A U.S. Navy Seal veteran named Dom Raso has made it his personal mission to call Hillary Clinton out for the lie she told to an audience “in order to make herself appear as courageous as American soldiers.” The lie he is referring to is what Clinton said about dodging enemy fire in Bosnia.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton once said. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicle to get to our base. It was a moment of great pride for me.”
Video footage proves Clinton was greeted warmly with handshakes that day, as Raso points out. She later attempted to blame her lie on human error calling her “mistake” a “misstatement.”
“In my 12-year military career, I never heard an excuse like that from my leadership,” Raso told reporters. “It’s impossible to even imagine that happening.”
“Only someone completely arrogant, ignorant and disrespectful of what happens in war could say something like that,” he concluded. “Hillary was willing to lie in order to take advantage of that feeling of gratitude and awe Americans have for those who serve.”
By Christian Toto | January 16, 2016 | 10:09 AM EST
You can’t please everybody, especially hard-left film critics who don’t cotton to heroism draped in the American flag. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi isn’t getting pummeled by critics in the grand Michael Bay fashion. It’s still angering critics who treat any film with masculine heroes fighting for their fellow man as cliches, cartoons or worse.
Take Jordan Hoffman’s scorched earth review at The Guardian. He calls 13 Hours a “bizarre mix of war pornography and dour isolationist posturing.” “It stars a half dozen interchangeable bearded, buff men with names like Boon, Tig, Rone, Bub and Oz.” Does it matter that the men who fought so valiantly that day were actually named Boon, Tig, Rone, Bub and Oz? The reviewer also whines about the film’s timing, even as we’ve seen pop culture outlets drop entertainment bomb after bomb on the GOP to score points. “Don’t tell me this movie isn’t political. Michael Bay’s Benghazi bonanza is timed for release just before the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. It’ll hit DVD in time for the general election.”
The LA Weekly review is even more hysterical. Critic Amy Nicholson starts with this question that comes to mind when we hear the word “Benghazi.” “Wait, what happened? And why are we mad?” We’re mad because Hillary Clinton blamed the coordinated terrorist attack on a YouTube video to the families of the dead and the media rolled over rather than speak truth to power. We’re seething because some of those who died that day might still be alive if help could have reached them in time. Nicholson is furious … because the men in the movie are men. “13 Hours is a love letter to our men in uniform. I can’t say men and women, because these films are always about the manliest of men, guys who lift weights, drink Budweiser and crack jokes like, “You lose your tampon?”” Of course, these men also mourn for lost time with their loved ones, worry about their kids being raised by a new father and melt as they Skype with their children. That nuance escaped her attention.
She then complains that the film doesn’t mourn for the Libyans killed during the transition from dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s reign. Really? She’s dinging the film for not showing extended sequences of funerals for random victims? When you’re in full nit-pick mode there’s nothing to stop you. She then bolsters her screed by quoting from another hallowed film critic: Omar Gawaari. Who’s that? Libya’s Culture and Information Minister, that’s who. The Houston Press’s review recoils at the notion that these soldiers are heroes. “[Michael Bay is] the perfect filmmaker to glamorize the actions of a shadow organization created to provide off-book protection services to America’s skunk works.”
Here’s betting the Americans who owe their lives to Oz, Tig and co. would categorize them as heroes in a heartbeat.
The Atlantic offered a more sober 13 Hours takedown,arguing that the material in question shouldn’t have been addressed three years after the fact. “People cried “too soon” at the idea of a Benghazi movie coming out just a few years after the attacks, and they were right to, not just for reasons of sensitivity.” Hollywood was making one anti-Iraq war flop after the next during the Iraq War.
Wonder if The Atlantic wrung its hands over that timing.
Newsday’s Rafer Guzman clearly saw the first half of 13 Hours but may have dozed off during the second. “13 Hours doesn’t just lionize its American soldiers, it oozes disdain for everyone else. That includes puffed-up bureaucrats, prissy British guys, Yale-educated bozos in Washington and women who don’t know their place.” He’s right … and wrong. The movie does pile on at times, but once the fighting starts even the characters (both American and Libyan) who could be dismissed as know-nothings are given a sense of dignity and honor that’s both unexpected and refreshing. And one of the “women” who doesn’t know her place displays a bravery most men wouldn’t show in the film’s later sequences.
What’s the takeaway with the response to 13 Hours? Any movie depicting heroic military types risking their lives against people from a foreign country, no matter the scenario or context, will be rhetorically trampled on by select film critics.
Freedomphobia Written by Vincent Lauria Monday, 03 October 2011 03:32
Let “Freedomphobia” be the counter-word of “Islamophobia” in our struggle against Islamists to preserve our freedom….
I have coined the word “Freedomphobia” (adj) to mean the following:
1) A fear of all forms of freedom
2) An extreme fear of a free society or civilization.
Freedomphobiac (n), A group or culture that rejects freedom of choice, free speech, freethinking and most of all freewill.
Aspiration for freedom is integral to human instincts and fundamental to living a fruitful and happy life. So, I feel that it is time for all freedom-loving people of worldwide to stand up for their rights, and push back those, who want to take freedom away from us.
It is not enough to just say we believe in freedom and it’s our right, but it’s also time to band together and push back the enemies of freedom. It’s time to start using this word to label the opponents of freedom, and drive the point back to those, who seek to destroy our very existence. It is important psychology to feel good about ourselves and our overall well being.
We cannot let Islamists to continue bashing us with their mind-game and irrational and hateful labels such as “Islamophobia”, which they have coined to mean a hatred or fear of Muslims – a fear of Muslim culture. This word has been around since the 1980s, but has been used extensively after the 9-11 terror attacks against critics of the Islamic religion.
Islamists use this word to bash us relentlessly anytime someone speaks up about Islamic irrationality or Muslim excesses or violence. It is their “defence word” to shield the weaknesses or atrocious aspects of Islam as well as to shield their hideous crimes. “Islamophobia” has become their “oppressed victim” or “oppressed race” card to make us feel guilty and ashamed of ourselves in order to force us to turn a blind eye to irrational beliefs and hideous actions.
This psychological “war of words” of Muslims must be turned around.
There comes in the word “Freedomphobia”, because it smacks them right back in their face. What is the one thing that evil hates most? Being exposed for what it does to others. A lot of people already know that when Islamists in the past took over a country, they destroyed the churches, religions, culture, and, most of all, the people.
I cannot think of any other religion or culture that does this in modern times.
What is the great fear of these people that they need to destroy every religion, culture and freedoms that people have and enjoy around the world?
This act of destruction on such a grand scale has to be met with and confronted head on.
The Freedomphobiacs act as if they have narrow minds of the ancient Troglodytes. If they don’t like, understand, or know new concepts, they destroy them.
This is the act of Freedomphobiacs worldwide. So, let us not back down or sit back as our freedom and way of life face assaults from Islamic extremists and start fighting back with our heart-n-soul, and, most importantly, our mind.
Ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote: “Know your enemy, know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster… ” So, there are three things that we all can do to start knowing our enemy, and they are: 1) READ, 2) READ, & 3) READ – read about their religion, their history.
The more we know about them the harder it will become for them to fool us and take away our freedom. Remember that most Freedomphobiacs are uneducated, and depend on their Imams and mullahs to tell them what the Quran says. So let us remember this new word “Freedomphobia”, which, I hope, will become part of the English language.
Let us spread it far and wide.
The dictionaries have to hear a word twenty five times in usage or conversations for it to be added to the English language.
I hope to write more on the Freedomphobiacs in the future in order to keep this word alive and moving around the world.
Let’s hope this word will contribute to our struggle for preserving our freedom, under attack from people of the Islamic faith and culture.
“It’s time for a reality check about the real state of the union.”
Sean offered his own State of the Union address tonight. Whose speech do you think was more accurate: Hannity’s or President Obama’s?
Watch see and read the photos, videos, opinions, suggestions and some wish lists….
Watch, read and make your own decision The Islam Issue. There is a shift from old partners and allies like Israel, to new one like Iran.
The Obama administration demonstrates strong favoritism to Islam and Muslims.
Barack Hussein Obama repeatedly declares his love of Islam and talk about Islam with passion which does not exist when he talks about his own self claimed religion, Christianity.
Barack Hussein Obama refuses to mention the words Islam or Muslims when talking about terror attacks committed by Muslims.
His “halfhearted” campaign against ISIS left the load to Vladimir Putin, who now leads the war against ISIS
His acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremely dangerous Muslim Organizations is unacceptable to most Americans
His choice of Muslims advisors, and placing same in sensitive national security positions is dangerous to say the least
Lack of Pride in America He shows no pride in our Nation History and consider America past to be imperialistic, and abusive to the rest of the world, something we Americans have to denounce and apology for.
He resents the Idea of Exceptional America and aim to transform our nation to comply with the European type socialistic countries.
Worst relationships with Police Departments and the USA Military. He sided with “Black Life Matter” type of movements in conflicts with various Police Departments.
He has zero military experience, yet, he disregards advice given by top Military and Intelligent Personal.
He caused a massive resignation wave of experienced Military leaders that refuses to accept his way of handling military and security issues.
Abuse of power and disregard to the Constitution
He has no respect to The Constitution of the United State and wage a war on the Second Amendment trying to abolish it piece by piece.
So let ask again; Why the Congress does not Impeach Barack Hussein Obama?
And now for a “wish List”
Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the executive branch to increase its power and destroy the balance of powers between the three branches of government that is established by the Constitution of the United States.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) Shortly after being sworn in for his first term as President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama began creating new departments and appointing Czars to oversee these departments. These Czars were never submitted to the United States Senate for approval as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. In addition, these Czars and the Departments have budgets that are not subject to being controlled by Congress as provided for by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. He also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and these appointments were struck down by the Supreme Court.
(2) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his oath of office has repeatedly ignored this Constitutional mandate by refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration, defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and refusing to enforce Federal voting laws.
(3) Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the U.S. government and sets forth the powers of the Senate and House of Representatives to make laws. These powers are exclusive and the Constitution does not grant the President the power to either make laws or amend them on his own. Barack Hussein Obama has ignored these provisions and made or changed laws by either issuing unconstitutional executive orders or instructing governmental departments to take illegal and unconstitutional actions. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. Ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to implement portions of the Cap & Trade bill that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate.
B. Ordering implementation of portions of the “Dream Act” that failed to pass in Congress.
C. Orchestrating a government takeover of a major part of the automobile industry in 2009.
D. Ordering a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas exploration and production without approval of Congress.
E. Signing an Executive Order on March 16, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch extraordinary powers to control and allocate resources such as food, water, energy and health care resources etc. in the interest of vaguely defined national defense issues. It would amount to a complete government takeover of the U.S. economy.
F. Signing an Executive Order on July 6, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch the power to control all methods of communications in the United States based on a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
G. Signing an Executive Order on January 6, 2013 that contained 23 actions designed to limit the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
H. Amending portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other laws passed by Congress without Congressional approval as required by Article 1 of the Constitution.
I. Issuing Executive orders in January 2014 amending the HIPPA law to allow the turning over of confidential medical records to Federal agencies if there is any information to be used to add individuals to the NICS list to prohibit them from purchasing firearms.
J. Having the EPA impose regulations on the coal industry that will force many utility companies and coal mines out of business. This will cost the U.S. economy thousands of jobs and dramatically increase the cost of energy to the public. This is being done without Congressional approval.
K. Hindering the ability of the U.S. Border Patrol Agency to not only stop illegal immigration, but to stop human and drug trafficking.
L. Removing the work requirement from welfare reform legislation without Congressional approval.
Article II
(1) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that from time to time the President “shall give to Congress information on the State of the Union….” Implicit in this is an obligation for the President to be truthful with the Congress and the American people. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the requirements of the Constitution by willfully withholding information on important issues or actively taken part in misleading the Congress and the American people. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. Using Executive privilege to block Congress from getting documents relating to the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious and the death of U.S. Border Patrol Brian Terry.
B. Had members of his administration provide false information about the act of terrorism committed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and refusing to allow the State Department and other federal agencies to cooperate in the Congressional investigation.
C. Falsely labeled the mass murder of American soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas as “workplace violence” instead of the act of Islamic terrorism it was.
D. Falsely labeling the IRS targeting of conservative and Christian groups as a “phony” scandal and refusing to order an active pursuit of the investigation into who was ultimately responsible.
E. Refusing to order an independent investigation of the actions of Eric Holder and the DOJ in targeting the phone records of members of the news media.
F. Telling the American people on a television show that the NSA was not prying into the emails and phone calls of Americans when the facts prove otherwise.
(2) The oath of office of the President of the United States requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This obviously includes what may be the most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office by seeking to limit both the individual rights and the rights of the States guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. Having the Department of Health and Human Services order religious institutions and businesses owned by religious families to provide their employees free contraception and other services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. This is being done under the auspices of the Affordable Health Care Act and violates the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment.
B. Having the military place restrictions on the religious freedom of Chaplains and other members of the military in order to favor gay rights advocates and atheists in violation of the First Amendment.
C. Having the military place restrictions on the freedom of speech of members of the military and the civilian employees of the DOD in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.
D. Using Executive orders and government agency actions to limit Second Amendment rights. This includes actions by the Veterans Administration to disarm American veterans without due process as required by the Fifth Amendment.
E. Having the National Security Agency intercept and monitor the private communications of millions of Americans without a court order and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
F. Joining with foreign governments in lawsuits against sovereign U.S. states to prohibit them from enforcing immigration laws. This is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
G. Filing suits under the Voting Rights Act against sovereign U.S. states to prevent them from enforcing Voter ID laws despite rulings by the Supreme Court upholding these laws. This is another violation of the Tenth Amendment and the balance of powers.
H. Having the IRS propose new regulations on conservative 501 (C ) (4) organizations to limit their freedom of speech and political activities during election cycles in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I. Having the FCC prepare new rules on internet neutrality in violation of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down such regulations.
J. Having the FCC institute a plan to place agents in newsrooms of radio and television stations as well as print media to monitor whether they are providing the “proper” news content to the public, a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
K. Having the Secretary of State sign the U.N. Small Arms Treaty despite the opposition of a majority of the U.S. Senate and with full awareness that the implementation of the treaty would violate the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.
(3) Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such is responsible for using them in a manner that best serves the national security of the United States and protects our soldiers from unnecessary risks and harm. Barack Hussein Obama has violated his oath of office in this regard. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. In the name of “political correctness,” he imposed unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in combat causing them to lose offensive and defensive capabilities and putting them in danger. Many American service personnel have been killed or wounded as a result of this policy.
B. Releasing the identity of American military personnel and units engaged in dangerous and secret operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seal team 6.
C. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Yet, without consulting Congress President Obama ordered the American military into action in Libya.
D. Having the Attorney General tell Secretaries of State that they do not have to comply with the Federal law requiring states to timely send absentee ballots to military personnel.
Article III
(1) Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the President as Commander in Chief of the United States Military. This requires him to use his power and authority to oversee the proper use of the military to properly protect and defend the people and territory of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is further responsible for using the U.S. military in a manner that is effective and protects members of the military and takes proper care of veterans.
The President takes an oath of office that encompasses these duties. Barack Hussein Obama has consistently violated these duties and violated his oath. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. Imposing Rules of Engagement on the active military in war zones that have unnecessarily endangered the lives of American soldiers.
B. Allowed the leaking of classified information about U.S. military operations to the media in order to enhance his political image. Such leaks place the lives of U.S. soldiers in danger.
C. Despite being informed in 2009 of problems in the Veterans Administration involving treatment of veterans, took no action improve the situation, but instead ordered the VA to spend a major part of its budget on green energy projects at VA facilities instead on veteran care.
D. Endangered the lives of members of the American military and American civilians by negotiating with terrorists to trade five high level Taliban leaders in exchange for an American soldier who deserted his post and his fellow soldiers. In addition, he did the foregoing action in violation of Federal law since he did not provide the legally required thirty day notice to members of Congress of his intent to release prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.
E. Continues to refuse to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress in violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, and further has used illegal and unconstitutional Executive orders to grant amnesty or de-facto amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the United States.
F. Has deliberately destroyed the morale and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by interfering with their attempts to fulfill their oath of office and enforce laws legally passed by the U.S. Congress.
G. By his deliberate actions encouraged parents of thousands of children in Central America to send their children, often unaccompanied by adults, across the U.S. border and then asking for billions of taxpayer dollars to care for these children.
H. Ordered the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security to place thousands of these children on buses or planes and dumping them in communities around the country; often without any prior notifications to the local elected officials in these communities.
I. Allowed the TSA to let these children, as well as possible teenage gang members and unidentified to fly in U.S. Airlines at taxpayer expense without proper identification required by Federal law.
J. Has refused to respond to lawful requests by Governors of the southern Border States to close the Southern border to any further illegal immigration and has created a severe financial crisis for Border States and other states in order to advance his own political agenda.
K. Has ordered the release of thousands of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to be released and stay in the country after they have served their sentences. This violates the requirements of Federal law that such people be immediately deported.
L. Ordered the immediate release of approximately 68,000 other criminals in Federal prisons that have been convicted of drug offenses. These actions endanger the lives and property of honest and law abiding American citizens that the President is legally and constitutionally required to protect.
M. Has authorized the IRS, HHS, BATF, DHS, and EPA to propose new regulations not authorized by Congress that will adversely affect the rights of Americans protected by the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the Second Amendment.
This is the complete second Amendment.
Can someone explain to me what right the Federal Government, State, Business or anyone else have to infringe on the Second Amendment by:
Imposing restrictions on the way one is allowed to carry Arms – demanding concealing handguns.
Any restrictions on what type of Arms one can bear.
Any restrictions on magazine capacity.
Any restrictions where one can’t bear Arms.
The second Amendment is here to Protect the governed (the Individuals) FROM the governs (the government politicians)
As written in the Federalist
“… you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,”
As said by Daniel Webster:
“…I am committed against every thing which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy [the Constitution]…, and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself”
“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions… There are men, in all ages… who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters… They think there need to be but little restraint upon themselves… The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts…”
The governs (the government politicians) fears, as they should, the Second Amendment and will try to destroy it piece by piece
It is up to the governed (the Individuals) to fight the governs (the government politicians) and protect the Second Amendment
Unless the governed (the Individuals) arewilling and ready to do battle, if necessary, with the governs (the government politicians) they are doomed to tyranny and the loss of ALL of their rights
There is a war going on between the Federal Government Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and some Farmers, Miners and other individuals all over the USA
One of the most publicize conflicts is between the BLM and the Bundy family.
This war is about Land and Control and you should judge for yourself:
Militia, Along With Family of, Take Over Federal Land at National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon
By EMILYSHAPIRO
NEAL KARLINSKY
Jan 3, 2016, 7:53 PM ET
A group of militia members, along with some members of the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, are occupying a building on federal land at an Oregon national wildlife refuge.
The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires, but there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia.
The Rally and Occupation
The protest began Saturday as a rally in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday for arson. The Hammond brothers left eastern Oregon early Sunday to report to Terminal Island in San Pedro, California, to serve their prison sentences.
The two men were convicted of setting fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. “Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze.”
After the rally for the Hammonds on Saturday, militia, along with sons of Cliven Bundy — who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights in Nevada in 2014 — initiated the occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon claims the federally owned wildlife refuge in rural, eastern Oregon belongs to the people, and that they are “making a hard stand against … overreach.”
He said the government’s “taking of people’s land and resources” is leaving people in poverty, adding that the wildlife refuge “has been a tool in doing that.”
Ryan Bundy and another of Ammon Bundy’s brothers are also among the occupiers, according to The Associated Press.
Ammon Bundy called the earlier rally successful, but said of the Wildlife Refuge standoff, “If we do not make a hard stand, we will be in a position where we won’t be able to as a people.”
He also asked for militia members to come help him.
Ammon Bundy said today that the group’s actions are not aggressive and there is no damage or criminal activity.
He said the group’s goal is to help local workers, including ranchers, miners and hunters, benefit from the land. The group wants to assert that the federal government does not have right to own or control land inside the state, Ammon Bundy said.
“We’re prepared to be out here for as long as we need to be,” he said in an 8-minute long Facebook video posted early this morning.
The caption for the video says: “The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.”
The group does not have plans to occupy any other federal buildings, Ammon Bundy said today.
The refuge is federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was closed for the holiday weekend.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told ABC News: “The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management have received reports that an unknown number of individuals have broken into the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.”
The refuge headquarters was empty at the time of the seizure, Harney County, Oregon, Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said.
“We are currently working jointly with several organizations to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe and this issue is resolved as quickly and peaceful as possible,” he said, adding that no other areas in Harney County are in “immediate danger.”
“We ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,” Ward said. “We also ask that if anyone sees any of these individuals in the area to please contact law enforcement and do not confront the individuals themselves.”
Harney County School District No. 3 schools will be closed this week, Superintendent Dr. Marilyn L. McBride told ABC News.
“Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern,” McBride said.
Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Portland, told ABC News the FBI is aware of the situation but is not making any further comments.
The Cliven Bundy Incident
Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of a large Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, came into the spotlight in April 2014, when the federal government started impounding his 900 head of cattle, following a 20-year battle over cattle-grazing on federal land.
The government said Bundy owed $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees and penalties for continuing to let his cattle roam free on land near Bunkerville, Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, even after the government established the area as a protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise in 1993 and slashed Bundy’s cattle allotment.
The situation escalated the week of April 5, 2014, as hundreds of supporters from around the country rallied on Bundy’s property to protest the federal cattle round-up. The dispute reignited debate over the Bureau of Land Management practices, especially in Nevada, where federal agencies control 85 percent of the land.
The confrontation turned ominous as armed militia gathered on his cattle and melon farm, aiming semi-automatic weapons at armed BLM officials from a bridge overpass. Some protesters were tasered by authorities and others arrested and later released, including one of Bundy’s 14 adult children.
On April 12, 2014, the BLM ended the stand-off, returned Bundy’s confiscated cattle and left the land citing safety concerns.
What To Know About the Militia Movement
Today’s occupation is essentially “the spill over from the Bundy stand-off” in Nevada, according to Heidi Beirich, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“What we’re really seeing is a continuation of what started in April 2014, of militia folks and anti-government folks deciding that they’re not going to accept federal authorities over federal lands,” Beirich told ABC News today.
“At the Bundy ranch, the federal government stood down. They had absolute cause to take Bundy’s cattle. The Bundys were able — at the point of a gun — to drive the federal government and its representatives … off the land,” she said.
“Bundy is still a free man. He hasn’t paid his money, and it’s emboldened the entire movement to basically think, ‘We don’t have to follow the rules,'” Beirich said, explaining that that is what’s happening now in Oregon.
The Bundy incident in 2014, as well as another incident in Oregon last year, “enlivened” the militias, she said, because they made them feel successful.
“They made the federal government back down from enforcing the law,” she said. “And that has emboldened all these people, giving life to the movement.”
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins ‘Range War’ With Feds By LIZFIELDS April 12, 2014
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.
Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”
The federal government had countered that Bundy “owes the American people in excess of $1 million ” in unpaid grazing fees and “refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so.”
However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.
“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.
The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.
“It’s not about cows, it’s about freedom,” Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.
“People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power,” Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.
By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy’s property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.
A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.
“We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard,” said Cliven Bundy’s sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.
But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.
As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.
Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy’s family and supporters say the government’s actions are threatening ranchers’ freedoms.
“It’s about the freedom of America,” said another of Bundy’s sisters, Margaret Houston. “We have to stand up and fight.”
ABC News’ Alan Farnham contributed to this report.
Nevada Rancher Threatens ‘Range War’ Against Feds By ALAN FARNHAM April 7, 2014
A Nevada rancher’s threat to wage a “range war” with the federal Bureau of Land Management precipitated a standoff today between supporters of the embattled rancher, Cliven Bundy, and law enforcement officials.
Bundy posted a statement on the Bundy Ranch website on Sunday night saying: “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.”
He invited supporters to show up this morning on his property, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near Bunkerville, just west of the Utah state line.
Bundy’s beef with federal land management officials dates back to 1993, according to federal officials, when Bundy’s allotment for grazing his cattle on public land was modified to include protections for the desert tortoise. Bundy, who told the Associated Press his family has been ranching this part of Nevada since the 1870s, did not accept the modified terms, and continued to let his cattle graze anyway.
After legal maneuverings on both sides, a Nevada district court judge in 2013 permanently enjoined Bundy’s cattle (some 900, by the government’s count) from grazing on public property. The judge reiterated that decision in 2013 and authorized the U.S. government to impound the cattle.
The first phase of that impoundment started Saturday, with 58 head of cattle being removed from BLM land, federal officials said in an online statement. As of Monday afternoon, that number had risen to 134, BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon told ABC News. Removing the rest of the trespassing cattle should take another 21 to 30 days, she said.
Bundy disputes the federal government’s authority to take such action. The Nevada Sheriff’s Office, he contends, is the only entity empowered to impound his cattle. The Bundy Ranch website calls the federal agents “cattle thieves.”
Cattle thieves, says the website, “Should be hung!” It urges supporters to “hang them with words of disapproval.”
The station quoted him as saying, “They are the same agents who killed that kid over at Red Rocks,” referring to the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man by two BLM rangers on Feb. 14, near Red Rock Canyon, outside Las Vegas.
Asked by ABC News about that shooting, Cannon said the incident was still under investigation, and that BLM could not comment until the investigation was completed.
Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy, reached by ABC News, said the family and their supporters intended to hold a rally today “to show that we are not standing alone. People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power.”
By noon today Nevada time, about 300 supporters had assembled, a Bundy spokesman, Dwayne Magoon, told ABC News. So, too, he said, had local and federal law enforcement officers. He described the federal agents as being heavily armed. He said that on his way driving to the Bundy ranch, he counted 12 law enforcement vehicles in the course of six miles.
The BLM has described Bundy’s use of the phrase “range war” inflammatory. “We support everyone’s right to exercise their freedom of expression,” Cannon said. But when threats are made, she said, federal authorities have an obligation to ensure safety. She estimated the number of Bundy supporters as being closer to 100.
In a teleconference with reporters today, Cannon and a spokesperson for the National Park Service were told that Bundy supporters had reported seeing snipers present near the Ranch. Asked whether snipers indeed were on the scene, they said that law enforcement was in place, as needed, and that they could not comment more specifically.
Magoon described the situation at the Ranch as “very peaceful” — for now. The protesters, he said, were busy erecting a big sign saying “We, The People” and displaying the flags of Mesquite County, Nev., and the U.S.
On the ranch website, Bundy says his son had been arrested. That was confirmed today by BLM, which said in a published statement that, “On April 6, Dave Bundy, 37, was taken into custody in Bunkerville, Nevada, following failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands.” He now has been released, Cannon said.
So far, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy’s protest.
In a statement, the association noted that Bundy’s case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA “does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts.”
Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, “This has gotten way out of hand.”
Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, “absolutely not.”
It’s true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM’s bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. “It’s important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land — to protect natural resources.”
Of the Bundy affair, he said, “These types of situations have a way of painting the entire industry with controversy.”
The Individualist 