of fact, I have heard the greater
condemnation coming from normal LDS members. We want to make it clear that we
are not associated with these extremists and the church not only does not
supports their actions, but strongly condemns it.
ALthough I agree with the Church and their official statement today I see a
nation divided with more and more of these types of potentially armed conflicts
between citizens and an out-of-control federal government who is grabbing more
land and more power and more constitutional rights away from states and private
citizens. The one word that comes to mind regarding the Obama state of the union
is "chaos". So much for hope n change.
If Ammon Bundy is lucky - he will not be introduced to Lon Horiuchi. I'm
anxiously awaiting the arrival of Al Bundy to this noble cause.
I guess a turban isn't required clothing for terrorists after all. Send in
the National Guard and clear out these freeloaders.
Where do these people live? Seems a great time to take over their ranches and
homes to get the backTaxes they owe. Round up their cattle and sell their
other assets. Then when they come back home they will be the aggressors, and
the federal agents will be simply protecting themselves. If the feds are quick
enough they will come back to empty homes and fields.
@procuradorfiscal --"No, there's no significant difference
at all."Seriously? You guys who always respond to shootings by
police with comments like "Obey the law!" and "Do what the police
tell you!" and "Don't point guns at cops!" see no problem with
armed occupiers who have threatened multiple times to shoot anyone who tries to
take them into custody??If the Black Lives Matter protesters had
been armed, there would have been a blood bath. Same with any Muslim
protests.This is armed insurrection. Treason. As the local sheriff
has stated: "These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia
groups supporting local ranchers," Sheriff David Ward said in a statement,
"when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow
the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United
States."The hypocrisy of the "law and order" types is
coming through loud and clear.
The Bundy family needs to be excommunicated. The handbook says if you refuse to
pay your taxes, you can't have a temple recommend and if you take illegal
actions to avoid paying taxes, further church discipline is necessary. His
grazing fees are like taxes.
From Oregon Public Broadcasting -- I'm ready for you "moderate"
Mormons to start condemning this radical Mormon extremism any time now.----------The protesters come from as far away as Texas, Utah,
Nevada, Idaho and Montana. They describe themselves as patriots, militiamen or
constitutionalists.“I came prepared for anything,” said
one Utah man who called himself “Captain Moroni.” Many of the
protesters provided reporters with names such as “Fluffy Unicorn,”
or “Jimmy Joe”.Captain Moroni said he participated in
the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, and he was disappointed that more protesters did
not arrive.“I feel quite betrayed. It’s been on Facebook
that everyone is going to come. And we show up, and everyone just craps
out,” he said. “You come up here, ready to get killed if we have to
and these people are just on Facebook about it.“I’m not
here to shoot anyone, I’m here to get shot,” he said, while guarding
the entrance to the refuge headquarters Sunday afternoon, patting his hands
together for warmth near a sagebrush fire.
Re: "There's a huge difference between sit-ins and armed
occupation."No, there's no significant difference at all.
Only one of degree, perhaps. Certainly not of intent.Sit-ins;
die-ins; occupations; shamings; boycotts; violent, threatening demonstrations;
politically-motivated prosecutions; uninvited outings; publishing addresses;
inviting or demanding firings and boycotts; demanding "perp-walks" of
the innocent; fabricating undeserved outrage; strikes, violent picketing, and
intimidation of "scabs;" yellow journalism; academic snark and sophistry
-- all are oft-used tools of all-too common leftist bullying.Each
arises out of exactly the same motivation as ISIS beheadings -- attempts to
force or coerce a view, aim or political end on unwilling people that are not
convinced by peaceful, reasoned argument.These demonic tools have
been embraced and adopted by the left, primarily because they've come to
understand that their philosophy simply doesn't resonate with real
people.It's entertaining, almost comical now, to watch the
convoluted mental gymnastics in which they're now engaged, attempting,
disingenuously, to distinguish their actions from those of people with
conflicting views, but who've adopted the exact same tactics.It's as if they're accusing them of thievery.
Why not just cut off all utilities, ingress, egress, and arrest them for
trespass when they come out? No need for violence. Was anyone jailed for the
Cliven Bundy matter? @Maxpower. Based on the responses herein it looks
to me like a whole lot of Mormons are speaking out against this. I see terms
like sedition and treason thrown around a lot. As I recall Cliven Bundy was
pretty roundly condemned by on these pages.
Have you heard the Bundy version of the familiar patriotic song?"This land is my land...this land is my land...this land is my
land...this land was made for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"(I
generally lean libertarian, but recognize the value of public lands.
Historically, federally-owned land is likely to stay public - you know,
available to all citizens. There are definitely management problems,
particularly when the managers work in a big office on the other side of the
country. Or when cattlemen or some other interest group forgets that it's
public land... happens all the time. But when it's owned by the state, the
states have a distrubing tendency to sell it off when hard times hit.)
Occupy Wallstreet was demanding changes to banking regulations from the current
model of private profit but taxpayer responsibility for failure. They protested
by sitting (and camping in public parks and by blocking doors and sidewalks. College students have grievances against colleges and the oppressive -
and highly profitable - loan system. They are often lawbreakers and potentially
rioters, and those who break the law should be dealt with. Ferguson
and Baltimore are a mix of rioters, looters, and people demanding accountability
for police shootings and brutality. The criminals should be dealt with, the
protesters heard. These terrorists are openly calling for armed
rebellion and the overthrow of government, and they talk openly about a
theocratic system. They are openly calling others to join them - an act of
treason and sedition. They are not the same.
Business terrorists are the worst kind of terrorists. Their loyalty is to the
money from the highest bidder. Where is the police, the army, the National
Guard? Where is the people who are supposed to be protecting Americans in
America? As a reminder, America is all about equal justice for all
and not allowing the rich and powerful to walk over the rights and freedoms of
other Americans. Armed rebellion is not a part of America or the American
Constitution. Americans are those people living, working and enjoying the
benefits of America no matter where they reside. Criminals, even
when they are businessmen, ranchers, farmers or other parasites on the labors of
honest men, must be put down, outlawed, nullified and if necessary exterminated
if America is to survive. Enter comment
@jamescmeyer"It's difficult to think poorly of the occupiers. I
mean, when people began trashing banks and the property of their staff, the
president lauded it."Please do quote for us from an actual reliable
source were the "president lauded it." @DN subscriberYes
because unarmed protesters are the same as an armed self discribed " militia
willing to die out here."
@Old JakeNo, the reason this isn't all over is because they are
white, and Mormon. I just wish moderate Mormons would decry, and
condemn this sedition. The silence is deafening.(end satire)But if this was Black Lives Matter or a muslim...it would be on CNN 24 hours a
Re: "The government really needs to take full military action, and any
survivors need to be in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists."Yeah -- just like the government took full military action to address and
punish the leftist "Occupy Wall Street" terrorists; or the leftist
student terrorist occupying college administration offices demanding
"free" tuition and an end to free speech; or the leftist, pro-crime
Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD protesters, huh?It'd by hard to
argue these misguided bozos are not terrorists, particularly since the stand
they've taken includes implied and overt threats of armed violence. The
funny, but accurate "Vanilla ISIS" moniker certainly fits.But, they're certainly no worse than many, many, many marxist movements
-- in some ways, not quite as bad, since they've chosen to do their
senseless "protest" thing miles away from real people's residences
and businesses.Are we seeing here that the American left has finally
begun to awaken to the inarguable fact that their incessant, illegal
"protests," while often not as dangerous to human life, serve exactly
the same function as Taliban and ISIS executions -- terrorizing opponents?
@DN Subscriber --"However, if you are going to let leftist kooks
take over forests and live in trees to prevent logging, and if you let the
leftists "occupy" public parks (even here in Utah!) then if we have
equal justice under the law, we must tolerate the right wing kooks demonstrate
and protest in a wildlife refuge in Oregon."There's a huge
difference between sit-ins and armed occupation. These guys have assault
weapons, have threatened violence, and are intimidating the local townsfolk.As others have already noted -- if these guys were black or Muslim, the
occupation would already be over.
The reason this is not over yet is because we all feel to some degree that they
are right. We have had our right infringed for decades and we are all waiting
for someone to draw the line and say "Enough"!!!We are
pretty close to that line and although these guys are not the perfect situation
they might be close enough to rally the Patriots around them. In Ferguson they
didn't have the perfect situation but it was close enough to rally the
blacks together.As Americans we all need to figure out where the
line is going to be drawn. We are (were) a "free" people. It is in our
DNA to fight to defend our "freedom"
Armed and ready to die protesters are terrorists. Taking over property by force
is aggravated robbery. Looks like the radical right has an attempted revolution
underway. Must be a lot of people from Utah heading up to join.
A bunch of kooks taking over public property is illegal and should not be
tolerated.However, if you are going to let leftist kooks take over
forests and live in trees to prevent logging, and if you let the leftists
"occupy" public parks (even here in Utah!) then if we have equal justice
under the law, we must tolerate the right wing kooks demonstrate and protest in
a wildlife refuge in Oregon. This bunch of protesters is better
armed than the leftists, but their demonstrations were not totally non-violent
either.Best plan is for the feds to step back and let them occupy
all winter long. With no direct confrontation, there will be no escalation of
force, and no news coverage, and that is what they seek.But, we must
enforce the laws equally, not one set of rules for the left and a different set
for the right.
I do hope that their first act upon occupying the wildlife refuge office was to
notify the utility companies to change the billing. I know responsible patriots
would not dare live off the taxpayer's dime (or do they subscribe to the
"Bleed the Beast" philosophy?).Meanwhile, I am anxiously
waiting for the moderate voices of the public lands movement to repudiate the
use of armed protest and unlawful seizure of property by their more extreme
colleagues, just as everyone expects moderate Muslims to vigorously and visibly
denounce every violent act by Muslim extremists, no matter how distant.
American Lands Council, we are paging you.And what of
conservatives' much ballyhooed deference to local control, decentralized
power, and federalism? It appears that many Bend residents, the Hammonds
included, do not want the out-of-state Bundy group meddling in their local
It's difficult to think poorly of the occupiers. I mean, when people began
trashing banks and the property of their staff, the president lauded it.
You'd think people outraged at the federal government blocking off most of
their land, kicking them from it, and re-jailing people who've served their
declared sentences who are holding a location without rioting would be
permissible by comparison.
Oh look it's Vanilla Isis. Can you imagine if the Black Lives Matters folks
did this? Took over a federal building with assault weapons and refused to
leave? Can you imagine if these guys were Muslim? It would be over by now and
there would be a crater there.Their leader is reportedly named
Ammon. That is an interesting name. Where have I heard that name before?
Protesters have signs. They have chants. They sometimes block doorways or roads.
Terrorists are heavily armed. They threaten violence, and do
violence. They quote scripture to justify their actions. Sedition is
conduct and speech encouraging insurrection, including especially subversion of
a constitution. These individuals are treasonous terrorists who are
trying to start a civil war to overthrow the lawful government. Much of their
rhetoric centers around establishment of a theocratic form of government.There is no practical difference between this group and ISIS. The government really needs to take full military action, and any survivors
need to be in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists.
They're terrorists in support of welfare queen ranchers, and if this were
Ferguson the national guard would long since have been called. On the
other hand, the government has time on its' side; they're out there on
their own and away from everyone. So the "y'all Queada" can keep
waging "Yee-hawd" for a while.
So when they "return" the land to local control, does that mean the
local county or city will assume the cost of any wildfires, like the ones that
the Hammonds started (estimated to cost more than half a million dollars to
fight) and were convicted for? If I lived in that county, I'd be out there
telling the outsiders to take a hike back where they came from. The
"return" of federal lands movement never does tell the truth about where
the money to maintain those lands will come from when they "return" the
land back to the states, or the counties, or the cities. It will either have to
come from higher taxes to the local residents or it will come from selling that
now-local land to private interests, and then the lie of "returning" the
land will be laid bare--this is a land grab by extractive industry and not a
"patriotic" movement at all.