Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Patricia Bartch

2952
9394 Posts
9394
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
1/4/2016 7:54:24 PM
Many people in Oregon don't call them Patriots. They are a menace, violent and should not be in our state.

Pat
I'm Your AVON LADY: http://youravon.com/pbartch *Ask me how to get FREE Shipping.
+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
1/5/2016 10:09:19 AM

I see.




"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
1/5/2016 10:43:12 AM
Montel Williams Calls For "Shoot To Kill" In Oregon Showdown; Militiamen Respond They Are "Ready To Fight"

Tyler Durden's picture

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.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
1/5/2016 1:52:15 PM

White House Will Require Background Checks at Gun Shows and Online

Jan 4, 2016, 6:32 PM ET

WATCH President Obama to Address Nation About His Gun Control Plans

The White House announced new executive actions on gun control Monday, including a requirement for those "in the business of selling firearms" -- including online or at gun shows -- to register as a licensed gun dealer.

As a result of the move, the background checks would be required for individuals purchasing firearms in those ways. There is currently no licensing requirement for private sellers online or at gun shows, and only licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks on individuals.

"Just because you shop for guns with your mouse and not your feet doesn't mean you should be able to avoid background checks," White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett said in a conference call Monday.

The new proposal aims to narrow the so-called gun show loophole and circumvents Congress, which has previously voted against initiatives to expand background checks. The new executive action clarifies the current rules by defining who qualifies as a gun dealer, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch was unable to provide an estimate for how many sellers would be impacted or how many additional background checks will now be conducted.

In addition to requiring background checks at gun shows and online, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is finalizing a rule that will require individuals attempting to purchase firearms through a trust or corporation to undergo background checks. The FBI will also overhaul its background check system and add more than 230 additional examiners to process these background checks.

In addition, the White House is working to bolster mental health treatment by proposing a $500 million to increase access to mental health care, which will need Congressional approval, and wants to increase the use of mental health information in conducting background checks.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has also written a letter asking states to update their criminal record files, which are used in background checks, to include information on people who are disqualified from purchasing weapons due to mental illness and domestic abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services is also finalizing a new rule that would remove legal barriers which prevent people from sharing information about individuals who have mental health issues that would prohibit them from buying weapons.

After a months-long review process conducted by the administration, the president is set to formally announce the executive actions Tuesday. He’ll continue his gun control push on Thursday when he participates in a live CNN town hall discussing the plans.

"These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they’re also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people including gun owners support and believe in,” the president said after meeting withAttorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and other law enforcement officials earlier in the day. He added the proposals are also “entirely consistent with theSecond Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms.”

“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country. It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting. It’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal,” he said. “It will potentially save lives in this country and spare families the pain and the extraordinary loss that they’ve suffered as a consequence of a firearm being in the hands of wrong people.”

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
1/5/2016 2:08:58 PM

Obama blamed for failing to prevent Shiite cleric’s death

Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent
January 4, 2016

Mohammed al-Nimr, brother of the Shiite cleric executed by the Saudis. (Photo: AFP)

The brother of a prominent Shiite cleric whose execution has roiled the Mideast and set off worldwide protests is blaming President Obama for failing to use his influence with the Saudi government to prevent his death.

“I am sorry to say that the American government did not offer to make any efforts on this, although they knew the danger of this action and the repercussions,” Mohammed Al-Nimr said about the weekend execution of his brother, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, in an interview with Yahoo News.

“We asked very clearly for the American president to intervene as a friend of Saudi Arabia — and the Americans did not intervene,” he added.

While he personally asked officials at the U.S. consulate in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, to urge the president to speak out forcefully against his brother’s death sentence, “the Americans did not issue such a statement,” al-Nimr said in a telephone interview from Awamya in eastern Saudi Arabia. “They limited themselves to general statements from the State Department.”

The question of how forcefully the Obama administration raised the treatment of Sheik al-Nimr with the Saudi government — and whether it was caught flat-footed by the intense response in the region — got new attention Monday, a day after protestors stormed the Saudi Embassy in Tehran over the execution, and Saudi Arabia cut off relations with Iran in response. Iran is the leading Shiite power and views itself as the protector of Shiite interests in the Mideast. The issue also made its way to the presidential campaign trail where Hillary Clinton — whose former top legislative aide at the State Department is now a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia — mildly criticized the execution of al-Nimr, one of 47 prisoners who were put to death, mostly by beheading, by the Saudis over the weekend.

“Clearly, this raises serious questions that we have to raise directly with the Saudi government,” Clinton said at a campaign event in New Hampshire.

The comments by Mohammed al-Nimr, himself a Shiite political dissident as well as a businessman, had added poignancy because his son, Ali al-Nimr, is also facing a Saudi death sentence.

Arrested by Saudi authorities in 2011 when he was 17 for participating in street protests during the Arab Spring, Ali al-Nimr was sentenced to be executed — with his body to be crucified following his death — last September, an action that has been widely condemned by human rights groups. State Department spokesman John Kirby said at the time that the U.S. government was “deeply concerned by the case of Ali al-Nimr,” noting that he was then a juvenile and that a confession he made in a Saudi jail was reportedly made “under duress.”

SLIDESHOW – Saudi embassy damaged in Tehran

Followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr hold posters of Sheik Nimr al-Nimr in Baghdad on Monday, Jan. 4. (Photo: Khalid Mohammed/AP)

Mohammed al-Nimr said that, in the aftermath of his brother’s execution, he is now increasingly concerned that his son will also be put to death.

“Our fears were great, but now our fears are greater,” he said. “We don’t trust promises anymore. This issue needs political energy from the friends of Saudi Arabia. I am certain that if somebody like Obama calls for the release of Ali al-Nimr, Ali would be set free.”

Asked for comment about Mohammed al-Nimr’s statements, including his criticism that the president did not use his influence with the Saudis to prevent his brother’s death, a White House spokesman declined comment. However, a senior administration official emailed Yahoo News: “We have spoken to the Saudi government about the cases of Nimr al-Nimr and Ali al-Nimr, as well as other Shia protesters who were sentenced to death, and asked the Saudi government to ensure fair trial and appeal guarantees and transparent judicial proceedings in all cases.”

At a State Department press briefing on Monday, chief spokesman Kirby made a similar point, telling reporters “We’ve been very clear about our concerns about the legal process in Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we have talked to Saudi officials about before. We all continue to do so.”

But in recent weeks, Obama administration officials have privately acknowledged that the Saudi kingdom’s mass executions and other human rights abuses, including reported widespread civilian casualties from its military intervention in Yemen, raise difficult diplomatic issues at a time the U.S. government is attempting to encourage the Saudis to take a more active part in the campaign against the Islamic State. “Sometimes, it’s better to raise these issues privately,” one official said last month when asked about the impending death sentence of Ali al-Nimr.

But the intensity of the response in the Shiite world to Nimr al-Nimr’s death, and the inflamed tensions with Iran over the issue, appears to have caught the administration off-guard. “They were blindsided,” said Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs and a frequent critic of the Saudi human rights record. “This is a huge problem that will hurt the United States. I think they failed to understand that this is an issue that is not going to go away.”

Shiite protesters burn an effigy of Saudi Arabia’s King Salman in Baghdad on Monday. (Photo: Khalid Mohammed/AP)

Mohammed al-Nimr said he had been hopeful that Saudi King Salman would not sign the writ of execution for his brother because of Nimr al-Nimr’s stature as a widely respected Shiite cleric who had publicly disavowed violence even as he protested the Saudi government. The fact that the king did so — and equated his actions with al-Qaida terrorists — was “shocking,” he said.

His brother’s case “was a political problem, it was not a security problem,” said al-Nimr. Many of the others executed over the weekend were in fact al-Qaida terrorists, he said. “Their hands were tainted with blood and they deserved the punishment,” he said. But “this mixing of the names together — the whole word noticed this.”

Mohammed al-Nimr said that the execution of his brother is emblematic of more hard-edged, aggressive Saudi policies under King Salman. He cited stepped up repression against the country’s Shiite minority and the military intervention against Iranian-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen. In the past, Saudi policy was “much more pragmatic,” he said, blaming the shift on “inexperienced, young advisers” to the king — an apparent reference to 30-year-old Mohammed bin Salman, King Salman’s son, the deputy crown prince and minister of defense.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!