There is no statute of limitations in the offense of the First degree (premeditated) murder by Federal agents of Randy Weaver's wife and son in 1992. Justice has not been served yet.
I sent the following message to Idaho Governor Butch Otter via both is Facebook page and via a direct link to his state website. I'd like to challenge all of you to do the same. Just copy & paste everything below the line. His contact information is at the bottom.
---------------------------------------------------
Remembering the Real Story of Ruby Ridge Idaho - August 21 1992
From >> [url redacted]
Uncovering government corruption at Ruby Ridge
According to FBI Grand Jury Testimony, US Marshals were involved in the cover up, the media, and the story from the Weaver's perspective...

Today, you are considered an "extremist" by the ADL and SPLC if you think the actions taken here by the Federal Government were out of hand. For the first time in US history, the FBI was given permission from cabinet members of the George HW Bush administration to change their Rules of Engagement to, "can and should shoot to kill" effectively rendering the US Constitution useless. A young boy was shot in the back and killed by US Marshals, and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi later shot and killed Vicky Weaver while she was unarmed and holding her 10 month old baby in her arms. This incident serves as an educational tool to all Americans on just how useless our coveted Constitution is to the Federal Government when you cross them. I do not endorse violence towards the Federal Government. This is simply the closest I could come to the real truth without media/Government disinformation.

You have to ask yourself, even in this age of information, why is it so hard to find the truth about Ruby Ridge?

See the following links for more information:
[url redacted]

The Preliminary Hearings of Weaver and Harris -
[url redacted]

New York Times Propaganda -
[url redacted]

DOJ Whitewashing and Final Report on FBI wrongdoing -[url redacted]

Idaho vs Randy Weaver
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. IDAHO
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.IDAHO
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2001 5, 2001 No. 99-71081. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI June 5, 2001 No. 98 30163. SILVER SAGE PARTNERS LTD
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2000 No. 96-50297. IDAHO v.
HORIUCHI June 14, 2000
No. 98-70772. VAN GERWEN v. GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY ERISA
[url redacted]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER
[url redacted]

SPLC and Spokesman Review Propaganda 20 years later
[url redacted]

I have a friend who was a Deputy United States Marshall at that time. He wasn't involved with Ruby Ridge, but he knew 2 agents who were. He told me:

"I knew two of the guys in the woods that weaver's son engaged. It was a mess from the start. If the dog would not have smelled the surveillance team nothing would have happened that day. It all ended badly. Stupid ATF case was bad from the start. Weaver would have been acquitted if he would have just gone back to court. Travesty of bad decisions all around."

The fact remains that it wasn't Randy Weaver's fault he didn't make it to the court appearance. It was all due to an intended snafu on the part of the Feds. They set him up to murder him and his family with extreme prejudice!

At the Nuremberg trials: Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders".

In my opinion, the officers involved should be charged with first degree murder, and those who assisted the operation should be charged and tried as accessories to first degree murder. Until this happens, we will never again be "One nation under God." This travesty screams for justice!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video and this blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law

If we are ever going to get anyone to open the case again and get these murderers charged and tried for their crimes against Americans, we need to raise public awareness of the facts involved. The best way to do it is to get as many people as possible to share the link below or copy & paste it and post it in as many places as possible. I would also suggest you copy and paste the link and send it to every state legislator and the current governor of Idaho.

[url redacted]

To send Idaho Governor Butch Otter a link to this story, click on the link below:
[url redacted]

Governor Otter's Facebook "Page"
[url redacted]

This is a warlike culture and your fellow Americans seem like war (until they are in it themselves). The neocon mentality permeates through both the left and the right. Except war is a serious evil and rarely does anything ever justify it. In all of US history, there have been only about 6 years in which the US has not been at war with someone somewhere. 6 years or so in over 230 years.

The economics of slavery would have ended it pretty soon, and it would have helped if the US federal government had not been enforcing "fugitive slave" laws which forced states to return escaped slaves.
Ending slavery was definitely a good thing. Just like ending the war with Japan. But the 'necessity' of the war to achieve that end is far from certain just like the 'necessity' of nuking Japan (twice!) seems rather absurd.
It's the neocon mindset. The 'necessity' to go to war, whether it's with Iraq, or with Afghanistan. With Mexico. With the British. With Spain. In Vietnam. In Korea. In Latin America. With the 'Indians'. Each of these wars were 'necessary' according to its apologists.

"War in the East. War in the West. War up North. War down South. Everywhere there's war."

War is the life of the State. This country, like all countries, was founded on slavery, and war. States do not come about peacefully and 'organically'. They are the product of coercion and war.

War apologists always have reasons why their wars are 'necessary' and only that war would have served. Ask Cheney.

But then, they also think that the situation now is 'necessary'. So I wish you luck and hope you are enjoying your wars.

no no the US just gets corporate take over of journalists, and then intimidate anyone who doesn't tow the line, and anyone who dares to be show what the government is actually responsible for gets thrown into prison, or has their car conveniently wrap around a telephone pole... unless of course, it's the government themselves doing the "whistleblowing", then its fine, and not a hostile act against a nation that values openness and transparency... so much so that more documents have been declared SECRET since Obama came into power than ever before in US history...

let alone straight face lying about spying on their own citizens

let alone a President who decides he doesn't require congress's approval for declaring war/military action, and then decides to show what a humble president that he is, he'll let congress in on what he knows... unlike the NSA programs that most of Congress wouldn't have known about unless for guys like Snowden

and social issues, important as they are, are smokes screens to deflect people's attention from what the two party system's true goal is... serving big business needs and securing personal future wealth/comfort as payment... they really don't care about those issues as anything more as misdirection, unless they are wingnuts like alot of the tea party movement were (they were the reverse, social issues jaded with personal prejudices with no economic sense/ability)... they use social issues to turn people against each other so that they don't see that Democrat and Republican within the last 30yrs have really only accomplished the exact same goals... deregulation of banks/big business, reduction in personal liberties, establishment of a police/surveillance state, the destruction of the middle class, and the fortifying of corporations

"Democratic utopia" aside, you really think 237 years of US history is making things... better? I'd love to hear you elaborate, because it sounds more and more like we're going the way of fascism.

And no small "l" libertarian believes in corporatism. That's right, here's a fun fact for you: corporations are created by government. Given special limited liability the rest of us are not. Given special government subsidies and welfare and even, at times, given eminent domain privileges.

And I love your "go to" disgusting statist answers of "don't like it then get out of my country" and "you must be a birther." Next you'll call me a racist or tell me to move to Somalia. Waiting for that one.

But the truth is you never addressed my real question here, but I'm guessing that was your point. Distraction and obfuscation tends to be the only weapon in the statist's arsenal. Your move, genius.

Are you implying I drive a Harley? Otherwise I'd prefer you call me queer, son. Virginia Tech was the most deadly shooting in US history. He used pistols with standard clip sizes. There are also these things called bombs, should we ban fertilizer?

Please define tragedy. Statistically speaking, tragedies of these sorts are prevented by doing absolutely nothing at all. Statistically speaking... they don't happen. It's a couple of sad things that happened and everything, but it doesn't compare to actual problems, you know... like accidents.

It's been a long time since I had US history in school, but I swear I remembered there something about there being a clause put in so that states could leave the union if they wanted because certain states refused to to ratify the constitution unless they could leave. Maybe it only applied to the original 13 colonies or maybe I slept through that day and dreamed it all.

>> ^bobknight33:

So you are saying that this shit would have happened back in the 50's and 60's when society was more conservative? Sure the kids might have thought the things but would have the proper respect not to say shit.
Once again ignorant fools like you shame this community.


Please refrain from name calling bobknight33, you are ironically rehearsing the same typical traits of a bully when you do that.

And as for your arguments, I agree with you that historical context may have conjured a different picture in this situation, but I disagree with your original argument about how a specific government policy is totally wrong and destructive to society. Abuse against outsiders took place throughout US history unrelated to any specific government policy. Children got bullied when they wore glasses, children got bullied when they had funny teeth, children got bullied when their family was poor.

Those old conservative morals held many beliefs that were just as harmful to their society as all the ironies and misguided policies of our contemporary society holds today. Christians bullied other other Christians in the name of loyalty, women were seen as lower class beings, musicians were seen as indecent and cast out from society. In fact bullying was more prevalent and consequences were often much more brutal in those days. Bullying against people of different race often led to physical violence, and even death during the 50s.


If you just focus on children's respect for adults throughout US history, then you could make the argument that liberalism downplayed authority of adults over children. But certainly conservative societies of the 50s weren't any better in terms of bullying. I will reserve the topic of 'changes in social dynamic between adult and children relations in coordination with changes in governmental policies' for you since I think this was actually your specific idea from the beginning.

I'll have to check when I get back to Beijing, but I don't think it would be too hard to "baidu" (the chinese equivalent of google; hardly anyone uses google in china) tianamen square. After all, it is a major tourist destination, maybe the most visited place in the country! While many foriegners get a VPN to view content like youtube and facebook, I don't use them, so I'm guessing I see what everyone else sees on the internet (not that chinese couldn't get a VPN).

I can access the NYT, and wikipedia, linkedin, and other popular sites. I have never looked up democracy, or liberty or Tianamen square, though. I can access videosift, but I can only see liveleak or comedy central videos.

However, even if the internet isn't blocked, to really buy access to the internet (via a SIM card or cable access) one has to register with the government. It's part of the service application process, but it's still there. So, you know even if you have access, someone is watching. Even internet cafe monitoring has been enhanced recently.

I talked to a friend about knowledge of TS. She pointed out that even US history books don't chronicle recent history (the last 40 or 50 years) that thoroughly. I'm in my late 30s, and mine certainly didn't. She also said, even if it came up, older people would be reluctant to discuss such a topic.>> ^shoany:

Speaking of "google-ing Tienanmen Square", isn't there a giant, nationwide block against those keywords, as well as a billion others? I thought I read something to that effect a while ago, wherein the average Chinese internet user had extremely limited access to anything that might possibly be deemed anti-government or pro-free speech.
If that's the case, it wouldn't be so simple to Google Tienanmen Square. I imagine the story gets passed on, but probably in hushed voices and hidden books, as it's certainly not a publicly welcome topic of discussion.

Interesting. I had a typical, shitty American public school education. Slavery was definitely the predominant theme of that entire segment of US history, in the tone of "Rah! Rah! Look at how good we were to free all those people from the evil south!" (I grew up in California).
It wasn't until years later in college did I learn about all the other issues surrounding that war, and reflecting on that history it's very easy to spot the same tropes used today in politics. If the US could it would probably be telling the tale of the Iraq war 20-50 years from now as the gallant charge the US lead to free the people from the tyranny of Saddam.

As an aside, I have to say Pauls sounding remarkably hypocritical here when talking about legislation to abolish slavery, when he rails against legislation for civil rights so fervently. He seems very set on allowing States to decide what laws they follow in their local governments, but I wonder if that goes for something like slavery in his mind as well? Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

Beg to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRzl-vRkM8

>> ^marinara:

michelle bachman has never said anything nearly that stupid. not in the same ballpark

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

He was a senile, clueless, puppet president who advanced some of the most damaging and costly policy in US history, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he introduced free market economic reforms that have ravaged our economy, middle class and labor sector, he cravenly targeted the weakest and most powerless people in the country, and he sold weapons to Iran and drugs in inner cities to fund death squads in South America.....
...but, he sure new how to deliver a joke.
Blasphemy.

He was a senile, clueless, puppet president who advanced some of the most damaging and costly policy in US history, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he introduced free market economic reforms that have ravaged our economy, middle class and labor sector, he cravenly targeted the weakest and most powerless people in the country, and he sold weapons to Iran and drugs in inner cities to fund death squads in South America.....

...but, he sure new how to deliver a joke.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Props. A well composed joke.

Yep his writers were pretty good...can't let him go off on his own because he was known for saying some really insane things.

In response to Ghark's intelligent breakdown, of course it is infeasible and impractical to expect a complete evacuation of Americans from the continent and I'm sure you do not condone such action.

I believe in your last option, that Western society as a whole is more developed morally and philosophically today than hundreds of years ago. Structures to prevent such decimation such as the United Nations and hundreds of NGOs that exist today would act against such extermination today. Granted, the UN is not perfect, but it is better than what previously existed and it certainly would've changed the course of US history if globalization and world pressure existed as it does today.

To address another point you made, I'm sure the Native Americans would've done the same to us had they not been Native Americans and had been another group of settlers landing in America with advanced weaponry and systems of government. Of course, they wouldn't be Native Americans anymore would they? They would have a completely different way of life because they would've developed in a different environment.

Historically, Native American tribes did war with each other, but they hardly ever wiped each other out. Almost all Native American wars were small spats, some of which were over ritualistic and others were over things such as honor and rights.

Sorry for rambling, but it's a complicated issue and you've brought up some complicated questions.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

Show me a US recession/depression in the 20th/21st century that didn't end after large doses of economic stimulus in the form of deficits. That's the part I just don't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue against a deficit when every previous recession in modern US history was ended after significant, sometimes massive, deficit spending. This recession wasn't caused by deficit spending during times of recession. It was partly caused by massive record deficit spending during boom times. Stop the idiotic labeling of stuff. You don't prove anybody or any idea wrong by attempting to use the label "prog-lib". I don't care if the idea is liberal, progressive, capitalist, or conservative. If it works, freakin' use it!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.
1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?
2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?
3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.
Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.