|
|
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
  
Location: Bastrop, Texas | ThreeCorners - 2016-01-30 5:03 PM
Bear - 2016-01-30 4:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years. I would love that to happen!! I would love the BLM to be investigated!! I dont however think we need any constitutional ammendments. I believe we need the rogue agency's and congress to be held to the Constitution and reined in!
? Also, just a side note..Many are saying LaVoy was shot first and that is why he reached down. He was reaching to where he was shot.
This is where I think a REAL president would step up to the podium and start to publicly address this matter. Has Obama said anything about this? He is supposed to be the president of ALL the people....not just those who agree with his tyranny and socialist agenda. This is the President's opportunity to be a leader and a healer of wounds. This won't go away. People want an explanation. They want a President who will uphold his solemn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." They want definitive answers.
Our president is a coward. He addresses the police shooting of the thug in Oregon, and Treyvon Martin, but what does he have to say about this? Maybe he's said something....I'm not aware of it if he has. | |
| | |
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
 
Location: In the Hills of Texas | Bear - 2016-01-30 7:30 PM ThreeCorners - 2016-01-30 5:03 PM Bear - 2016-01-30 4:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years. I would love that to happen!! I would love the BLM to be investigated!! I dont however think we need any constitutional ammendments. I believe we need the rogue agency's and congress to be held to the Constitution and reined in!
? Also, just a side note..Many are saying LaVoy was shot first and that is why he reached down. He was reaching to where he was shot.
This is where I think a REAL president would step up to the podium and start to publicly address this matter. Has Obama said anything about this? He is supposed to be the president of ALL the people....not just those who agree with his tyranny and socialist agenda. This is the President's opportunity to be a leader and a healer of wounds. This won't go away. People want an explanation. They want a President who will uphold his solemn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." They want definitive answers. Our president is a coward. He addresses the police shooting of the thug in Oregon, and Treyvon Martin, but what does he have to say about this? Maybe he's said something....I'm not aware of it if he has.
If people would actually read this article they would then understand what is going on and how the government is trying to basically steal the Hammond's privately owned ranch.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/
| |
| | |
 Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | Here is just a taste of the BLM's tactics to force ranchers out. https://www.facebook.com/AmericanLandsCouncil/videos/964207073659086... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | The BLM is trying to take a ranchers land right now along the Red River in Texas. This is happening all over...Not just in Nevada, Oregon and Arizona.
The government wants the Hammond's privately owned ranch. They are the last to hold out in that area.
Edited by Nevertooold 2016-01-30 10:05 PM
| |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2016-01-30 3:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years.
I do not support a convention of states...that, to me, is an extemely dangerous place to go. What part of the constitution do you want to 'change, tweek, delete or add to'? We'e so divided right now taht it would be a terrible mistake.
We DO have the option of nullification...I don't think anyone really knows what to do at this point, the power has shifted over the years and we have some brilliant minds wroking on it, however, they're trying to do it through the courts, which isn't going to work either...that's why I have supported real action, like what happened in Burns...the ''''''''''''''stake' was driven long ago...in 1776...we don't need to drive a 'new' stake.
| |
| | |
Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | We need to push to have the BLM investigated. LaVoy had been battling with them over many issues, but also his water. They kept sabatoging his water, filling his lines with concrete, turning it off, ect. ect. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2016-01-30 6:30 PM ThreeCorners - 2016-01-30 5:03 PM Bear - 2016-01-30 4:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years. I would love that to happen!! I would love the BLM to be investigated!! I dont however think we need any constitutional ammendments. I believe we need the rogue agency's and congress to be held to the Constitution and reined in!
? Also, just a side note..Many are saying LaVoy was shot first and that is why he reached down. He was reaching to where he was shot.
This is where I think a REAL president would step up to the podium and start to publicly address this matter. Has Obama said anything about this? He is supposed to be the president of ALL the people....not just those who agree with his tyranny and socialist agenda. This is the President's opportunity to be a leader and a healer of wounds. This won't go away. People want an explanation. They want a President who will uphold his solemn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." They want definitive answers. Our president is a coward. He addresses the police shooting of the thug in Oregon, and Treyvon Martin, but what does he have to say about this? Maybe he's said something....I'm not aware of it if he has.
Obama is threatening executive action if the states don't comply with what the environmentalists and blm want....as in National Monument designations. A fedral land grab. The threat to our nation is very very real. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Live stream from Deb and 'Orange Hat' in Burns...this was 3 hours ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx2eWenLx8
Edited by musikmaker 2016-01-30 10:20 PM
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:11 PM
Bear - 2016-01-30 3:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years.
We DO have the option of nullification...I don't think anyone really knows what to do at this point, the power has shifted over the years and we have some brilliant minds wroking on it, however, they're trying to do it through the courts, which isn't going to work either...that's why I have supported real action, like what happened in Burns...the ''''''''''''''stake' was driven long ago...in 1776...we don't need to drive a 'new' stake.
Go back and read what I wrote again before reacting. I didn't say I want a convention of states. I suggested a public forum and I stated why this would be a good thing. Right now, thanks to the internet cesspool, we have an endless supply of so-called information, and no way of determining what is truthful, factual, and reliable.
And yes, thankfully, we do have a way to "change, tweet, delete, or add to" the Constitution. We have used it since it's inception. It's called a Constitutional Ammendment. It's a very difficult undertaking, but it's been done, and perhaps some Constitutional Ammendment will provide the solution to the tyranny and government land grabbing. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Bear - 2016-01-31 8:12 AM musikmaker - 2016-01-30 10:11 PM Bear - 2016-01-30 3:41 PM OregonBR - 2016-01-30 3:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2016-01-30 7:14 AM While at the vet yesterday, got to talking with the horseshoer there about this deal and government ownership of land. This is kind of eye opening about how people who don't really understand how things work can get things screwed up in their mind. He told me a story about how he used to go camping on BLM land between Cheyenne and Laramie with his horse and just have a real good time. Then, the Obama Administration sold off that land to two Denver millionaires and now they won't let anybody use that stuff anymore, and it was all Obama's fault that he couldn't have fun out there anymore. When I brought up the fact that that was exactly what the ranchers and militiamen (that he sympathizes with) wanted to happen, turning federal land that everybody could use into private or state run, he dropped the conversation. The ironic and sad part of the situation is that the people who are screaming the loudest about taking federal ground away from BLM and Forest Service control, are the ones that would be hurt the most by private or state ownership. If the land was sold, no small time rancher would be able to afford it, it would go to people like the Koch Brothers who own the Matador Ranch in Montana (300,000 plus acres and six federal allotments). If the state owns it, it would be mined and drilled and grazed into oblivion by the highest bidder, or should I say campaign donor, and those ranchers would be sol. If on the off chance they were able to secure the leases, the rental rates for state and private ground are one h.... Of a lot bigger than the federal $1.69 fee they pay now. But, on the bright side, the ranchers would be free to do whatever they wanted on their little private ranch that is too small to make a living on and with the loss of its federal leases, valueless. But again, they will be "free" to make their own decisions. My advice is be careful what you wish for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWfGtQvyb4 In LaVoy's own words. He sure sounds like a good man and a nice guy. Certainly not some whacko nut job. He was definitely very brave, but he can no longer do anyone any good, except as a martyr. Maybe this sounds a little idealistic, but I got to thinking when he was talking about the 3 branches of government. Why not have something like a congressional hearing, but make it a televised public forum where this issue is discussed by: 1. ) a sampling of concerned citizens, 2. ) members of the U.S. Congress, 3. ) Supreme Court Justices, 4. ) the Chief Executive of the land, and 5. ) Elected state officials from the states where this is a hot button issue. We are talking about ownership, control, and regulation of 1/3 of the entire U.S. land mass. The first priority would be to establish and make clear what is supported within the framework of the constitution, and what isn't. Who knows? Maybe the consensus will wind up being that a Constitutional Ammendment is called for? We can either do something like this or continue the pattern we've seen over the last 40 years.
We DO have the option of nullification...I don't think anyone really knows what to do at this point, the power has shifted over the years and we have some brilliant minds wroking on it, however, they're trying to do it through the courts, which isn't going to work either...that's why I have supported real action, like what happened in Burns...the ''''''''''''''stake' was driven long ago...in 1776...we don't need to drive a 'new' stake.
Go back and read what I wrote again before reacting. I didn't say I want a convention of states. I suggested a public forum and I stated why this would be a good thing. Right now, thanks to the internet cesspool, we have an endless supply of so-called information, and no way of determining what is truthful, factual, and reliable. And yes, thankfully, we do have a way to "change, tweet, delete, or add to" the Constitution. We have used it since it's inception. It's called a Constitutional Ammendment. It's a very difficult undertaking, but it's been done, and perhaps some Constitutional Ammendment will provide the solution to the tyranny and government land grabbing.
It was a previous post of someone else who mentioned the convention of states...I was just summarizing my thoughts.
Here is a video of a congressional hearing that was held last week here in Utah, I did post it earlier...kind of tedious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx2eWenLx8
What's so very frustrating is that we aleady have so many 'tweeks' that got us here...the antiquities act, taylor grazing act, creation of the blm, flpma...all these things have built a 'wall' of sorts that has prevented the states from enjoying what was promsed...we need to tear down those walls.
The ranchers know that it will likely cost more to graze on state land, they aren't opposed to paying, they ARE opposed to the theft. It's not alwasy about how it affects you right now, it's about right and wrong.
Also, there's so many so-called 'stakeholders' that have been invited to a table that they have no business at. Please note that the federal government CAN be sued, whereas, state governments CANNOT. This is very mportant!!!
Environmental groups are terrified they'll lose their huge fear based profit margin when they can no longer tie this up in the courts, think how much that costs the public.
My husband, right now, is doing depositions for an ongoing lawsuit concerning SUWA vs. the U.S over Utah roads...he's working with the governors office. It's ugly stuff...and costly. And stupid! It's money. Always that.
More and more testimony is coming out showing how Lavoy Finican was assassinated. Whether the gov't will ever be held accountable for their actions is doubtful...but, just ask yourself WHY they felt such an urgent need to stop "this virus before it spread to another county"?
wth are they talking about? Nobody had been hurt or threatened, nothing destroyed or damaged.
The government wasn't protecting the people, it was protecting it's hold over the people.
If the masses don't understand that then there's nothing else I can say! It's very simple to most of us who live here.
| |
| | |
boon
Posts: 4
| I can put a slightly different light on LaVoy Finicum. My daughter is an investigator for CPS and several attorneys who deal with CPS in Phoenix. A little less than 3 weeks ago, she got a welfare call on a long-standing foster family, specifically that the foster father who had been making rants, threats and was collecting a mass of guns. The man was LaVoy Finicum. She went to the residence and spoke to him for several hours. She said in addition to the presence of guns, a major no-no with foster kids, that the nature of his rants, radical ideas and "plans for the government" scared her. This is a gal who has seen and heard it all too. LaVoy went on to tell her he was going to Oregon and "would die doing it". His words were so disturbing and unnerving that she had no choice but to request that a judge to revoke his foster license and remove the children from the residence that day.
My daughter often calls and lets us know of her unusual or problem cases, never naming names, just venting to us as parents. When she called about this guy, we had not idea who he was but the things that she told us were very frightening. We assured her that she made the right decision. This was a foster family that had been fostering for years, never a problem, never on the CPS radar...but something had snapped in this guy, he did a 180 from the foster parent that she originally knew. She said he was a straight-up wack job that day.
I got a call from her on the day of the shooting in Oregon and she said that the man who had been shot was the CPS case she told us about 2 weeks earlier. She was so saddened by it but we reassured her that there was nothing that she could have done to prevent it. | |
| | |
Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | This is chilling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjyo9AuU3LM | |
| | |
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | RustyNailRanch - 2016-01-31 10:45 AM I can put a slightly different light on LaVoy Finicum. My daughter is an investigator for CPS and several attorneys who deal with CPS in Phoenix. A little less than 3 weeks ago, she got a welfare call on a long-standing foster family, specifically that the foster father who had been making rants, threats and was collecting a mass of guns. The man was LaVoy Finicum. She went to the residence and spoke to him for several hours. She said in addition to the presence of guns, a major no-no with foster kids, that the nature of his rants, radical ideas and "plans for the government" scared her. This is a gal who has seen and heard it all too. LaVoy went on to tell her he was going to Oregon and "would die doing it". His words were so disturbing and unnerving that she had no choice but to request that a judge to revoke his foster license and remove the children from the residence that day. My daughter often calls and lets us know of her unusual or problem cases, never naming names, just venting to us as parents. When she called about this guy, we had not idea who he was but the things that she told us were very frightening. We assured her that she made the right decision. This was a foster family that had been fostering for years, never a problem, never on the CPS radar...but something had snapped in this guy, he did a 180 from the foster parent that she originally knew. She said he was a straight-up wack job that day. I got a call from her on the day of the shooting in Oregon and she said that the man who had been shot was the CPS case she told us about 2 weeks earlier. She was so saddened by it but we reassured her that there was nothing that she could have done to prevent it.
Why is this your first post? Love it when people hide. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas |
Terrible audio quality. I couldn't listen beyond the first 2 minutes of her talking. I'll wait for something of better quality. Also, does anyone know anything about the autopsy? Was there even an autopsy? There should be. Naturally LaVoy's people are going to call this murder and describe the events in such a way to support their version. I just want the truth, one way or the other, just like I wanted the truth when the thug in Fergusson Missouri was shot. | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Douglas J Gordon - 2016-01-31 11:19 AM
RustyNailRanch - 2016-01-31 10:45 AM I can put a slightly different light on LaVoy Finicum. My daughter is an investigator for CPS and several attorneys who deal with CPS in Phoenix. A little less than 3 weeks ago, she got a welfare call on a long-standing foster family, specifically that the foster father who had been making rants, threats and was collecting a mass of guns. The man was LaVoy Finicum. She went to the residence and spoke to him for several hours. She said in addition to the presence of guns, a major no-no with foster kids, that the nature of his rants, radical ideas and "plans for the government" scared her. This is a gal who has seen and heard it all too. LaVoy went on to tell her he was going to Oregon and "would die doing it". His words were so disturbing and unnerving that she had no choice but to request that a judge to revoke his foster license and remove the children from the residence that day. My daughter often calls and lets us know of her unusual or problem cases, never naming names, just venting to us as parents. When she called about this guy, we had not idea who he was but the things that she told us were very frightening. We assured her that she made the right decision. This was a foster family that had been fostering for years, never a problem, never on the CPS radar...but something had snapped in this guy, he did a 180 from the foster parent that she originally knew. She said he was a straight-up wack job that day. I got a call from her on the day of the shooting in Oregon and she said that the man who had been shot was the CPS case she told us about 2 weeks earlier. She was so saddened by it but we reassured her that there was nothing that she could have done to prevent it.
Why is this your first post? Love it when people hide.
Maybe because of remarks like this? | |
| | |
boon
Posts: 4
| Exactly...mainly because of remarks like that. FYI-I've been a BHW member for a long time, I just never post. Check my profile...I joined 3 YEARS AGO and not today as your post suggests!
Wasn't aware there was a post quota in order to have an opinion.
Additionally, my post isn't in favor or the government or the ranchers since I wasn't there. Not siding with one or the other. BUT it does offer an firsthand accounting to the mindset of this guy just prior to him leaving for Oregon.
Edited by RustyNailRanch 2016-01-31 11:33 AM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Bear - 2016-01-31 11:26 AM
Terrible audio quality. I couldn't listen beyond the first 2 minutes of her talking. I'll wait for something of better quality. Also, does anyone know anything about the autopsy? Was there even an autopsy? There should be. Naturally LaVoy's people are going to call this murder and describe the events in such a way to support their version. I just want the truth, one way or the other, just like I wanted the truth when the thug in Fergusson Missouri was shot.
There are better ones out there Scott. It may be her views on the incident but I find it hard to believe mainly because several of her statements do not match the unedited video. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | RustyNailRanch - 2016-01-31 9:45 AM I can put a slightly different light on LaVoy Finicum. My daughter is an investigator for CPS and several attorneys who deal with CPS in Phoenix. A little less than 3 weeks ago, she got a welfare call on a long-standing foster family, specifically that the foster father who had been making rants, threats and was collecting a mass of guns. The man was LaVoy Finicum. She went to the residence and spoke to him for several hours. She said in addition to the presence of guns, a major no-no with foster kids, that the nature of his rants, radical ideas and "plans for the government" scared her. This is a gal who has seen and heard it all too. LaVoy went on to tell her he was going to Oregon and "would die doing it". His words were so disturbing and unnerving that she had no choice but to request that a judge to revoke his foster license and remove the children from the residence that day. My daughter often calls and lets us know of her unusual or problem cases, never naming names, just venting to us as parents. When she called about this guy, we had not idea who he was but the things that she told us were very frightening. We assured her that she made the right decision. This was a foster family that had been fostering for years, never a problem, never on the CPS radar...but something had snapped in this guy, he did a 180 from the foster parent that she originally knew. She said he was a straight-up wack job that day. I got a call from her on the day of the shooting in Oregon and she said that the man who had been shot was the CPS case she told us about 2 weeks earlier. She was so saddened by it but we reassured her that there was nothing that she could have done to prevent it.
That made news when it happened, however, this doesn't make sense because Lavoy was IN Burns at the time. I would question the whole 'no guns' allowed because they fostered a lot of kids over the years mostly through the Catholic church, not cps, and of course the ranchers out west have guns...it's a necessity. Here's a link that is pretty much the same as the other stories that were circulating at the time with a very anti-patriot slant:
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/militant-says-foster-children-were-pulled-from-his-home-lavoy-finicum-burns-oregon/
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Anonymous: We Stand With Ammon Bundy
https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1157905174221040/?fref=nf | |
| | |
boon
Posts: 4
| musikmaker - 2016-01-31 11:41 AM
RustyNailRanch - 2016-01-31 9:45 AM I can put a slightly different light on LaVoy Finicum. My daughter is an investigator for CPS and several attorneys who deal with CPS in Phoenix. A little less than 3 weeks ago, she got a welfare call on a long-standing foster family, specifically that the foster father who had been making rants, threats and was collecting a mass of guns. The man was LaVoy Finicum. She went to the residence and spoke to him for several hours. She said in addition to the presence of guns, a major no-no with foster kids, that the nature of his rants, radical ideas and "plans for the government" scared her. This is a gal who has seen and heard it all too. LaVoy went on to tell her he was going to Oregon and "would die doing it". His words were so disturbing and unnerving that she had no choice but to request that a judge to revoke his foster license and remove the children from the residence that day. My daughter often calls and lets us know of her unusual or problem cases, never naming names, just venting to us as parents. When she called about this guy, we had not idea who he was but the things that she told us were very frightening. We assured her that she made the right decision. This was a foster family that had been fostering for years, never a problem, never on the CPS radar...but something had snapped in this guy, he did a 180 from the foster parent that she originally knew. She said he was a straight-up wack job that day. I got a call from her on the day of the shooting in Oregon and she said that the man who had been shot was the CPS case she told us about 2 weeks earlier. She was so saddened by it but we reassured her that there was nothing that she could have done to prevent it.
That made news when it happened, however, this doesn't make sense because Lavoy was IN Burns at the time. I would question the whole 'no guns' allowed because they fostered a lot of kids over the years mostly through the Catholic church, not cps, and of course the ranchers out west have guns...it's a necessity. Here's a link that is pretty much the same as the other stories that were circulating at the time with a very anti-patriot slant:
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/militant-says-foster-children-were-pulled-from-his-home-lavoy-finicum-burns-oregon/
My daughter had an IN PERSON encounter with this guy nearly 3 weeks ago...she is the one who "pulled the kids" from him because of his perceived instability. He was not in Burns at the time. She was there, you were not. I knew about this 2+ weeks ago, I just didn't know his name because she couldn't reveal that until it went public. Additionally, I never said they were fostering FOR CPS. However, CPS did monitor them since they were licensed foster parents. ALL licensed fosters are subject to CPS and bound by their rules. It's her job, trust me...she knows the drill. Visible presence of guns are not allowed.
If you still have your doubts, request a Freedom of Information request on the CPS investigation and you will see who the investigator was as well as the date. I can 100% guarantee you it was my daughter and it happened exactly when she said it did.
My post was not about taking sides. I'm not taking his side, the ranchers side or the side of the government until more details come out, much like Ferguson. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line