BREAKING: Government Creates “Containment Zone” Around Occupied Refuge

The Washington Post reports that the FBI and Oregon State Police have surrounded and quarantined the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, “where a small cast of gun-toting, cowboy hat and camouflage-wearing anti-government activists.” (Harsh much?) The move comes after one member of the group — de facto spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum [above] — was shot and killed during a traffic stop some 30 miles from the Refuge. The Post speculates that the creation of a “containment area” may presage a police action to remove the protestors. According to a statement from the FBI and Oregon State Police, their goal is . . .

“to better ensure the safety of community members and law enforcement.” Yes, well, oregonlive.com reports that “In recent days, it looked as if about 40 people were staying in the buildings, including women and children.” And it looks like the Feds and Staties are tooling-up for confrontation:

One of the convoys moving around the refuge included police rigs, passenger cars and armored vehicles traveling south on Oregon 205, past the turnoff to the refuge and continuing on the road toward Frenchglen. The convoy could reach the refuge through back roads spidering north from the Diamond area.

Other convoys were reported moving south on Oregon 78 toward Crane, likely heading for the Princeton area and the eastern road to the refuge headquarters.

If you excuse the label “terrorist” from ImmortanJoe‘s comment on the WaPo article, it presents an interesting analysis of the current situation:

Police did say everyone has to go through the checkpoint, present ID and get their vehicle searched. I’d guess at that point, we’ll see more arrests. More than a few arrests will likely be for outstanding warrants. A few more for various gun violations. They are on Federal property so if their guns are not unloaded, locked up they will be confiscated and the driver arrested. Any who destroyed Federal property will be arrested.

At this point, no longer able to come and go, the 20 or so remaining terrorists, without their leaders, no media, food running out, will surrender individually at the road block.

Feds did a nice job. They discredited the militants, encouraged the locals to turn against them, media to get bored and start running stories on criminal records of the terrorists, general public boredome with the story. They gave the leaders a false sense of security and then arrested them on an isolated highway.

Interesting they made Grant County Sheriff Palmer be at the roadblock. Palmer organized the meeting the terrorists were going to attend. They made Palmer particpate in the arrest and killing of the terrorists which will ruin Palmer’s credibilty with the militants who Palmer has supported. Palmer looks like he tricked the miltants into coming to a meeting when Palmer knew it was a trap. Clever way to discredit Palmer who had been pandering to the terrorists.

Watch this space.

 

comments

  1. avatar Joseph says:

    ” a police action to remove the protestors.” Which has been in the planning stages since these idiots occupied the building.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      I’ll leave this here. Either the constitution is followed or it is not.

  2. avatar Carl Lee says:

    Remove the firing pins from your AR’s protestors. Place the rifles on the ground in front of you and hide the firing pins on your person.

    I’m assuming things are gonna go Waco here, but at least if you do that they can’t successfully frame you for shooting at them.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Nice thought but the Feds could just murder everyone and put new firing pins in the rifle. I wish there were 100 camera equipped drones flying over the refuge right now, to protect both sides with facts on how things are unfolding.

      1. avatar Hawkeye says:

        There already are camera-equipped drones flying over, but their footage will likely never be seen by a normal taxpayer.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          I meant news and private owned.

      2. avatar Rod says:

        I don’t know how true it is, but I heard it was a no fly zone due to the situation. If it is true, how convenient for the fed’s.

  3. avatar JAlan says:

    This is what they should have done from the start, and then we would just have a bunch of cold, hungry, and embarrassed guys, but they would be alive. Allowing them free movement was a mistake. They would have come out at some point from the lack of supplies.

  4. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    It sounds like the militia is claming that the feds shot their guy in ‘cold blood’ while he was unarmed and trying to surrender. If that is even half true a lot of people are going to be very upset.

    1. avatar JAlan says:

      That’s likely not true, or there would have been more body bags so as to not leave any witnesses.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Riight, because no cop has ever jacked up and shot somebody trying to surrender?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Who’s making the claim? The guys that were arressted after the shooting? The feds let them have free access to phones and the media?

      The guys back at the refuge that weren’t there? Alex Jones?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Third hand through Lisa Bundy from Amon Bundy. Amon Bundy still had his phone on him (he was in the backseat of the other vehicle) and called her to describe the incident before he went into custody.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Sorry, John. But I give the Bundy’s about the same credibility level as the #blacklivesmatter crowd.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I wasn’t making a judgement call one way or another. You asked where the information was coming from and I let you know to the best of my knowledge. AFAIK, I haven’t made any comments in support or against what’s been going on there on TTAG.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Thanks for your effort. Watched the video. He seemed credible. And the fact that he wasn’t held speaks volumes.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You’re welcome. So far, that video seems like the most accurate and level-headed reporting of the incident.

  5. avatar PeterK says:

    Well there was never much chance of this ending totally cleanly. I just hope that one death is enough for people on both sides.

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well, here we go. Here comes another federal massacre of civilians. Everybody happy yet?

  7. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    I’m surprised in this age of technology more information wasn’t coming from inside the camp yesterday, but their PR guy was the one who was shot so, there is that.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      I doubt the building has internet they can access. Even if it did, the feds control the utilities and could shut that off. The only alternative then would be satellite internet and battery power. They’ve been out there for a couple weeks now, so without some sort of other power source, the batteries would be dead by now. And direct-to-satellite connections are very expensive.

      I honestly wouldn’t expect true nationwide cell or internet coverage for at least another century. There is a lot of infrastructure and logistical elements necessary to make it happen. That requires money. And people living in the middle of nowhere probably don’t care to pay that kind of money.

  8. avatar Mikele says:

    Wait a minute, doesn’t the FBI video everything they do? Also Cops were involved in the traffic stop that resulted in the shooting, shouldn’t they have body cameras and dash cams? Where is the video? In this day and age I don’t see any reason why there isn’t any?? And if the authorities come out and say that there isn’t any video or documentation of the stop I’d then be suspicious, because wouldn’t the authorities want to document it so there’s no conspiracy?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That is what is going to tell the story. If we are told there is no video, but the stories are 180 degrees out, then the protesters are telling the truth, government is lying. Because we all know that BOTH sides were videoing the confrontation, those who ended up with all the guns would be able to control/destroy all those videos. So, where are the videos?

  9. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Well folks, it is time. The government has played their card.

    I fear for this country.

    1. avatar daveR says:

      Time for what, Stoopid1?

      1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

        Watch what happens in the next few weeks. Right or wrong, there are hundreds and maybe thousands of Americans that will take this as a call to action. The action being to assinate “enemies” of their belief system.

        In other words, this is likely the straw that broke the camels back. It sadens and scares me.

        1. avatar John E> says:

          You really are your namesake, aren’t you? Regardless of whether you like them or not, we are Nation of Laws. You voted for fellow citizens to represent you in our Republic and in doing so they created laws you may not like. Too bad, vote them out next time. But, instead you play the victim, just like countless other self interest groups you disparage. Use the process, all politics starts local. Vote people in who are going to reduce the size of government; don’t sit around bemoaning what the government is doing to our freedoms. Be part of the process. But you won’t, or will not, and you make excuses why it is too late.

    2. avatar Randy Taylor says:

      Hahahah. Time for what? Tea? To go to the bar?

  10. avatar daveR says:

    Why is this even on TTAG? Because they had guns? Because it was a “militia”? Because it affirms some fantasy that the Founding Fathers would have somehow supported these guys? Heh, they don’t even have popular local support–so if anyone is acting against the principles of the Constitution here, it’s the “protesters”

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Someone only has a legitimate Constitutional right to protest if there is a lot of public support for their grievance? Wow. You, sir, are a large part of the problem with this country.

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Because guns.

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        I agree RF, this coverage is history in the making. They are labeled as terrorist. What implications can the NRA and all of us expect in the future being labeled as terrorists? The .gov thinks it has popular opinion on guns but recent polling shows different, what will happen after an event like this is yet to be determined.

    3. avatar Dale says:

      Um, sir, have you even read the Constitution? Do you even have any freaking idea what it, AND the founding fathers, said about government owning land? I’m guessing you haven’t, as demonstrated by your idiotic statement. The short version is that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that the government cannot own land, except for 10 square miles, aka Washington DC. Get a clue and inform yourself before opening your yap about what the founding fathers would do.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Dale, there is a pretty big caveat there to “the government can not own land” that is laid out in the constitution. And that is that they can not own land without consent of the state. That’s a pretty big difference.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mr. Taylor,

          According to the United States Constitution, the only land that the federal government can purchase/own is the 10 square miles of Washington D.C. and land “… purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings …”

          That part that I highlighted in bold clearly states that land which the federal government purchases from a state with the consent of the state can only be used for military bases/facilities and “other needful buildings”.

          At any rate it is clear that there is no United States Constitutional provision for the federal government to purchase/own large swaths of land such as Bureau of Land Management areas.

        2. avatar Dale Smith says:

          Thank you Uncommon. You’re exactly right. And all of those applications are only at the consent of the state, in which they are located. Pretty sure that 90% of federally owned land does not meet any of the stipulated qualifications for government ownership. Unless they are trying to claim they are still territories, which would raise the question of are these states truly states, which they are.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Federal ownership of huge swathes of land was part of the statehood deal for most of the Western states — the states formally ceded that land to the federal government. It wasn’t seizure or just “all your lands are belong to us”; there was a formal legal process.

          Whether it was Constitutionally proper for that deal to take place at all in light of the specified duties and limitations of the federal government…that’s the iffy part.

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Dale and Uncommon, thanks for keeping a civil argument here. I completely agree that the federal government should not own these massive plots of land. If any government should own them it would be either the states of First Nation governments. However, what you see as clear and absolute is law that has been argued, many times, and is completely settled law. The argument was (and I saw was because really, this has been repeatedly argued and settled over and over again) that these lands were the property of the federal government, held in trust, and that the state effectively sold those lands to the federal government either for the improvement and safekeeping of those lands or as a condition of the benefits of statehood. As a matter of fact, in some instances, there are specific payments of dollars or services back to the state for those lands to this day. Some, not all.
          Do I think that’s some really hinky argument there? Yup. But that’s the argument that has been upheld in court on more than one occasion, going back since the days of the railroad.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Ing,

          … there was a formal legal process. Whether it was Constitutionally proper for that deal to take place at all in light of the specified duties and limitations of the federal government…that’s the iffy part.

          I don’t see any room for “iffy”: the United States Constitution clearly states that the federal government can ONLY purchase land for the capital, military installations, and “other needful buildings”. As for the federal government going through a “formal legal process”, that is not possible since the process was in direct contravention of the United States Constitution — the Supreme Law of the Land.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mr. Taylor,

          Oh, I don’t doubt that Fedzilla formally wrote the conditions for acquiring the huge swaths of land in our nation and that courts have upheld acquisitions. Nevertheless, the courts are wrong and Fedzilla is wrong in light of the clear and simple language of the United States Constitution.

          After all, it should come as no surprise that government courts do a poor job keeping government in check. That responsibility is ultimately up to We the People … and that is precisely why we have the Second Amendment.

        7. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Uncommon, we are in total agreement there.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Hmm. A “containment area … to better ensure the safety of community members and law enforcement.”

    I think a better description of the “containment area” is “to ensure that there are no public witnesses to derail the government narrative if/when Fedzilla murders the protesters”.

    1. avatar MIkeD101 says:

      The unfortunate fact, which is completely lost on you I’m sure, is that people like you do more damage to the more rational 2A enthusiasts than an army of anti-gun politicians. You reinforce your own inane narrative.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        No reason to get pissy, let’s just see what the video shows us. Video has been lost? Then we can get pissy, and if *you* believe they were actually lost, it doesn’t speak well for your common sense. A man died. I want to see how, not have it explained in vastly different ways by opposing “witnesses”. I suspect the dead man was being an asshole with a gun, but I will wait for the video.

        1. avatar MIkeD101 says:

          Not being pissy, I’m just tired of people like these occupiers and their supporters being lumped in with me and mine on the issue of the 2A. The dead person in question stated he would absolutely not be taken alive by law enforcement. The fact that he’s the only dead person in a multiple arrest is hardly surprising.

        2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          One of the Bundy’s wives (can’t remember which) allegedly told reporters(youtube) that her husband called her and told her the police shot “Levoy” while he was on the ground with his hands up. If the FBI wants to show proof that this wasn’t true I would love to see the video, because even if this was a rumor and Bundy never called his wife I have seen this reported twice, again by not 100% reliable youtube sources.

        3. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          @Miked101 even though he was the only one killed he wasn’t the only one shot. The FBI needs to be open with the video and soon. The longer they sit on evidence the longer this will simmer with the Bundy supporters. I was in more support with the stand at the Bundy Ranch, but the tactics of this “sit in” were poor from the start. I still haven’t made up my mind who I support in this, but this leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and I wish it had not happened.

        4. avatar MIkeD101 says:

          @Jeff Yes, I get that one other person was also shot. I disagree on the need to release the video right away. It wouldn’t matter to those determined to believe the FBI assassinated this guy. It won’t change their mind and the general public puts little to no stock in the statements of a completely self serving Bundy. IMO rightfully so. What makes more sense, that the guy who stated he would never be taken alive fulfilled this promise or that the FBI chose to kill him, and just him, while he was prostrate on the ground with his hands out?

        5. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Jeff, leave yourself the option to support neither side in this, too. I don’t think there are any winners in this particular fight. Both sides seem to have mishandled it from the jump.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        MIkeD101,

        It sounds like you ascribe, by default, nothing but honorable intentions and actions to all government agents. They are strangers … and there are ample historical examples of government agents acting dishonorably. Why in the world would you automatically trust them to act honorably? Why in the world would you ever condone government agents setting up a “zone” which excludes impartial observers from life-and-death situations?

        The demonstrators in Oregon might very well be harming people in the community. And they might very well NOT be harming anyone in the community. Let’s have impartial observers provide witness and video to corroborate or condemn any actions that either side takes.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          UN has these guys in blue helmets and white vehicles………

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “I think a better description of the “containment area” is “to ensure that there are no public witnesses to derail the government narrative if/when Fedzilla murders the protesters”.”

      Media has been allowed to stay. Media was reporting from the location earlier this morning.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Ah, I had the impression that the Oregon State Police and/or FBI were either keeping everyone out or only allowing “locals” to pass through. It is public property — anyone should be able to travel there.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I apologize for being unclear. The media that is there has been allowed to stay. However, if they leave there are searched like anyone else, and they are being told they will not be allowed to immediately return. At least that is what was being reported by a couple of different reporters, one from NPR and one local radio, this morning.

  12. avatar Kurt says:

    You go Girl!!!!!!! Don’t let them lie to us……you are what true power femininity has, and G*d Bless you and keep you!!!!!!…Thank you for who AND what you are!!!!! 🙂

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Police did say everyone has to go through the checkpoint, present ID and get their vehicle searched.

    Thus our Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures goes out the window as well. Like we have said so many times, if Fedzilla is willing to throw one right under the bus, they are all-too-willing to throw all of our rights under the bus.

    1. avatar Puyallup Devil Doc says:

      This is pretty much the definition of a reasonable search. Like it or not, the protesters are breaking the law. Preventing reinforcements or resupply to an active criminal standoff is never going to be considered unreasonable.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I do not agree. How is it “okay” to stop every traveler in an area, demand identification, and demand to search their vehicle? Remember, there is no evidence or reasonable, articulable suspicion to suggest that EVERY single traveler may be part of the protest.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nah, try again. If *everybody* has to go through the same inspection, that is within gov’ts authority. Picking certain people out requires a warrant. Again, let’s see the video, that argument is used regularly to stop and search Mexican vehicles while Anglos are turned loose immediately, IOW it’s BS, but the CLAIM is legal, until you prove that, for example, that “vehicle search” is vastly different for somebody just driving down the road to get home and one of these freaks.

      1. avatar Puyallup Devil Doc says:

        Pretty sure a court would rule that police have a legitimate interest in asking people outside of an armed standoff whether or not they have a reason to be driving down that road. Like it or not, this standoff has always been civil disobedience, and the participants always risked arrest. They are currently breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you agree with their motives for doing so.

        I’m not supporting the gov here, I’m pointing out that our energies would be much better used if they were focused on the actual constitutional violations that were occurring rather than inventing things to be offended by. The cops surrounding an active armed standoff have every reason to ask people why they’re driving by, and to insist that non-residents are prohibited from entering, or in some way supporting the protesters.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    “They are on Federal property so if their guns are not unloaded, locked up they will be confiscated and the driver arrested.” Pointless, arbitrary law is pointless and arbitrary. What does this even do?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Isn’t the point they are trying to make that this should NOT be considered “federal property”? How did it become such?

      1. avatar Stacy says:

        The short version is that the federal government purchased large swathes of land west of the Mississippi from Mexico, Spain, and Russia, with the intention, at the time, of distributing it to settlers. 40 acres and a mule and all that. They ended up running out of settlers somewhere around western Oklahoma, and the remaining land has continued to be owned by the federal government to this day. On top of that, in the 1970s environmental lobbying groups got a lot of policies put in place of the nature of “you can no longer renew your grazing permit because black-chested snipe have been spotted on that tract”.

        There is also the inevitable desire of connected politicians to do projects on “unused” land, put their name on a new park, etc. Some say that that was in play in the Hammond prosecution and sentencing. There is fairly strong evidence that it was in play in the Bundy dispute in Nevada.

        These things are why Federal ownership of large parts of entire states is a terrible idea. The Bundy militia is just a symptom of the frustration of people who live there.

  15. avatar Kap says:

    These YoYo’s doing the occupying had better not group up or Ruby ridge, and Waco will repeat! Rambo want to Be’s probably have to go VC if they want too survive! Know we know why the Democrats and Obama want too dis arm us!
    Typical Government move, call a guy out for negotiations then then make him DRT! show”s how much you can really trust the ones who kill under the color of Law

  16. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    I had guns on our local federal wildlife refuge a few months ago…I was hunting in the public hunting area, and nobody bothered me regarding carrying. Hunting was fantastic, better than any of the surrounding over-hunted private areas.

  17. avatar Bdk NH says:

    I look forward to seeing and hearing the facts about the arrests and shooting before I draw any conclusions. This much I do know, no matter how righteous you believe your position as you claim the highest moral ground, if you aim a gun at a cop, you will get shot. Sadly, based on the recent Waco shootings it is plausible that we will never hear the truth about what really happened.

    Whether or not it was a “good shoot” or not, the local/state/Federal law enforcement handling of the entire situation is distressing. Reporting indicates over 20 agencies and hundreds (thousands?) of tactically equipped officers and possibly several special military units were staged in the surrounding area to deal with the “threat.” The threat being 50 or less otherwise law abiding US Citizens, including woman and children, with small arms staging a poorly planned “sit in” in the middle of nowhere. In a seasonally abandoned worthless $hithole of a building at the end of a long road. People that that simply defied orders to leave after cutting down a few fences and being informed they were trespassing. People that were unprepared to stay at the building for more than a few days if the one road in was closed. Thousands of dollars in damages at worst. Hunger and fatigue make cowards of us all. Give them a warning, cut off the road, and after a week or two they will come out. The locals want the protest to stop because they are sick of the harassment and inconvenience of having hundreds of LEOs of every stripe running around looking for trouble.

    After being “humiliated” at the Bundy ranch I am not surprised at the overwhelming Federal law enforcement response. Maybe grazing rights and excessive Federal land management isn’t a hill worth dying on for most Americans, but anyone that swore an oath to the Constitution or that values “Life, Liberty and Property” should take pause with the response in case some day they do find a hill worth defending.

  18. avatar Eric says:

    Interesting how the media refers to them over and over as terrorists but referred to the people burning down the city of Ferguson…protestors.

  19. avatar John in Ohio says:

    YouTube live feed: https://youtu.be/Zil8bInw3hs

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Not live. Looping? Anyone have a live feed link?

  20. avatar wrightl3 says:

    Will both parties of jokers just go home already.

  21. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I never saw the point of “occupying” after the 2 guys were put in federal prison. Did they murder the guy in cold blood? Do the feds do anything in “hot” blood? Conspiracy/RICO-you’re screwed. I see people dying for nothing.

  22. avatar John Davies says:

    I won’t voice an opinion on the standoff, but having met Sheriff Glenn Palmer in person when applying for my Oregon non-resident carry permit, I have to say that he appeared to be a fine gentleman and he has always been an ardent supporter of individual gun rights. The fact that Grant County is 2/3 Federal land must make it very hard for him to deal with situations like this. If he was “forced” into attending what turned into a Federal shootout, I hope he doesn’t suffer too much both personally and politically. I don’t know how any local sheriff could handle a volatile situation like this.

    John Davies
    Spokane WA

    1. avatar John Davies says:

      PS, read this before you judge Sheriff Palmer:
      http://grantcountysherifforegon.com/pdf/SB_941_Letter.pdf

  23. avatar BDub says:

    Well, it seems pretext has been established, we can now proceed with the “called for action”. What’ll it bee this time, 1) a sniper shot that shouldn’t have happened, or 2)burning the building to the ground with everyone inside, or perhaps 3) something new?

  24. avatar Slayer of Sacred Cows says:

    Make no mistake, these guys are most definitely not anti-government. They are full fledged statists – they just want a government that represents them better.

  25. avatar DDT says:

    Lot’s of folks here are making references to the Waco incident of the early 90s. If you want the truth about that incident get a copy of ” Plain Old Agent” by Dave DiBetta. You’ll find it a good read.

    1. avatar lowell says:

      And if you want to know what the physical evidence says, a documentary called “Waco: A New Revelation” spells out all the results of the Texas Rangers followup investigation which contradicts the federals on quite literally EVERY point.

  26. avatar lowell says:

    Here’s what happened, Finicum wanted to be a martyr, they obliged. These non-Oregonian morons were not wanted there by local patriots, they did not ever ask if it was okay to come to the state and stir up trouble, and then they made damn good and sure that the government agents that deal out violence for a living knew that they would not go quietly. SURPRISE, after all that and him ramming a barricade they shot him in the face.

    I HATE government. In any of it’s centralized forms. I want every one of the agents involved in Ruby Ridge and Waco summarily executed in a public square. I want the entire US government and money system reset to zero, all laws and debt wiped away. But you know what? When it comes to these idiots my give-a-damn’s busted.

    1. avatar lowell says:

      You know in the 90’s when the militia movement started picking up steam they had their knock agent(for lack of a better term) Tim McVey drive a truck bomb to a federal building that had previously been spared from demolition and then been assigned as the storage site for ALL the files on federal investigations against the Clintons. The bomb McVey drove could NOT have done the blast pattern evident that clearly showed the building had been blown up from the inside. And McVey showed up for his own execution completely covered in a sheet up to his neck after spending his entire incarceration fighting a court battle to be cremated WITHOUT autopsy, so he may still be alive, a new identity provided by his handlers for his fine service.

      Oklahoma City completely derailed not only the militia movement but also the 10th Amendment restoration movement. Just like it was planned to.

      If we are LUCKY, this won’t do the same to the current militia movement. But the people behind OKC have to be laughing their asses off. They didn’t have to even lift a finger this time. Our own people might have done more damage to the cause than the government was capable of.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email