So, yes, it is simply a tiny cabin in the middle of nowhere. It appears they are standing up for a family who attempted to, at every turn, work within the system to resolve the problems; but, the system perceived their presence as legal landowners to be the problem therefore went out of it's way to harass them.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed- … smsnnews11
They seem to be fairly peaceful people who begrudge the bullying of the Forestry and Wildlife Service; at their wit's end from watching as a family was being targeted by this branch of the federal government which doesn't appear to believe ordinary citizens have the right to enjoy the use of their own property. I sympathize with them.
Before you chose to think they are just a bunch of kooks, you might scan through this article on the history leading up to the peaceful takeover. It is from a conservative website so I'm sure it is slanted heavily in these people's favor but if the chain of events is even halfway accurate it is indicative of a very insensitive and heavy handed land grab by the government; with no real benefit to wildlife, or the average citizen.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 … rsecution/
What say you?
Malheur County targeted for gold and uranium mines, January 08, 2012 article.
"Sprawling Malheur County could soon be in the spotlight as a mining hub -- or a battleground of uranium and gold mining interests vs. environmentalists trying to protect its lonesome sagebrush landscape."
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … or_go.html
The U.S. has been getting its supply of uranium from Russia, believe it or not. With the circumstances in the Middle East, Russia has most likely cut off that supply of uranium or hiked the cost of it greatly..I don't know that for sure but it is reasonable enough. Uranium is way more valuable than gold.
BLM wants the gold and uranium (and other minerals) to sell? The government wants the uranium for nuclear reasons (and of course the gold)? The ranches want the gold and have been getting it and are rich? I have a lot questions.
There have been some table talks with mining companies but because of the high standards of environmental protection and clean-up because of the use of chemicals in the county they have passed because of high costs.
I tend to bend toward ulterior motives on all sides. I think we are seeing a smoke screen. This is NOT a 'patriot' movement but is most likely a set up to provoke the patriots and militia. If that is what it is, the trap has FAILED. -- Gosh, they still have electricity! No, I'm not buying this drama of an emotional revolution. It has no merit..it was a power play to protect the Hammonds? An ill-conceived move!
The media is exaggerating...social media is exploding...they want this to play out. The mainstream media isn't out there covering this with their cameras (alternative news has), they might get their orders tomorrow or the next day to cover the story on site. How is it that we have a rancher making military comments to the press? Wow!
Obama wants gun control...how is he going to get the country behind that? This could bolsters that with the medias help. See what I'm saying? Nothing else makes any sense, does it?
I thought I smelled a rat. I hadn't researched it but the article raises a few questions for sure. Is the incident where the fire burned into the reserve really what's behind the prosecution or is it a guise to get some of the players out of the game? It could pave the way to an imminent domain case brought by the government against the ones they have been warring with and little fight if they are imprisoned. What a sordid bunch this is.
It goes deep in this article "SEN. HARRY REID BEHIND BLM LAND GRAB OF BUNDY RANCH" dated APRIL 11, 2014. http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-ha … ndy-ranch/
So! Harry Reid and BLM wanted to build a solar farm in Gold Butte, NV.
A solar farm on public land? wink, wink
There is a lot going on in the Organ and Nevada gold rich areas that I didn't know about. Its nothing new I guess, like starting to watch a soap opera ten years after it began.
Hello LiveToLearn, you are certainly right about the bias of your second link. Not only is it heavily biased, it is also factually inaccurate; besides being filled with typos and incorrect grammar. I guess the author just ignored his spell-checker and its grammatical suggestions.
Without picking at your perspective, I hope you won't mind if I point out a couple facts that are suspect - as described by the DOJ District of Oregon, and other sources;
1) Although the Hammonds may have been upset with the Bureau of Land management, (BLM), this was perhaps not their primary motivation. Or their first encounter with unauthorized "burns."
From the DOJ/Oregon District press release:
"...Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire."
2) Steve Hammond was warned, by a BLM employee, of legal consequences of future unauthorized "burns," after an earlier 1999 unauthorized burn.(*there were legitimate concerns relative to the need for burns to control nuisance and invasive botanical species in the area)
Even with this warning, Steven and Dwight Hammond continued to use a private plane to scout "burn" locations on BLM land that would protect, (or expand?), their available grazing areas.
3) There is no readily apparent record of Steven Hammond's "...attempted to, at every turn, work within the system to resolve the problems..." efforts to follow the bureaucratic process. To the contrary there is evidence of Steven Hammond's "cowboy, or Wyoming credo*" mentality regarding his right to do whatever he deemed best for his interests. Even to the point, in a separate lightning-started fire, of refusing BLM firefighters access across his property to get to an area of BLM property engulfed in flames.
The last fire, (2006), does seem to be exactly what the Hammond's claimed. An effort to save land from a spreading wildfire. Sources indicate that fire only damaged about 1 acre of BLM land.
The Hammonds have a lot of community support and respect, I am only noting that relative to the portrayal of the government's actions, Steven Hammond's actions, (also as portrayed), may not be more true.
I too have a problem with the charge used to convict them, and the length of the sentences. I too have a concern of government abuse and over-reach in this, (possibly) and other past BLM cases of the same vein.
Here are a few, I think, less biased sources that may be interesting to you.;
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson (DOJ)
Eugene Indictment (U.S. District Court)
The Oregonian -10 stories to read on arson case against ranchers
*The "cowboy/Wyoming credo" remark was from an interview with a supporter in the community. I stumbled across it following one of the above article's deep links. But I forgot to save it. You will probably find it the same way.
Regardless of whether you sympathise with their grievance against the Government, surely this is about whether it's acceptable for armed people to occupy a government building with the stated intention of using force against law enforcement officers, in order to get what they want. In what circumstance is that acceptable?
Have the people involved been denied due process, and their supporters denied the right to speak freely about their grievance with the Government? Have those supporters been denied the right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of those grievances? On what grounds do they have the right to threaten or commit violence against law enforcement officers fulfilling their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land?
I don't know. If the information in the second link is indicative of how they feel circumstances have evolved then I would say yes, they have been denied a fair estimation of a fair and equitable due process.
Would I have reacted the way they have? No. But, I do sympathize if this is the only way they feel they have to bring some attention to the problem. Will this resolve anything? I fear they will only find it will make things worse. I simply don't want to see them die for standing up against what they see as tyranny.
I appreciate that you sympathise without necessary supporting the action they've taken, but do you believe a group of armed people have the right to occupy a government building, refuse to leave, and vow to use violence against anyone who tries to arrest them, on the grounds that they "feel" it is the only way to bring attention to their problem?
That's a tough question but, since I do sympathize, I think I do think that under the right circumstances I would say they had that right, again, as long as it is a government building which is unoccupied and quite a distance from civilization. Not one in the middle of downtown and open for business.
Would it be alright for a group of squatters to move in for the winter months? Or do they need a "cause" that you agree with?
Call me strange. A cabin in the middle of the wilderness, built by government funds, sure. I wouldn't begrudge someone without means putting a roof over their head in the winter.
Not "government funds"; your funds. That's where that government money comes from, you know! And not just built but operated with utilities, maintained and repaired...all with your money.
But these protesters DO have means of putting a roof on. Can they still live there for free because they have a beef with the law?
I know it is our collective money. I also know Ammon Bundy is a bit of an idiot and has invoked the age old 'God told me to do it' defense.
But, it is our collective money. Which, in my opinion, gives them more of a right to occupy if they feel that our government is no longer representative of the people. However, it throws a heavy burden of proof onto the shoulders of whoever does such for their actions to be representative of the needs of the people, not solely a special interest group whining because they aren't getting favors.
I never expected to find that a bunch of ranchers who believed their free grazing rights were being infringed on to present a case strong enough; but I don't have to like a group to believe they have a right to stand up for what they reasonably believe to be right if their actions do not endanger innocent civilians; and it does appear that innocent civilians are not in danger. They will eventually take responsibility for wrongful actions or bring a well deserved light to injustice. I don't consider the simple act of taking possession of a cabin in the wilderness as wrongful action enough to ignore their attempt to make their complaints more universally heard. Whether or not their complaints have merit will determine how wrongful their actions ultimately are.
I realize you will see this as also being sympathetic toward anyone taking over any government facility at any location; with guns. This isn't.
But, I am willing to sympathize with these people because if they truly believe they have been victims of a tyrannical government they probably also believe that they are in jeopardy of being martyrs to a cause. Which could be why they chose a cabin in the middle of nowhere to make this statement. So that innocents wouldn't be caught in the crossfire of what they believe to be the inevitable outcome. I certainly hope those in charge out there don't let that happen and simply wait around for these people (and those watching) to realize that armed standoffs always showcase that one, or both, parties failed to work through all of the options available which are in place to help avoid situations just like this one.
Doing some more reading on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that the federal agencies may not be without fault in this crisis.
But, Bundy and his out of state rabble rousers need to go home. Let this be handled by the locals that does not give this standoff the appearance of an insurrection.
These federal agencies are accountable and not Gods unto themselves, the owner of the property should seek some legal counsel and be willing to take the grievances to the proper authorities through proper channels. I sure that there are many that would assist with legal counsel under the circumstances.
Taking a Government building is not using proper channels. The determination has to be made by us all; is this the sagebrush people bandstanding or is this the legitimate cry for help by a rancher family whose livelihood has been adversely affected by Government agencies stepping out of bounds?
We don't want everyone to think that they can just violate the law to get their point across.
Couldn't agree more, with most of that.
You are correct that the determination has to be made by us all; in light of this anti government act. Are they justified in feeling pushed to this point, or not? I don't think our collective determination will turn out well for Ammon Bundy. As you said, it appears the government has overstepped its bounds; but, not so much as to garner sympathy from the average citizen for the actions taken by this group thus far. That was a chance these people took when they took over the reserve illegally.
However, as uncomfortable as I am thinking this, I still do believe that each citizen has the right to protest in a peaceful manner against what they perceive as injustice wantonly meted out by our government. Ammon Bundy and his rabble are pushing the envelope of this belief but I don't think they have overstepped the bounds. All they will end up doing is proving that they probably bear a percentage of guilt for the escalation of the problem. I think they have an intractable belief that most of us aren't going to be able to agree with. I think they want to do as they please on more than they legally own. Who among us gets that privilege?
I have a problem with Bundy and his father and that gives me cause to have less sympathy for the plight of the rancher in Oregon than I normally would. That standoff in Nevada was much more clear cut in the fact that Bundy, Sr. was ripping the tax payers by not paying the land use fees that were due.
Bundy Sr. besides having an ugly, bigoted persona allowed armed men people to train weapons on federal agents in an around his property. When ever I hear the name 'Bundy', I smell a rat.
Yes, that is one reason I'm suspicious of this group. But, in their defense....I don't know the full back story. Why did that stand off end as it did? Was he in the right? Was he in the wrong and because he got away with that it has emboldened this group? I don't know.
The truth is that the whole cattle rancher thing out west is alien to me. I think the federal government may make policy in Washington that in no way reflects the desires or needs of the people in these areas and then don't take the time to understand why their policies are met with animosity; and probably become a little surly because their policies weren't being kow towed to without complaint. We, as eastern land dwellers, are completely unqualified to understand the problems. Fences are a part of our lives. Plentiful pastures are our landscape. I have to accept that the landscape out there is different and the needs and desires of the locals is different. Are there concerns representative of the majority of the locals in these states? If so, why have they not been addressed adequately?
You're not alone; the whole industry is undergoing some problems.
Near me, the ranges go up for auction for grazing rights, and the same ranch nearly always gets it - after all, they are the closest and can make the best use of it. A new policy, well intended to raise a little additional income instead of simply offering the same ranch the same lease for the same low price each year.
Recently, though, some greenie outfit came in and bid on those rights. They are quite cheap, and they won several large tracts, instantly putting a lot of ranchers out of business. Thousands of head of cattle had to be slaughtered, followed in a short while by a huge increase in the price of beef. A well intentioned plan that went awry, and cost lots of people their ranch/job/livelihood because politicians don't really understand much of anything.
I haven't really researched this one, but it very much reminds me of the oyster farm in California. Where the Lunny's and their Drakes Bay Oyster Company squatted on wetlands designated as a preserve and ran an oyster farm for their own profit. They, too, protested (in their own way) and ran a media and internet blitz that was almost incredible with attacks on government agencies, lies and false insinuations that had nothing to do with the matter. As months go by, I fully expect to see far more come out about the Bundy complaint than we are being given now.
In regard to the 'greenie outfit', isn't that the 'free market' at work?
I don't know what Wilderness would think. But, greenie implies, to me, a bunch of ignorant idiots who think in a small box; without understanding how their actions play out in the world at large. I found his comment interesting because, if true, we all felt the effects here from their interference there. On the hoof prices and rail prices went sky high last year and disrupted the buy local sell local markets. Growers made more money selling at auction and having the animals shipped out of state than selling to their neighbors.
So. Thousands of animals slaughtered because they lost their grazing lands out west. Thousand of animals suffered undue stress here on the east coast as everyone scrambled to get in on the top dollar pricing by shipping out of state. Local consumers suffered a loss of ability to buy locally. All because a 'greenie' group bought grazing rights they didn't need.
That's about the way it happened. Now, it could be coincidence that beef prices went high so soon after it all went down, but it would be a startling one if it was. Personally, I think that the people buying the rights to "save" the land were the cause.
I had to post this, the irony of this current event when compared with a similar circumstance that the article speaks to that occured in the past cannot be denied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bla … fe0db2f40?
Seriously? Think about it. The guys out west took over an unoccupied little cabin on a reserve. The article you posted has armed individuals taking over a very occupied state capitol. I don't see a lot of similarities there. It's one thing to make a statement which doesn't involve the possible threat of harm to innocent civilians standing around and a completely other thing to take fire arms into a building in the middle of a city.
I hope you can see the differences there. I wouldn't have any sympathy for any group who occupied a state capitol with fire arms.
I dunno, L to L there is a far deeper significance. The standoff at the capitol was lawful and the attitude toward blacks brandishing weapons making a statement and defending their turf from what was seen at the time as tyrannical behavior by the authorities, was appropriate. They did not 'occupy', they were just there, no one was held hostage. They made their point and moved on with no confrontation with authorities. California wanted to restricted gun access and even the NRA was for that when minorities were involved. As the article mentioned, and as I remember they were very careful to operate and behave within the parameters allowed by law. The minorities and their complaints generated fear, but these BLM standoff guys are just 'good ole boys'? As we have seen with Ruby Ridge and Waco, the potential for violence is certainly not over. I still see a double standard, but, of course, I would.
I have to disagree. I don't care what color, nationality, religious affiliation, ethnic group or whatever a group is. If they show up at a state capitol building with guns, they are scary. Much more scary than a group showing up with guns to a cabin in the wilderness.
You do deserve credit, at least you are consistent. You did show support for the Black Lives Matter, which allow your words about the positions you take on the current crisis and the group involved to resonate with much more credibility with me than they otherwise would have.
I appreciate that. I live in a multicultural environment and am part of a multi racial family. By my experience the worst thing we can do is take color into account when determining if actions are right or wrong. We are either all the same or we aren't.
From what I see just here on this forum and in the politics of the country generally, you are the exception to a 'rule' that is the reality and is far different.
I agree that many appear to see things differently. However, I believe we should always stand for what we believe to be right and if it is a worthwhile endeavor others will follow suit. It may simply take a while to convince them.
Oh gawd! Give her one last hug and pat and get on with it will ya. Beginning to sound like a damn Personals section around here. Next you will probably be telling her that for a non-progressive... she's ok.
Well, she is. Most true rightwingers are BS artists and consummate liars.
Regardless of the ferocity of this struggle, I will always give credit where credit is due, to be fair of course. Very purple of me, is it not?
That is so true, I agree 100%.
I had read that Bundy had his Twitter account closed because he "@Ammon_Bundy compared the Bundy militia’s campaign to Rosa Parks." Turns out he never had a Twitter account and only used Facebook to post. But, media ran with false information once again.
http://factually.gizmodo.com/no-ammon-b … 1751353105
Rosa Parks was a heroine.
I've never understood why "making a statement" should involve anyone but the speaker (demonstrator, whatever). They don't need to block traffic, create unseemly noise levels, take over buildings or anything else. They don't need to burn the city or even cop cars. They don't need to ruin park lands or cause millions in damages (Wall street sit in).
And they don't need to start an armed rebellion. Just state your "message", shut up and go home.
Sometimes, group protest is appropriate. In my opinion. Violence, never.
Is it OK to "protest" on your front lawn, blocking your front door and garage while tearing up your lawn? If not, why is it then OK to do so in the middle of a street, at a storefront or government building?
In other words, why is it OK to disturb the public, going about it's business, but not you in your home? And as far as violence, most protests are designed around either violence or at least the threat of violence. The leaders know that is the best (often only) way to attract the media, so that's what they use. That the people in Oregon are armed follows this path is indicative that at least the threat is being used to gain attention.
Interesting question. I would hope, if I had done something so obnoxious to cause a crowd to be upset enough to gather in protest that I would immediately engage them in dialogue to understand and, hopefully, resolve their grievances and not let it get to the point of tearing up my lawn.
Are you saying that the constitutional right to free assembly should be minimized, or done away with?
Is it OK to "protest" on your front lawn, blocking your front door and garage while tearing up your lawn? Yes, it is legal to do that on and to your own property. I have heard about a lot of angry homeowners who were foreclosed on that busted things up before turning over the keys. Totally legal to do, but that doesn't make it right.
And how many important "messages" do you think just faded away because they weren't supported beyond the initial statement?
Someone shoots a BB gun on your left, and someone else shouts a shotgun on your right... Which side gets your first reaction?
I do understand your angst, and I am certainly not condoning destruction, but relative to just handing out the message and going home... we both have the life experience to belie that lament.
ps. Ha! How about them apples... "life experience," "belie," and "lament" all in one sentence.
Even though the second article vilifies and has an accusatory element against the BLM and FWS its seems the government is over reaching its' authority and reasonable actions. Is there any natural gas or other valuable use to the land we do not know of or is it just a personal vendetta? With the advent of private militias this could be another Ruby Ridge or Waco catastrophe in the making. With this we may never know the reasoning for a few years to come.
I agree that the article giving the back story is probably heavily tainted in favor of the land owners. I think these guys have made it clear they are not looking for a violent resolution; but we probably will see a violent end to the stand off. I'm inclined to show some solidarity and support; but have absolutely no idea how that could be accomplished here.
You may be right as to the end, but I would certainly hope not. Unlike Waco, all that needs be done is cut off power, sit back a quarter mile in all directions and wait. Don't let anyone in; arrest anyone coming out for trespassing or some such.
Let me guess, these self-proclaimed militiamen were promised 72 cousins in the afterlife if they become martyred.
There are two different situations/issues getting muddled.
The Hammond family was leasing federal land in Oregon for cattle grazing and set fire to part of it to combat some "invasive species" as they claimed. The government said that was bad and sentenced the father and son to 5 years in prison for arson.
The Cliven Bundy family, thirsty for more fame after the media coverage of their own hissy fit over a federal lands dispute, saw the Hammond family's plight as an opportunity to grandstand. The Hammonds' lawyer has stated that the Bundys do not speak for them and that the Bundys are acting on their own.
Issue 1) Was the sentence given to the Hammonds too harsh? Should the gov't have simply fined the Hammonds and terminated the lease agreement?
Issue 2) Are the Bundys a bunch of buttheads who need to go home?
they are good and oregon can finally break free of the union and be it's own country. right now allot of states are thinking of becoming their own country. just look at europe and how successful it is as 100s of tiny countries. europians are very cultured.
They are taking a stand for using public land at 10% of the normal grazing rate, and not even bothing to actually pay the fee at all. That are taking a stand for starting a huge fire to cover illegal poaching on a wildlife refuge. They are taking a stand for destroying land that belongs to the nation and is important for ensuring wild species will be there for our children to see and enjoy.
So basically they are taking a stand for being assholes. Whether they are minor league or major legal assholes seems somewhat beside the point in terms of whether they should receive our support or sympathy.
Hmm.. Are you confusing the Hammond issue with the past Bundy issue?
I could find no source referencing the Hammond's grazing rights being 90% less than other grazers. Nor any reference to their failure to pay their grazing fees.
If you are wrong about those, could you also be wrong in your opinion of their assholeness?
The biggest problem I have is why do the Bundy's of Nevada have get involved as they ratchet up the terror and intimidation?
I think Ammon Bundy is misguided in this event. He may have been asked for support. And he may feel a sense of kindred spirit for the Hammonds and their fate. But I think his level of participation is more harmful than helpful.
The way I read the situation is that it is a case of several wrong trying to make a right.
The judge was wrong to ignore the mandatory sentencing. But I think the prosecutor was also wrong for his choice of charges. Correcting the sentence instead of revisiting the charges is also wrong, as I see it. So that is three wrongs. Then the `militia patriots' showing up armed was not just wrong in my opinion, but dumb too. Wrong number four. Ammon Bundy doing videos and interviews make five, (in my opinion).
From my perspective, the only thing right is law enforcement's use of good sense.
I have always found that the truth of most matters lies somewhere in the middle. It might be a little early to be using the term asshole for either side.
Some things just are not easy to understand without illustrations.
It is easy enough to understand without illustrations, it is ok for armed white men to take federal property and that is patriotism, while black rioters are thugs.
Yes, I understand completely
Let's go back to the Bundy Ranch stand-off.
And, Wildlands Project, Agenda 21, and its Future Enforcers
http://agenda21news.com/2014/07/wildlan … enforcers/
(21 stands for the 21st Century in which we are in)
Former presidents: George H. Bush in 1992 while at the UN Conference executed the Agenda 21 protocol on behalf of the United States and brought it back to DC. Within a year, Bill Clinton by Executive Order (no Congressional review) established the President's Council For Sustainable Development.
http://agenda21news.com/2014/07/wildlan … enforcers/
This is where the government wants to lift-up Nature above Humans?
The agenda is to take over private lands, I believe that.
My question is how much power should the UN have in cohoots with Washington DC?
No more Bush or Clinton in the WH! (the real A-holes?..no doubts here)
It was Bush, Clinton, Bush, (a Clinton tried), Obama, (a Clinton is trying again). What mess!
Colorfulone, without nature, there will be no human. People should be smart enough to realize that Earth has a closed ecosystem, we breath the air, drink the water and eat of its produce. What becomes uninhabitable to other species will eventually come for us as well. Only short sighted fools believe that they can continue to use their kitchens as a toilet without some ramifications....
Fools, "That kind of stuff happens." Oppsy! No one lost a pay check.
Reading between the lines. With a $8.5 billion budget and 17,000 employees, the EPA needed new, big projects to justify their existence at the expense of taxpayers.
138 acres of land is burned....liberals are OUTRAGED...terrorism, destroying property, imprison...rhetoric, blah, blah, blah!
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Admittedly I am a Constitution admirer. I think it is one of the most brilliantly created documents ever. In my mind, the Constitution is the frame that the house that is America is built onj.There has been much conversation about the Second Amendment being outdated, and not...
by PrettyPanther 5 years ago
I live in Oregon, so I have been closely following the occupation of the Malheur Refuge by "militants." Here is a detailed timeline: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … ne_of.htmlNone of their demands, which changed over time, were met. Currently, the last...
by Doug Hughes 10 years ago
(CNN) -- Nine people federal prosecutors say belong to a "Christian warrior" militia were accused Monday of plotting to kill a Michigan law enforcement officer and then attack other police at the funeral. A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, indicted six Michigan residents, two...
by ga anderson 6 years ago
The conservatives are going nuts.The fanatics are screaming, "Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge."Tea Party and Republican politicians are flocking to get on camera in support of rancher Cliven Bundy.But, Is this rancher right?The gist:A cattle rancher grazes his cattle on public land. His...
by RodneyBlaec Rainey 8 years ago
I am aware of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” And “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”, but what has given anyone the right to sell or allocate land in the...
by Credence2 3 years ago
As for Trump’s suggestions regarding gun control. So, conservatives, whose side is he on here? Is he really suggesting that law enforcement preemptively strip just anybody of weapons before a crime is committed? That is most disturbing. https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-tr …...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|