The Bundy Bunch Trial Begins

[rocketman]

Oh just wait. Once they're done in Oregon they'll be shipped to Nevada to face trial for the 2014 standoff with the BLM, where they face much more serious charges. And since they declined plea bargains, whatever sentences they receive for each case will likely be served consecutively rather than concurrently, which means the Bundy boys are likely looking at spending much of the rest of their lives in federal prison.

No, what it means is that the federal government overstepped it's legal authority to possess land in states not being used for their enumerated powers spelled out in the constitution. Those lands are to be given to the states or "disposed of" as the constitution demands if they are not being used for enumerated powers (military bases, post offices, federal buildings etc.). The constitution allows the federal government to possess lands that are in it's "territories" not within "states" except to fulfill it's enumerated powers, jurisdiction of said land is under the state not the feds...constitutionally speaking but, liberals have done a bang up job destroying the blueprint, the constitution that is, that made this country the best country on the planet. Progressive liberals have had an ongoing quest against liberty, liberals prefer tyranny of a big government leviathan instead of liberty, interestingly all progressive movements start out under the guise of "the public good" and always end up in tyranny & despotism after they seize complete control so, the end game for the liberals will be the same as those who stand against it...loss of liberty, loss of personal property, loss of individual choice, except for the elite ruling class that promised them utopia. The feds owning 30% of the land in the western states is not constitutional, and whether the Bundy bunch are right or wrong in their attempt to bring public awareness to this fact will probably not end well for them in today's post/anti-constitutional judicial environment but, that does not mean that the feds are in the right at all...then again I stand for liberty not tyranny.

 

[Ktoyou]

I believe the South should be set free

 

[rocketman]

I believe the South should be set free

Set free from???? :idunno:

 

[Ktoyou]

The terrible Yankees!

 

[rocketman]

The terrible Yankees!

:chuckle:

 

[Ktoyou]

Dam Yankees :mmph:

 

[northwye]

I don't remember name of the guy who worked for the Trump campaign who was arrested in the Bundy roundup a few months ago, or where his case is now.

Trump, as far as I know, has said little or nothing about the 2014 Bundy Ranch event or the 2016 occupation in Oregon. I don't know what his ideas are on federal ownership of lands in the Western states. He might be on the side of states rights,the Constitution and the Ranchers, even though he is a New Yorker.

Somebody posted some one liners on the South on this thread. The state of Nevada was admitted to the Union in 1864, which meant it became part of the Federal Union of states under the Lincoln Administration, subject to an explicit Enabling Act saying that the people of Nevada give up all claims to the public lands.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/01/06/good-question-why-does-the-govt-own-so-much-land-out-west/

"None of the land within the original 13 colonies was ever owned by the federal government. All national forests and parks in those areas of the country were purchased back by the U.S. government in the 20th century."

"Right now, 62% of Idaho, 65% of Utah and 85% of Nevada is owned by the federal government. "

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic................Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall.........also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits..."

Texas, after it became a state, retained ownership of its public lands and even as a state could issue land patents, like the federal government did.

But the Joint Resolution acknowledges that Texas was a Republic and was never a territory of the U.S.

The 13 original colonies were also never territories of the U.S. federal government, but in a way under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution, were somewhat like Texas as an independent nation. The doctrine that states admitted to the Union later are to be equal to the original 13 and guaranteed a republican form of government, would say that the lands within all the states, other than small amounts needed for the military, should belong to the states.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...a-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757

"Many Western states were treated unequally when they joined the Union. Unlike Eastern states, Congress reserved vast amounts of federally-owned land in the “Enabling Acts” for statehood in the West."

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...." Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

"The Property Clause authorized Congress to exercise a general police power within the territories before they were formed into states. Once states were admitted to the union, however, Congress could exercise full police powers over federal land located in a state only in accordance with the Enclave Clause, that is, only when the land was acquired with the consent of the state in question."

What does the Enclave Clause say? Article One Section Eight, The Congress Shall Have Power, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

"ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A
CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT "

"Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;"

Nevada was admitted to the Federal Union of states governed by the Lincoln administration in 1864.

Apparently the 1864 Lincoln administration Enabling Act of 1864 set a precedent for Utah.

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States;"

 

[Jose Fly]

The key videos showing the crowd gathered near the BLM military squad indicate that the crowd there was mostly unarmed. No one had long guns in that crowd close to the BLM squad, and a few had hand guns, which were never drawn.

Yeah....just ignore all the photos and such of the militias taking up sniper positions.

In this scenario who was the victim of the crimes the feds claim were committed that day? No one, on either side, fired a shot, and this is important?

FYI, it's a serious felony to point a gun at a federal officer and to prevent federal employees from carrying out their duties by use of force or intimidation.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, what it means is that the federal government overstepped it's legal authority to possess land in states not being used for their enumerated powers spelled out in the constitution.

Yeah....good luck with that nuttery.

This is from the Nevada State Constitution....

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States"

They're gonna lose in court and spend a lot of time in federal prison (unless they plea bargain).

 

[Jose Fly]

Some highlights from Friday, including lots of Facebook and other messages, some of which included Ammon Bundy saying the whole thing is "more than a protest".

 

[northwye]

Here is the same old quarreling seen so much on TOL.

"Yeah....just ignore all the photos and such of the militias taking up sniper positions.

In this scenario who was the victim of the crimes the feds claim were committed that day? No one, on either side, fired a shot, and this is important?
FYI, it's a serious felony to point a gun at a federal officer and to prevent federal employees from carrying out their duties by use of force or intimidation."

I have never seen photos or videos of numbers of militia people together near the Bundy Ranch in April of 2014 when the stand off happened. I have seen videos of militia people as individuals back several hundred yards from the BLM military squad. One guy had a gun on the opposite highway that was pointed north, or whatever direction the BLM people were. One guy is "militias taking up sniper positions?"

Again, who was a victim at the April 2014 Bundy Event? The presence of a crowd supporting Bundy made it possible for him to get his cattle back. And the crowd caused the federal military squad to back off so no one was shot that day. Calling that crowd the militia is propaganda, in spite of the fact that some of the people in the crowd were members of militias. And were all the people on horseback members of the militia?

The history of events that led up to the taking of the Bundy cattle by the BLM is complex and has to be studied to be understood. Its much easier just to decide that Bundy is a criminal and calling in help from what he called "We the people" was a criminal act.

Bundy is right about the ownership of so much land by the Federal government in several Western states being a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

But the history of the federal government maintaining ownership of land in U.S. territories when statehood was granted involved more than the "Enabling Acts," which in the case of Nevada in 1864 said the state gave up ownership of the land to the Federal Government.

Congress passed laws in the 19th century to allow Western lands to pass into the ownership of individual citizens. One of these measures was the Homestead Act of 1862 which was at first only for people who had not fought against the Lincoln government, and was limited to 160 acres granted to any US citizen after they had lived on the land for five years, made improvements and then filed for a title to the land. Later acts were passed allowing Southerners who had been in the Confederate army to file for land.

But 160 acres is not enough land for ranching of cattle, especially not in the desert. The Homestead Act was for farmers. Ranching and cowboys came out of Texas originally. There was a California rancher culture also, but it did not spread to the Western states as much as that of Texas.

The system which made it possible for ranchers to obtain grazing rights on large tracts of federal land worked for a long time. But the society and culture became more urbanized. In a sense those ranchers and cowboys in the West who have been driven off the federal land to which their ancestors had grazing rights are the cultural children of the Trail Drivers who came out of South Texas at the end of the 1861-65 war. A collectivist culture is at odds with those people, including many in the churches after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4.

 

[JPPT1974]

It is more than a protest to them. It is a way of life. For them and their families. Sad but true!

 

[Jose Fly]

I have never seen photos or videos of numbers of militia people together near the Bundy Ranch in April of 2014 when the stand off happened. I have seen videos of militia people as individuals back several hundred yards from the BLM military squad. One guy had a gun on the opposite highway that was pointed north, or whatever direction the BLM people were. One guy is "militias taking up sniper positions?"

Don't assume that just because you personally didn't see something it therefore didn't happen. I suggest you read the indictment: CLICK HERE (PDF)

Again, who was a victim at the April 2014 Bundy Event? The presence of a crowd supporting Bundy made it possible for him to get his cattle back. And the crowd caused the federal military squad to back off so no one was shot that day.

And there you go. Federal employees were prevented from carrying out their duties (per legal court order) via intimidation. This will be a pretty open and shut case.

Calling that crowd the militia is propaganda, in spite of the fact that some of the people in the crowd were members of militias.

That's hilarious. So it's propaganda when someone else calls them militia members, even though they refer to themselves as such. Uh huh.

And were all the people on horseback members of the militia?

Labels aside, the Bundy's put out a call for people to show up with guns to make a "show of force" against federal employees and prevent them from carrying out their duties.

The history of events that led up to the taking of the Bundy cattle by the BLM is complex and has to be studied to be understood. Its much easier just to decide that Bundy is a criminal and calling in help from what he called "We the people" was a criminal act.

Cliven Bundy has had his day in court, multiple times over two decades....and has lost at every turn.

Bundy is right about the ownership of so much land by the Federal government in several Western states being a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

It's funny how so many of the folks who like to yell about the Constitution so much have so little regard for the process it establishes to resolve issues like this. Clearly there's a disagreement between the federal government and the Bundy's over grazing and ownership of land. So what process does the Constitution set up to resolve the disagreement? That would be the court system, and as mentioned above, this has been through the courts for decades and the verdict has been unanimous....the Bundy's argument has no legal merit. So you would think those who espouse the Constitution so adamantly would abide by the Constitutional process.

Instead, this looks like it's less about the Constitution and more about a group of people who cannot accept outcomes that don't go their way.

 

[rocketman]

Yeah....good luck with that nuttery.

This is from the Nevada State Constitution....

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States"

They're gonna lose in court and spend a lot of time in federal prison (unless they plea bargain).

You are probably correct here, and pulling an armed standoff was not the proper way to address his grievances with the feds but, I believe in principle his complaint is valid. The federal government needs to dispose of lands not being used for enumerated powers as the constitution states... the states are the landowners not the feds per the constitution.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are probably correct here, and pulling an armed standoff was not the proper way to address his grievances with the feds but, I believe in principle his complaint is valid. The federal government needs to dispose of lands not being used for enumerated powers as the constitution states... the states are the landowners not the feds per the constitution.

That argument has been tested in court and found lacking in legal merit. So unless you have a new angle....

 

[northwye]

Christian morality is on the side of Common Law, though this may not be taught in the present day churches.

Isaiah 10: 1-2 is one scripture relevant here, in addition to Matthew 7: 12

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
2. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" This is not just talking about making sure the rights of the poor are protected, but that everyone has rights, something which was built into the Declaration of Independence and Madison's Bill of Rights.

Getting your morals and ideas from the present day mainstream media rather than from scripture is an indication that the churches have failed to teach scripture and its meanings to a multitude who are not born again.

The mainstream media has been opposed to the Western rancher's side in the conflict between the federal government and their interests. And - the mainstream media is not on the side of common law, and in fact, most reporters probably do not know what common is.

The alternative media - which can also be called the patriot or populist media - was on the side of the Bundys in the 2014 stand off while the mainstream media was all for the federal government.

And the present day threat to the Bill of Rights is found here in the Western rancher's conflict with the federal government and its ownership of the desert and mountain lands of the West.

Look at the percentage of land in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota which is now owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management - as opposed to the percentage of the lands of Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming owned by the feds. The feds own very little of the land in those states of the Great Planes most suitable for farming.

The Federal government ended up owning so much of the desert and mountain lands of the West because the people in the 19th century were not interested in acquiring that land because it was not suitable for farming and 160 acres was too small for ranchers to make a living on.

The attitude of the federal government changed toward allowing ranchers to graze on large amounts of federal land in the desert and mountain areas of the West - and by the late 20th century and early 21st the Bureau of Land Management was driving ranchers off the land. That has been shown in Nevada.

"There were over 52 ranchers in Nevada and all have been run off by the BLM except Bundy..." See: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bl...l-atrocities-concerned-wildlife-conservation/

Bundy and his sons are in jail because they were stubborn and would not give up ranching in Nevada. Bundy's call to "We the people" for help got him public attention in 2014 and some support. But the feds counter attacked after the early 2016 occupation in Oregon and threw the Bundys in jail.

 

[northwye]

"Again, who was a victim at the April 2014 Bundy Event? The presence of a crowd supporting Bundy made it possible for him to get his cattle back. And the crowd caused the federal military squad to back off so no one was shot that day. Calling that crowd the militia is propaganda, in spite of the fact that some of the people in the crowd were members of militias. And were all the people on horseback members of the militia?"

"That's hilarious. So it's propaganda when someone else calls them militia members, even though they refer to themselves as such. Uh huh".

A militia member is a member of a specific group of militia. There were militia members there near the Bondy ranch in 2014, but the crowd as a whole was made up of individuals who were not members of a militia. So the statement above is confusing and ambiguous and does harm to the cause of those who are against the ranchers.

"And were all the people on horseback members of the militia?"

"Labels aside, the Bundy's put out a call for people to show up with guns to make a "show of force" against federal employees and prevent them from carrying out their duties."

Here is where the common lawyer question can be used. "Assumes facts not in evidence?" Where is he evidence hat Bundy called for armed people? Maybe there is but it has to be shown. There were a large number of horsemen in the crowd that day, and only a few had handguns as shown in the videos.

Here is the question: Why is an argument being made on a Christian forum in support of the BLM and the Obama Administration in the conflict between the Western ranchers and the ownership of land by the federal government?

There are people on TOL who love to quarrel, and this may be the motivation for arguing against the ranchers and the Bundy family.

But if the argument is based on an ideological position, then the question to be asked is "Will the prosecution of the Bundy men and putting them in federal prison for decades prevent Western ranchers from harming American citizens?" Are the Bundys really terrorists as Harry Reid said they were in 2014? Are they such a threat to citizens that they must be locked up?

Yet, the mainstream media sees it as politically correct that the present Democratic administration is bringing in thousands of Islamic "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa, among whom are real
Jihadis, who now threaten the lives of unknown number of Americans.

 

[Jose Fly]

The mainstream media has been opposed to the Western rancher's side in the conflict between the federal government and their interests.

For the most part, the media has simply turned its cameras to the Bundy's et al., given them the mic, and let them speak for themselves. A good example is Cliven Bundy's unsolicited speech where he started off with "Let me tell you a few things about the negro..." and proceeded to talk about how blacks would be better off picking cotton.

Is it the media's fault that a lot of people concluded Cliven is a racist? Seems to me ol' Cliven was pretty eager to speak his mind.

The alternative media - which can also be called the patriot or populist media - was on the side of the Bundys in the 2014 stand off

Well duh....of course the "patriot media" is on the side of the Bundy's....that's their entire raison d'etre!

And the present day threat to the Bill of Rights is found here in the Western rancher's conflict with the federal government and its ownership of the desert and mountain lands of the West.

How so?

Bundy and his sons are in jail because they were stubborn and would not give up ranching in Nevada.

No, they're in jail because they refused to pay their grazing fees (which plenty of other ranchers pay), ignored decades of court orders to pay, and when a court authorized the seizure of their cattle (because they refused to pay the grazing fees), instigated and led an armed blockade that prevented federal employees from carrying out their duties.

Bundy's call to "We the people" for help got him public attention in 2014 and some support.

You need to read the indictment I linked to. It was much more than a call to "we the people". For example, Blaine Cooper posted on his Facebook page "where are those Oath Keepers? I say we go their [sic] armed together and help him fight....let's go there 100 strong loaded to the teeth and shoot all of them that try and take this man's cows and land".

About the same time Pete Santilli and Cliven Bundy put out a call to arms on Santilli's Youtube channel, saying "if this is not the issue right now where we stand and fight to the absolute death there is no other option...if you're in Nevada and can legally carry, get weapons out here".

Then the next day the same two said on another broadcast "The Bundy family has requested help from militia groups including Operation Mutual Aid, 3 Percenters Club, freedom fighters, and other operations to come and stand with us", and in the same broadcast Santilli stated "the BLM knows if they are outnumbered and outgunned they will stand down".

So you can see, the context of this is clear....they used intimidation and threats of violence to prevent federal employees from carrying out their duties, and the specifically called for as many armed people to show up as possible.

But the feds counter attacked after the early 2016 occupation in Oregon and threw the Bundys in jail.

What "counter attack" are you talking about?

A militia member is a member of a specific group of militia. There were militia members there near the Bondy ranch in 2014, but the crowd as a whole was made up of individuals who were not members of a militia.

Again, I'm not all that concerned what label we put on them.

Where is he evidence hat Bundy called for armed people? Maybe there is but it has to be shown.

See above.

Here is the question: Why is an argument being made on a Christian forum in support of the BLM and the Obama Administration in the conflict between the Western ranchers and the ownership of land by the federal government?

Because when all this first occurred, there were multiple, very active threads on the subject indicating that it's a high-interest subject at ToL. This thread is following up on that.

Will the prosecution of the Bundy men and putting them in federal prison for decades prevent Western ranchers from harming American citizens?

????? That doesn't make sense. If they get put in federal prison, it'll be because they were found guilty of breaking federal law.

Are the Bundys really terrorists as Harry Reid said they were in 2014? Are they such a threat to citizens that they must be locked up?

Yes, I believe them to be a very real threat. When things don't go their way, their response seems to be to gather their buddies, arm themselves to the teeth, and use threats and intimidation to get their way.

 

[Jose Fly]

Highlights from Monday, including testimony from a refuge biologist that her office was "trashed" during the occupation.

 

[northwye]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/670-days

Ryan Lenz, Southern Poverty Law Center
August 03, 2016

"The Bundys of Nevada orchestrated two armed standoffs with the government. After almost two years, they finally face justice......It started on April 12, 2014, when Cliven Bundy and his family led a group including hundreds of armed far-right militants at his Bunkerville ranch in defying a federal government effort to seize his cattle because of more than $1 million in accumulated grazing fees and fines."

"Many at the first standoff had pointed their heavy weapons directly at law enforcement officials, a serious felony, and those at the second trashed the Malheur refuge to the tune of $4 million to $9 million, according to various estimates. and those at the second trashed the Malheur refuge to the tune of $4 million to $9 million, according to various estimates."

"Many at the first standoff had pointed their heavy weapons directly at law enforcement officials, a serious felony, and those at the second trashed the Malheur refuge to the tune of $4 million to $9 million, according to various estimates."

In April of 2014 technology was available to record and stream to the Internet in real time video showing what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls the first standoff.

More from the Southern Poverty Center site linked here: "On the day it all came to a head, a number of militants were photographed on a nearby highway overpass, training their assault rifles on officials. Ryan Payne, one of the leading militants supporting Bundy, told the Intelligence Report later that he and a Bundy family member had planned the “counter sniper positions” adopted on the overpass. “They had great lines of fire,” Payne boasted in the interview, “and then, when I sent in that other team, for counter sniper positions, they [the BLM agents] were completely locked down. They had no choice but to retreat.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center presents a dialectic or direct opposition between two factions in this statement: "What was perhaps most remarkable about the whole story was the support that Bundy, a scofflaw who was essentially stealing from the American people, received from politicians. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) called the Bundy gang “patriots.” Soon-to-be GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said they were “pretty upstanding people.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) claimed they had raised a “legitimate constitutional question.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the standoff was the “tragic culmination” of President Obama’s attacks on liberty. Donald Trump said he “liked” and “respected” Bundy. Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas), who traveled to the ranch twice during the standoff, attacked the BLM’s “atrocities” in the case."

"In the wake of Finicum’s death, as with so many things in the Patriot world, conspiracy theories have proliferated. Thousands of Bundy sympathizers believe that Finicum had his hands up when he was shot, that he never went for or even had a weapon in his pocket — that his killing was simply a government assassination. But an FBI surveillance video seemed to clearly prove that that was not the case."

Several videos showing the stand off in April of 2014 are on the Internet. Remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center says that "On the day it all came to a head, a number of militants were photographed on a nearby highway overpass, training their assault rifles on officials."

Where are the number of militants on the nearby highway overpass training assault rifles on officials in he videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2_-yey1Xk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tVq7ymI_4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ADdToI9Akw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhNFqaLioD4

Above, Interview with the "Bundy Sniper" at the time of the stand off. He is on the highway bridge maybe 200 yards away from the BLM military squad. According to the Bundy Sniper in another interview - http://thebigsmoke.com/2016/02/22/interview-with-eric-parker-part-i-the-bundy-sniper/ - the BLM military squad had snipers in position on the hill above the area where the BLM vehicles were parked.

The videos released by the FBI on the shooting of Levoy Fenicom are more ambiguous than claimed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

FBI video released of shooting of Levoy Fenicom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVRogOLwjiY

Video above records sounds of Oregon State Police and/or FBI agents shooting at Fenicom's vehicle. They shot into the vehicle for some minutes after killing Fenicom. Ryan Bundy and two women survived inside the vehicle by staying down low.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/watch_weve_slowed_down_the_vid.html

You have to watch this short video a few times to make any sense out of it. When Fenicom comes out of his vehicle he has his arms out on both sides of his head. Suddenly a figure appears out of the forest toward Fenicom. There is a second figure on the other side of Fenicom. When the first figure appears out of the forest Fenicom turns.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263332/worst-smear-site-america-matthew-vadum

"The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center relentlessly promotes the Big Lie, wildly popular in the media, that conservative Americans are racists and the real threat to the nation rather than Islamic terrorists.

The group claims the principal enemies of the American people are presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, conservatives like David Horowitz, and the Tea Party movement.
The SPLC is a shamelessly hypocritical leftist attack machine funded by radical speculator George Soros and a rogue’s gallery of rich people and established philanthropies that want to fundamentally transform America"

"The Center characterizes all opposition to immigration and open borders as symptomatic of hate and all political expression of those views to be hate speech. In other words, if you disagree with founder Morris Dees and his minions you are evil and worthy of public condemnation. It may take some intellectual toughness to insist that the nation has the right to decide who may or may not cross its borders, but it's not hate.".

.