Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[tod evans]

Bigger Than Bundy Ranch: Militia put on Level 2 Alert to Defend Oregon Ranchers against Tyrannical Feds Who Label Them Terrorists

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/bigger-than-bundy-ranch-militia-put-on-level-2-alert-to-defend-oregon-ranchers-against-tyrannical-feds-who-label-them-terrorists/

This story has been brewing for some time, but not gotten national attention, unlike the Bundy Ranch incident in 2014. The family of Dwight Hammond have come under the tyrannical eye of the federal government and now it appears that both Hammond and his son Steve are being railroaded for something that is a non-criminal act is being played out before their eyes. Word went out to citizen militias this week that the issue is a level 2 alert, meaning that militia members across the country need to be ready to deploy to Oregon to stand against federal tyrants who are seeking to wrongfully imprison two American citizens.
According to an October 7, 2015 press release from the Obama Department of Justice, Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
The men were charged nearly a decade after the first fire and five years after the second.
Oregon Live reports on the fires:
The Hammonds' run-ins with the government began in 1999, when Steven Hammond started a fire that escaped onto U.S. Bureau of Land Management territory. The intent of the fire was to burn off juniper and sagebrush that hindered the growth of grass for their cattle.

BLM employees reminded Steven Hammond that although his family leased public land for grazing, he couldn't burn it without a permit. But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.

Then in August 2006, lightning sparked several fires near the spot where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven Hammond set a back-burn to thwart the advancing flames, and it burned across about an acre of public land, according to federal court records.
The jury in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. They were found guilty of arson on lands which they had grazing rights under Hammond Ranches, Inc., but which the unconstitutional Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is supposed to manage. The land is claimed as federal land, in clear violation of the Constitution.
The problem is multifaceted.
First, both men were sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, following the trial. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, even though he sentenced them to jail for the time he did.
The men agreed to a plea deal that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence in order to bring the case to a close.
Both men served their sentences and were released. Now, the feds have appealed those sentences and want the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed on the men, and so they appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed with the feds that the judge ruled illegally. However, now they are wanting to label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail.
"I find it incredible that the government would want to try these ranchers as terrorists," said Barry Bushue, the longtime president of the Oregon Farm Bureau. "Now is where the rubber meets the road. Right now is when the public should absolutely be incensed. And the public, I think, should be fearful."
The DOJ's acting US Attorney Billy Williams said, "We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze."
"Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States' property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison," he added. "These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy."
However, what was not communicated in all of this is that the BLM starts these kinds of fires quite often and it actually benefits the land, though many times the BLM's fires get completely out of control. Second, the fires that were started were not arson.
According to the definition of arson, the term means, "At Common Law, the malicious burning or exploding of the dwelling house of another, or the burning of a building within the curtilage, the immediate surrounding space, of the dwelling of another."
Notice the term "malicious." The definition of malicious is "Involving malice; characterized by wicked or mischievous motives or intentions."
There were no malicious, wicked or mischievous motives or intentions behind what the Hammonds were doing. In fact, as stated above, the BLM often engages in this activity and so do other ranchers.
Dwight's wife, Susan, said, "They called and got permission to light the fire… We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn't in the way or that weather wouldn't be a problem."
According to the Bundy Family, they point out that the Hammonds were simply engaging in what is commonly known as prescribed fires.
"The Hammonds are a simple ranching family that for generations has cared for the land they live upon," the family wrote on its website. "Prescribed burns are a vital process in keeping the land healthy and productive in the area. The BLM also performs prescribed burns and have let it get out of control many times, but never has it cost any federal agent hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and years of life in prison. The Hammonds prescribed a fire that moved to public land, they extinguished the fire themselves. The courts found that the burn increased vegetation for the following years, and had a positive impact on the land. With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions."
Note that the courts found that there was a positive impact on the land!
Tri-State Livestock News reports on that testimony, "In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes an admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist, that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on the BLM property."
And why was that? According to Erin Maupin, a former BLM range technician and watershed specialist and rancher in the area who had been the neighbor of the Hammonds for years, said it was because researchers had determined that managing the invasive junipers, which steal water from grass and other cover was something necessary to increase the conditions on the land.
"Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale," said Maupin.
So, we know there was no malicious intent, but rather normal ranch operations. Therefore, how could this be considered arson? It's a part of ranching! If this is arson, then every person who has served on BLM and conducted the same kinds of fires should be immediately arrested, tried and if convicted treated as terrorists. But they won't be.
The root problem in all of this is the federal government assuming it can own open land like this.
They cannot lawfully. Under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (The Property Clause), we read:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….
Seems clear enough. Congress can regulate territory or other property that belongs to the United States. However, what land is rightfully under the federal government's control to regulate under the Constitution? Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 states:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places 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– (Emphasis added).
As Michael Lotfi rightly points out, "The clause gives federal control over the "Seat of Government" (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more."
Cliven Bundy's family issued a warning:
We warn federal agencies, federal judges and all government officials that follow federal oppressive examples that the people are in unrest because of these types of actions. The purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, not to take them away. It is the duty of the people to defend their God given rights if government fails to do so or turns to devour them. Good, civil citizens wish only to live in tranquility and peace, but demand freedom while doing so. We call upon you and all civil servants to effectuate the true purpose of government and change your actions as needed by fulfilling your sworn duty to the Constitution and ultimately to the People.
We further warn that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest. We advocate that all charges be dropped and that the Hammond family be allowed to return to the home and life that was so rudely interrupted. The Hammond family has paid enough for this mistake, if any mistake at all. Further punishments to the Hammonds will require restitution upon those who inflict the injustices.
We call upon aware citizens and government officials to promote the protection and freedom of the Hammond family, and by so doing, maintaining the spirit of liberty that this beloved nation is built upon.
Indeed, Captain Joe Oshaugnessy of the Arizona militia put out the word on Facebook to inform citizen militias of a level 2 alert with information on who needs to be contacted to avoid a confrontation that will likely not end as well as the Bundy Ranch siege did.
Oshaugnessy has encouraged everyone to contact as many of these people in a "respectful manner" to "air your grievances," something the First Amendment protects, and call upon these people to follow the law of the Constitution that binds them, not the American citizen.
Sheriff David M. Ward
485 N Court Ave #6
Burns, Oregon 97720
541-573-6156
Dave.ward@co.harney.us
Frank Papagni, ESQ. US Attorney (Prosecutor)
405 East Eighth Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-465-6771
Frank.pagani@usdoj.gov
Lawrence Matasar, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
521 SW Morrison St, Ste 1025
Portland, OR 97205
503-222-9830
larry@pdxlaw.com
Marc Blackman, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
1001 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 1400
Portland, OR 97204
503-228-0487
marc@ransomblackman.com
Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Mgr, BLM
BLM, Burns District Office
28910 Hwy 20
Hines, OR 97738
541-573-4400
Chad Karges, Refuge Mgr for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (Husband of Rhonda)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept of Interior
36391 Sodhouse Ln
Princeton, OR 97721
541-493-2612
Governor Kate Brown
State Capital Bldg
900 Court St NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301
503-378-4582
Billy J. Williams, U.S. District Attorney (Eugene office)
405 E 8th Ave. Suite 2400
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-6771
Neil Evans
Portland, OR
503-727-1053
Gerri Badden
U.S Attorney's Office – District of Oregon
PIO
503-727-1033
503-706-3910
Gerri.badden@usdoj.gov
Judge Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the District of Oregon
541-431-4100
info@ord.uscourts.gov
Chuck Cushman
Public Advocate, American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-687-3087
Former Judge Michael Hogan
PO Box 1375
Eugene, OR 97440
541-465-6773


Two members of Oregon's Hammond family to serve time in prison after burning 140 acres of BLM land

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

http://www.thefencepost.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=MSpZw ZIj8QBY5kYXRAceDc$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtRPTS3hb0ajk_ cHoUOQmSMWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

The story could set the stage for a western-style soap opera.

“I call it ‘as the sagebrush burns,’” said Erin Maupin of the long and storied history involving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), special interest groups and the cattle ranchers on the Steens Mountain of Oregon.

The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertantly burning about 140 acres of BLM rangeland in two separate fires, years ago. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods.

Dwight, 73 and son Steven, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case, to lighting two different fires. Both fires started on Hammonds’ private property.

The Harney County ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 in a separate settlement.

“The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,”

“The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area,” said the Department of Justice news release.

“The Jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightening storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt to save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by the BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons,” continued the DOJ release.

The two men were sentenced to prison in 2012. Steve served eleven months and Dwight three.

The men were charged with nine counts, including conspiracy, using aerial surveillance of sites they burned, attempting to destroy vehicles and other property with fire, and more. Dwight and Steve were found guilty of two counts – the two fires they readily admitted to starting on their own property.

In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didn’t even believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would “shock his conscience” he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a review of the case and District Chief Judge Ann Aiken went ahead with a full sentence – five years in federal prison for both men, minus time already spent.

The fires

The first, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

Dwight’s wife Susan shared some crucial details in an exclusive interview with TSLN.

“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM.

Maupin, a former range technician and watershed specialist who resigned from the BLM in 1999, said that collaborative burns between private ranchers and the BLM had become popular in the late 1990s because local university extension researchers were recommending it as a means to manage invasive juniper that steal water from grass and other cover.

“Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale,” said the woman whose family also neighbored the Hammonds for a couple of years.

“In 1999, the BLM started to try to do large scale burn projects. We started to be successful on the Steens Mountain especially when we started to do it on a large watershed scale as opposed to trying to follow property lines.”

Because private and federal land is intermingled, collaborative burns were much more effective than individual burns that would cover a smaller area, Maupin said.

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening fires.

“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. “Lightening strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she said.

Maupin said prescribed burns to manage juniper were common in the late 1990s and early 2000s, best done late in the fall when the days are cooler.

Prescribed burns on federal land in their area have all but stopped due to pressure from “special interest groups,” Maupin said. As a result, wildfires now burn much hotter due to a “ladder” of material on the ground – grass, brush and trees.

“The fires now burn really hot and they sterilize the ground. Then you have a weed patch that comes back.”

Maupin said planned burning in cooler weather like the Hammonds chose to do improves the quality of the forage, and makes for better sage grouse habitat by removing juniper trees that suck up water and house raptors – a sage grouse predator.

After 34 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Rusty Inglis resigned from his position with the federal government and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area – he has no federal land permits and operates strictly on private land.

“The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top notch. They know their land management.”

Inglis, president of his county Farm Bureau organization and a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said both groups are working to help gain media attention for the Hammond case. The state Farm Bureau group gathered signatures online for a petition to show widespread support for the family. “Enough is enough. We are not in Nazi Germany. We are in the United States of America.”

Charges

The Hammonds were charged with 9 counts in the original court case.

The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres.

According to the 2012 sentencing document, the jury found the men innocent or were deadlocked on all but two counts – the two fires the men admitted to starting – burning a total of about 140 acres.

Judge Hogen dismissed testimony from a disgruntled grandson who testified that the 2001 fire endangered his life and that of local hunters, saying the boy was very young and referencing a feud that may have influenced the testimony.

“Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars.” He added.

More to the story?

During her tenure with as a full time BLM employee from 1997-1999, Maupin recalls other fires accidentally spilling over onto BLM land, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced, she said. Ranchers might be burning invasive species or maybe weeds in the ditch. “They would call and the BLM would go and help put it out and it was not big deal.”

On the flip side, Maupin remembers numerous times that BLM-lit fires jumped to private land. Neighbors lost significant numbers of cattle in more than one BLM fire that escaped intended containment lines and quickly swallowed up large amounts of private land. To her knowledge, no ranchers have been compensated for lost livestock or other loss of property such as fences.

Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds’ hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killed about 65 cows.

A youtube.com video named BLM Working at Burning Frenchglen-July 10, 2012 shows “back burn” fires allegedly lit by BLM personnel that are upwind of the main fire, including around Gary Miller’s corrals. The fire that appeared ready to die down several times, eventually burned around 160,000 acres, Miller said.

Bill Wilber, a Harney County rancher, said five lightening strikes on July 13, 2014, merged to create a fire on Bartlett Mountain. The fire flew through his private ground, burned a BLM allotment and killed 39 cows and calves.

While the fire could have been contained and stopped, BLM restrictions prevent local firefighting efforts like building a fireline, so only after taking in 397,000 acres did the fire finally stop when it came up against a series of roads.

Two South Dakota prescribed burns, ignited by the U.S. Forest Service, blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land in 2013. Ranchers that suffered extensive property damage from the Perkins County, South Dakota, “Pautre fire,” filed tort claims in accordance with federal requirements, but will receive no compensation because USDA found the U.S. Forest Service not responsible for that fire.

Why the Hammonds?

“The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.

In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000 foot breathtaking peak.

A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing the anti-grazing groups to create a 170,000 acre wilderness, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness were the Hammonds,” explained Maupin. And because the Hammonds have large chunks of private property in the heart of the cooperative management area, they carried a target on their backs.

“It’s become more and more obvious over the years that that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Inglis.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working “on the ground” supported the Hammonds’ use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. “There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers,” she said, building tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

In the Hammonds’ plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their land and BLM leases, Maupin added.

The Maupins themselves had a small lease that also bordered the “cow-free wilderness” and the Oregon Natural Desert Association was “relentless in their pursuit to have us off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness,” Maupin said. The group would criticize the ranchers’ water usage, causing them to pipe water to their cattle, which in turn instigated more complaints from the group.

Eventually the Maupins sold their permit and moved.

But the Hammonds remained.

Steve and Dwight Hammond will turn themselves in to for their prison sentences in early January, Susan said.

The family has sold cattle. Their BLM permit has not been renewed for two years, leaving them unable to use even a large amount of intermingled private land.

The family is in the “last challenge” to re-obtain their grazing permit. “I don’t know what happens after that,” Susan said. “We have done everything according to their rules and regulations and there is no reason that they should not give us back our permit.”

The five-year prison sentence sets a worrisome precedent for area ranchers, Maupin said.

“Now the sky is the limit. It doesn’t have to be fire, it can be trespass with cattle.”

Another precedent – one for fire that burns beyond expectations – should apply to everyone, including federal employees, though, Maupin points out.

Susan Hammond isn’t sure where to go from here.

“We’ve been fighting it for five years. We don’t want to destroy people as we are fighting it even if it is a BLM employee,” she said, “They live in our community and they have families. We respect that.” The situation could get even more ugly but that “it’s not going to be our fault,” she said.

Maupin talked about the Hammonds helping her and her husband with ranch work, like hauling cattle, lending portable panels and never expecting anything in return. Wilber recalled them hauling 4-H calves to the fair for neighbors and Inglis said Dwight once offered to lend him money because he thought he needed help. “Here’s a guy with $400,000 in fines and legal bills I can’t imagine, worrying about my welfare,” said Inglis.

“I think that’s the biggest point of all of this – how can you prosecute people as terrorists when they aren’t a terrorist?”

Property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen from Cheyenne, Wyoming, agrees. “What totally amazes me is what these guys did – they burned 140 acres. If you compare that to the EPA spill in Colorado, it amazes me that nothing will happen to those EPA employees. You have cities down there with no drinking water. The Hammonds didn’t do anything like that,” Budd-Falen said.

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better,” said Maupin.

The BLM deferred all questions to the Department of Justice who shared their official news release but did not respond to e-mailed questions as of print time.

[Dr.3D]

The government just needs to sell that land to the ranchers and give the money back to those they stole it from for Social Security.

[klamath]

Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Errors-Caused-Lewiston-Fire-Trainee-planned-2918200.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

[Uriel999]

Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Errors-Caused-Lewiston-Fire-Trainee-planned-2918200.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

Not to mention controlled burns have been used in North America since before the first European expeditions into the continent.

I'm no farmer and in fact couldn't keep a cactus alive (yes I killed a cactus...don't judge me...) but even I know that controlled burns are good for the land.

They also make the land safer as they strategically remove all the deadfall.

[nobody's_hero]

Not to mention controlled burns have been used in North America since before the first European expeditions into the continent.

I'm no farmer and in fact couldn't keep a cactus alive (yes I killed a cactus...don't judge me...) but even I know that controlled burns are good for the land.

They also make the land safer as they strategically remove all the deadfall.

There's probably a lot of people working for the BLM who don't know the first thing about agriculture.

[puppetmaster]

Yeah the BLM let's fires get away from them all the time around here.

[libertyjam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeeclad8G3E&ab_channel=GavinSeim

Feds Burning Cows ALIVE, Torching Homes, Imprisoning Ranchers

[rg17]

I thought the BLM was Black Lives Matter not Bureau of Land Management.

[tod evans]

I thought the BLM was Black Lives Matter not Bureau of Land Management.

Either one gets the same amount of respect out of me.....................None

[Thor]

Seems like it is escalating....




CALL TO ACTION: All able body men and women come to Burns, Oregon on or before January 2nd. Come prepared and be willing to stand.

Dear Friends,

**Some significant correspondence about the sentiment of making a strong stand in Harney County**

Ammon Bundy - Dec. 23, 2015
The Hammonds have been put in prison as terrorists for prescribed burns on their ranch. They did their time as unjust as it was. Now the federal government is putting them back in prison for the same thing, for 5 years. The federal government forced the Hammond's to sign the sale of their ranch to the BLM, and have fined them $400,000. The Feds are also making the Hammond's get permission from them if they buy or sale anything over $500. Pure tyranny and the people are going to make a stand against it on Saturday, Jan 2nd.

Ammon Bundy - Dec. 26, 2015
My Friend, I just got off the phone with Dwight and Suzie, flowers in their front yard will not help them. The Hammonds do not want a funeral. They want us to make a difference. I am holding back my emotions with you and your organization. Our rights are being stripped from us. This county is suffering. Good men are going to prison so wicked men can gain power and control. The constitution is being grossly violated, and you want to have a little walk and present flowers. I, and those that follow, WILL be flipping coins on the County yard. We intend to stand against these violations and not allow them to become the normal. Our actions will be recorded in history, the truth always reveals itself. Please read the Declaration of Independence as soon as you can, it may do some good.

Ammon Bundy - Dec. 26, 2015
My Friend, You know that I am not the only one that gives a damn, and I do believe that there is a right way and detrimental ways to this very delicate situation. Let me lay out some of the facts of the "alternative solution" or "avenues that have been exhausted" so you do not accuse me again of being rash.

The Hammonds are being punished for a fire they started over 15 years ago, they have spent upwards to $1,000,000 in their legal defense. They have exhausted all their avenues in the federal court system. They have used up every bit of emotion and will they possessed. (From what I'm being told, the Hammonds at one time were valiant fighters for what is right). Many cannot believe they have given up. But the system has broken them. The Hammonds have exhausted prudence over many years. They are the epitome of what Americans will become if the system is allowed to ruin all of us.

In addition, a rally of the community of over 500 people assembled in protest for the Hammonds, they were clear, loud and poignant. This effort was ignored by any and all in the federal system, in-fact they gave the Hammonds even greater punishment than anyone expected.

In addition, the Oregon Farm Bureau collected over 8000 petitions; these petitions were ignored and did not make a difference. Not one local or federal official took notice, not one responded in any way. Many articles and documents have been drafted expressing the injustice of these matters. Many people have commented and responded to those articles, many have written their Congressmen and other elected officials, yet those in the system still did not respond in anyway.

All of this happened before I even knew about the Hammonds. Laying in bed, I was told to get involved. I had no desire before then to take on someone else's battle. Since that time I have written more than 30 letters to different individuals of influence. Many other influential people have written directly to federal and other officials asking them to get involved in ending these gross abuses. All petitions have been ignored. I have yet to hear of any of these individuals even getting a reply letter.

Further, many others and myself have personally met with many officials asking them to get help in standing against these injustices. To the dis-heartment of those asking our petitions have been ignored. Thousands of emails were written to Sheriff Ward asking him to simply go to the Hammonds home, spend time with them, go to the ranch and go to where the fires happened, get a true perspective on what is really going on. The Sheriff has yet to even go 4 blocks down the street from his office to Dwight & Susie's home. He had not even met the Hammonds until Ryan & I set up a meeting at his office with them. He has never been out to the Hammonds ranch and has not been to where the fires took place. Yet he has drove all the way to Pendleton to spend a day or two with Frank Papagni and has spent many, many hours talking with the FBI about how they are going to combat those supporting the Hammonds.

In addition, thousands of emails were written to State representatives asking them to meet with the Hammonds and go to the ranch and fires, to get a correct perspective and get involved. All of these petitions have been ignored, not one elected representative visited the Hammonds or have been to the ranch or have gone to where the fires took place.

There have been countless communications, messages and emails back and forth about the Hammond case. I, myself, have spent hundreds of hours speaking with groups and individuals about the details of the Hammond case. I have been on over 40 radio broadcasts in the last 7 weeks explaining the direct violations of human rights towards the Hammonds. Hundreds of thousands have become aware of the details of the Hammonds case across the continent and have express distaste for the injustice.

After all of these petitions were ignored a legal Notice - Redress of Grievance was drafted listing all the egregious abuses and insisting that the County and the State officials assemble an Evidential Hearing Board. This Notice was sponsored by sound organizations across the west and tens of thousands of people put their name to it. We gave the State and County officials ample time to reply. By law, they are required to respond. Still to this day they have not responded in anyway. They have completely ignored. Judge Grasty said; "those that signed it were all "crazies" and not from Oregon". The fact is that people from every State in the Union put their name to it (including Hawaii and Alaska) but Oregon was represented by the most. You, yourself, a resident of Oregon put your name to it and so did the Oregon Constitutional Guard. Are you all "crazy" as Judge Steven Grasty said?

In addition, many town meetings have been organized and in one of those meetings the people assembled a Committee of Safety. The county, state and federal representative have openly mocked the committee and the people of Harney County in this effort, belittling the people's efforts to protect themselves as illegitimate.

There have been acts and petitions that I could never have time to list that have supported and disclosed the injustices that are taking place in this case. An unbelievable amount of effort has been exhausted in prudent methods to correct the wrong that have come upon the Hammonds. When will it be enough? Should we go on forever because we are afraid to do what is our right to do? What will happen to the Constitution and individual rights if we allow these violations to go on without challenge?

Please Read the Notice: Redress of Grievance -
http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/we-people-united-individuals-of-these.html (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Cl1iMgfd6lxR48bOzB5YQVpxJpfMhTSz3zMJHW Y3V_FCzFgSkirjDFoBlFTam1PFOXBhetc-QrdpZ9faoB8Z-rdmJ-g6Z0rGp1I9_4Lr_2OR6n1bsqdBUmBYMzW8dyzAhr5OTUEMZlDS Qs7IiP-NdvOcC7CtX_K1h9sLN4gKbiU6q93mk0A74q8vQ5zL1lIXyQ55v B_kbY74gABufVInhWBEitLG4CVY5zZ_I574qDIHCGQQea2KM2h E3ZLV6oUf&c=tOzROy690w7Pvx1U13kc78VhmfRTh7WSe_VnQxHnj0KbHO0g XwgSIQ==&ch=hj2iAkV0yqzs12cFIkxXVcINc2rocQ7L6gP4ikpgVNkIAJg V-MEY-Q==)

Hammond Family Facts & Events- http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Cl1iMgfd6lxR48bOzB5YQVpxJpfMhTSz3zMJHW Y3V_FCzFgSkirjDFoBlFTam1PFBG-WSuG-_7699RUvd2p33XlZQeOPQHrHZgY26UdGzDCp-8fmNuEVrGnTNKcOVpN-XckHWxDrMIzed5rhLTZohB9PMnsQtzCnkwluh8zAGQ5DOXAjP2 T64bypG-WTbUe9icEP805NWpzPPaZer-EsramEgsc9Jo4i3rCxPQ6bGdFAvwtsZd6pDShRpRESzJG55Cz0 a8uFT4w=&c=tOzROy690w7Pvx1U13kc78VhmfRTh7WSe_VnQxHnj0KbHO0g XwgSIQ==&ch=hj2iAkV0yqzs12cFIkxXVcINc2rocQ7L6gP4ikpgVNkIAJg V-MEY-Q==)

BLM Destroys Ranches by Fire- https://youtu.be/KHyZQrMZ7lA (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Cl1iMgfd6lxR48bOzB5YQVpxJpfMhTSz3zMJHW Y3V_FCzFgSkirjDFoBlFTam1PFZiezh6QEaU7-tscahHGw3ZZ6IrX70YPmXfZ_K3EgVahKj-u8dBfR2QiwgzAVH6CHpB8zQ1ZEA6oUhYvIbWX2U1EfnuBEyzbf yh_FhfOyFf5R0vsypKxoFA==&c=tOzROy690w7Pvx1U13kc78VhmfRTh7WSe_VnQxHnj0KbHO0g XwgSIQ==&ch=hj2iAkV0yqzs12cFIkxXVcINc2rocQ7L6gP4ikpgVNkIAJg V-MEY-Q==)



Ammon Bundy


CALL TO ACTION: All able body men and women come to Burns, Oregon on or before January 2nd. Come prepared and be willing to stand.

[phill4paul]

Hitting MSM now....


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The father and son of a prominent Oregon ranching family plan to surrender at a California prison next week after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. Cole

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state where the Hammonds are well-known for their generosity and community contributions. It's also playing into a long-simmering conflict between ranchers and the U.S. government over the use of federal land for cattle grazing.

In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority. The son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, is organizing opposition.

In 2014, after the Bureau of Land Management sought to remove Bundy's cattle from public rangeland, armed militiamen confronted federal officials. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees over 20 years ago and owes more than $1 million.

This month, his son Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.
View gallery
A sign tacked outside a Burns. Ore., home reflects …
A sign tacked outside a Burns. Ore., home reflects growing community sentiment that outsider militia …

In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process. Federal lawyers prosecuted the Hammonds under an anti-terrorism law that required a five-year minimum sentence, though they have declined to say why.

Ammon Bundy wrote that the Hammonds are not terrorists and didn't commit any crimes. He also shamed the Harney County sheriff for not protecting the Hammonds. The sheriff didn't respond to calls from The Associated Press.

Ammon Bundy and other right-wing leaders have called on armed militia around the country to come support the Hammonds. The groups will hold a rally and protest in town Saturday.

"If what is happening to the Hammonds is allowed, it will set a standard of what these powerful people will do to all of us," Ammon Bundy wrote in an email, referring to the federal government.

The Hammonds have not welcomed the Bundys' help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.
View gallery
A Western cattle scene dominates the foyer of the Harney …
A Western cattle scene dominates the foyer of the Harney County Courthouse in Burns, Ore., in mid-De …

Dwight Hammond said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

"We gave our word that's what we would do, and we intend to act on it," he told the AP.

Prosecutors said the Hammonds' grazing leases didn't give them exclusive use of the land or permission to burn public property. The fire charred just under 140 acres.

Though the family doesn't want confrontation, Dwight Hammond maintained their case isn't about fires: It's the climax of the government's efforts to take their land at a time when saving endangered species has gained in importance.

Dwight Hammond said he and his own father bought the ranch in 1964; the purchase price included several federal grazing allotments — the rights to lease public land for cattle grazing. But as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge came to surround the Hammonds' property, the rancher said, the family had to stave off pressure from the federal government to sell the ranch.

Over the years, the government chipped away at their grazing allotments, taking some and increasing fees on others, Dwight Hammond said. New federal rules made it harder to renew permits.

After father and son were convicted of the arsons, the government declined to renew their grazing permit. The family is appealing that decision.

"We paid hard dollars over fifty years ago for the right to graze. It isn't right for them to take it away from us," Dwight Hammond said, adding they've had to rent pastures from other ranchers to keep their cows fed.

An attorney for the ranchers, Kendra Mathews, declined to discuss the case. The U.S. attorney's office also wouldn't comment. But in an opinion piece published this month in the Burns Times Herald, Oregon's U.S. attorney, Bill Williams, said the Hammonds received a fair trial and lawful sentences.

Williams said the government has never called the ranchers terrorists, and prosecutors acknowledged they were good people who contributed to their community.

Referring to the militia, Williams said: "Any criminal behavior contemplated by those who may object to the court's mandate ... will not be tolerated."

As for the Hammonds, they hope to keep the family business going with help from relatives. Maybe, Dwight Hammond said, when his son gets out of prison, "he can still have a family and a ranch to go back to."

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-ranching-case-sparks-anti-government-sentiment-164956550.html?nf=1

[Origanalist]

TalkNetwork.com's Pete Santilli streaming LIVE from the Hammond family constitutional crisis event in Oregon

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052492_Hammond_family_unjust_government_domestic_t errorism.html#ixzz3w7jVXscl

[angelatc]

Seeing this on multiple sites: https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

[Chester Copperpot]

The liberation of America is underway

[Dianne]

Oh my !! May God be with them.

[TheTexan]

They should just vote like really hard instead, everyone knows that's how u make change

[Dianne]

They should just vote like really hard instead, everyone knows that's how u make change

lol at you Texan. Now that I know everything you say is tongue-and-cheek, I always get a good chuckle. I think it is simply time for a revolution. Blacks/Whites should unite and take our country back. I want to see the day where Obama/Pelosi/Ryan/McConnell and the like, are getting three hots and a cot which is far more then they deserve.

[goldenequity]

This, from a week ago calling out Jan. 2 as a rally date.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2UpdOxmp0

[angelatc]

This is a local paper: http://www.wweek.com/2016/01/02/militia-group-takes-over-federal-building-in-eastern-oregon-because-the-lord-was-not-pleased/


And here's a militia member saying goodbye to his family:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGdMKpHDDE

[Athan]

There's an update from the Chans. Whatever is going on has begun.
https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

[Dianne]

I have a bad feeling about this. The Government has so many diversions going on at the moment. May God be with these guys.

[Uriel999]

I'm worried another Waco is about to go down.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Domestic Terrorists!

[Uriel999]

Domestic Terrorists!

Honestly, I'm not so sure. Do they qualify as peaceful protestors?

Taking a building over is not without precident by protestors.

Do they intend to get into a firefight with the government or are they armed for defense?

Too much grey right now. I won't make a judgement either way right now, but 2016 is definetely starting off interesting!

[Miss Annie]

ARMED MILITIA TAKES OVER FEDERAL BUILDING After Oregon Ranchers Sentenced to Prison for Starting Preventative Fires (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/armed-militia-takes-over-federal-building-after-oregon-ranchers-sentenced-to-prison-for-starting-preventative-fires/)

[dillo]

So they are taking over the building why? Arent the people already out of prison? Or are they on their way back?

[puppetmaster]

So they are taking over the building why? Arent the people already out of prison? Or are they on their way back? The fucking judge said they should serve more time....think it will not end peaceful
Armed militia, incl. Bundy bros, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

[dillo]

The fucking judge said they should serve more time....think it will not end peaceful
Armed militia, incl. Bundy bros, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/

How many people do they have there? Fuck I dont want another waco

[Miss Annie]

I am kinda thinking out loud here, but does anyone else see provocation here? I keep hearing that Obama is doing up some executive action on gun control. Wouldn't something like this just make it look like a timely thing he is doing?

Is this the hill to die on? I always thought the hill to die on would be confiscation?

[sparebulb]

The timing is perfect for Barry to bring this to a head with his war on guns next week.

[Badger Paul]

Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?

If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?

But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.

I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!

[phill4paul]

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...


We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HAMMOND SITUATION:

I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty). They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue. In fact, they have made it very clear, through a public statement by their lawyer, in a letter to the Sheriff dated December 11, 2015, that:

Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond. In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660398-Letter-HammondRanchesInc.html

Unfortunately, Ammon Bundy has not made that clear. And despite Dwight and Steven Hammond’s decision to voluntarily report to Federal custody, Ammon has issued a video titled “BREAKING ALERT! URGENT CALL TO ACTION! ALL CALL FOR ALL PATRIOTS! MILITIAS! OATH-KEEPERS! FROM AMMON BUNDY RANCH!” In that video, posted on December 29, Ammon Bundy asks those who went to Bundy Ranch to now go to the town of Burns “to make a stand” and he urges them to “come to Burns and defend this family and defend this county.” Here is a transcript of the last part of his video:

“I’m asking you, and you know who you are, you that came, and you that felt to come, to the Bundy Ranch. I’m asking you to come to Burns on January 2, to make a stand. And I feel that this is every bit, and in many ways more important, than the Bundy Ranch. I feel – I know – that the abuses this family has endured is much greater than even the Bundy family. And this is something that cannot be ignored. It has to happen now. We cannot allow these violations to be so blatant and do nothing and expect that we will not be accountable for it. We will be accountable if we do not stand, and I’m asking you now, to come to Burns and defend this family and to defend this county, because it is not just the Hammonds that are being affected by this. They have put this whole county in depression. in the 80s, this county was a thriving county that the household income was higher than the national average, and the highest in the state of Oregon. Now, because of the federal control of the resources, now Harney County is in an economic depression. They are the lowest – they have the lowest income in the county (country) and it is $22,000.00 under the national average – $22,000.00 less than the national average. And it’s because they have no access – very little access – to their natural resources. And it is time that we make a stand, and I’m asking you to do that. And I want to thank you for your time and thank you for listening, and I hope that you can feel the urgency of what I am asking you to do. (emphasis added).

And on his website, Ammon has recently posted:

**Call to Action** We are asking all able body men and women to come to Burns Oregon and come prepared. This is not a false warning!!! We must not be okay with what is happening to the people of Harney County.

He then describes plans for a rally, march, and protest on Saturday, January 2, that will march though town and end by placing flowers in front of the Hammond family residence in town. That description sounds like it will be only a protest, and that is the apparent intent of the Three Percenter groups involved, but Ammon’s rhetoric goes way beyond just a protest. For example, on December 11th, he posted:

Please understand that we must exhaust all prudent measures before taking a physical stand against the horrific actions that the People of Harney County are enduring (including the Hammond’s). If this Notice is ignored, then one more Notice of Demand will be sent, it will list the many petitions that have been ignored and demand that the Hammond’s rights be restored. If that final Notice is rejected then People across the Union will have justification to assemble and once again restore individual rights. (emphasis added.)



So, at the least, Ammon is sending out confusing and contradictory messages of what he is asking people to do, and at the worst, he is planning on going far beyond a mere protest, and intends some form of armed direct action (and all despite the Hammonds making it known that Ammon does not speak for them and they intend to voluntarily report to federal custody.)

At the very least Ammon needs to make it very clear what he is asking people to do, and he needs to make it clear that he is going against the clearly stated intent of the Hammonds. His rhetoric is all about taking a stand and defending the Hammonds from being taking into custody and then going further and defending the entire county against the Feds, despite serious opposition by the local community against any form of armed confrontation.

BECAUSE THE HAMMOND FAMILY DOES NOT WANT AN ARMED STAND OFF, AND THEY WISH TO TURN THEMSELVES IN, OATH KEEPERS WILL NOT TAKE PART IN ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE A STAND OFF IN BURNS, OREGON.

Since Dwight and Steven Hammond, through their attorney, have made it clear they intend to turn themselves in and serve out the additional time, Oath Keepers cannot, and will not, try to interfere with that decision (peaceable assembly and protest is, of course, fine, but going beyond that against their wishes is not). We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. They have made it clear that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this.

Yes, they are apparently being coerced and threatened (told not to communicate with Ammon or face dire consequences), as is done to anyone who runs afoul of the Feds, but if they don’t want their family in the middle of an armed stand off and have decided it is best to just go back to prison, no patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on the Hammond family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.

In the Kim Davis situation, Oath Keepers offered her our protection against being arrested again for contempt, by order of the willful federal judge who was abusing his power. But Kim Davis, through her legal counsel, declined our protection and we had to respect her wishes and stand down and go home. It is the same here.

This org cannot and will not force itself on a family who does not want the help. We always get the consent of the person who is being threatened or oppressed before we take any action. Obviously, if someone is in the middle of being attacked with armed force, and are being murdered, patriots can and should defend them without waiting for them to ask for help, but that is not the case here. The Hammonds have had plenty of time to issue a call for armed help, and they have not, and instead, they have issued their statement of intent to comply with the Court’s order to turn themselves in.

We went to Bundy Ranch after the Bundy family directly asked for help in their strong stand, and we went there specifically to prevent them from being “Waco’d” after we saw clear preparation and intent by the Feds to use military trained snipers and Special Forces veteran mercenaries against cowboys and their families.

Likewise, the miners in the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon, and the miners in Lincoln, Montana asked for our help and we went there after seeing a pattern of behavior by the BLM of intentionally burning occupied cabins, drawing guns on miners, etc. that caused us to be concerned for the miners’ physical safety, along with evidence that BLM agents intended to use force to remove the miners from their claims without due process.

And in Ferguson, Missouri, we asked shop owners and residents if they wanted our protection, and only after they said “yes” did we deploy, rifles in hand, to guard them against deadly arsonists and violent looters. Without their consent, we would have had no right to go onto their rooftops.

And just this year, in Idaho, our Idaho Oath Keepers joined with Idaho Three Percenters and other patriots, to stand on the front lawn of a veteran who the VA had decreed “unfit to handle his own affairs” and therefore prohibited from owning firearms. The VA informed the veteran they they intended to inspect his home for firearms. This man’s neighbors and other patriots in Idaho let it be known that they would not let the VA enter this veteran’s home or disarm him. And the VA backed off and issued a retraction of their “finding” (all of a sudden, the VA doctor decided that the veteran was competent after-all). That was a righteous cause, and a victory for the right to bear arms, but we only took action because he asked for help, because he was willing to stand with us, and because it was a very clear and egregious violation of his fundamental rights. Without his consent and participation, we would not have acted.

CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HAMMOND SITUATION AND BUNDY RANCH

In addition to the fact that the Hammonds have not requested our help, and intend to report to federal custody to serve out the additional sentences, there are also several other important differences between this situation and Bundy Ranch. As stated above, at Bundy Ranch, we saw a very clear and present danger of imminent unlawful and excessive force being used against the Bundy ranching family (who’s family home is always full of children and grand-children). There were military trained sniper teams, Special Forces veteran “contractors” and video footage of BLM agents tazing Ammon Bundy, sicking attack dogs on him, and throwing his elderly aunt to the ground. The Feds also set up their absurd and disgusting “First Amendment Areas” and tried to confine protesters to them, and arrested one of the Bundy sons for being outside of the taped off designated protest area.

All indicators were that the Bundy’s were at risk of being killed in a Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. And that is why we went(along with many other groups and individuals), after the Bundy family directly asked for help. And because the whole Bundy family, and many of their cowboy friends and neighbors were willing to take a hard stand, with the support of veterans and patriots, they prevailed, the Feds blinked, and backed off.

That was a clear win for Team Liberty, while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of the great majority of patriotic Americans -which is exactly why the Feds backed off. They knew they had overstepped, that the “optics” were bad, and they had severely underestimated the resolve and resistance, and could not win without using overwhelming military force, and they knew that if they tried to use that military force – as many leftists were screaming for them to do – the military would split at least in half, and many or most of the current serving trigger pullers in the Marine Corps and Army infantry would have sided with the resistance – joining all of us pissed off veterans – in the resulting civil war.

In the Hammond case, there is no clear and present danger of the family being mass murdered, there is no stand off, and the family has no intent of starting one. They have apparently been threatened with being sent to the worst sections of prison if they communicate with Ammon, and that is certainly an abuse of their rights, but they have chosen to not request assistance, to NOT take a physical stand against serving the additional sentence, and they have chosen to turn themselves in. We must respect that choice.

If you want to go protest, by all means do so (and I think going armed while you peaceably assemble and protest is perfectly within your rights, but beware agent provocateurs and hot heads), but do not allow yourselves to be roped into an armed stand off the Hammonds do not want. They have made their choice, and their neighbors are also apparently unwilling to take a hard stand. Respect that, even if you disagree with them.

HOW THE FOUNDERS KICKED OFF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION THE RIGHT WAY

Those who intend to try to force this into some form of modern “Lexington Green” or “Concord Bridge” against the wishes of the Hammonds and their neighbors need to take a hard look at the Founders’ example and their wisdom. The Founders, even after the Boston Massacre, did not immediately take up arms and fight. They gave the Crown and Parliament plenty of rope to hang themselves and show their true face to the colonists, and drive more Americans over to the Patriot cause. The Founders focused on smart resistance that poked at the Crown and goaded them into further abuse of more of the American people, and goaded Gage into attacking as the clear aggressor, to arrest the patriot leaders and confiscate arms and ammunition.

Even after General Gage was appointed Royal Governor over Massachusetts, and placed Boston under martial law (and suspended all town hall meetings throughout the Massachusetts colony) the patriots still did not fire upon the King’s troops. Instead, they formed militia and minuteman companies in each town and county, they stored up ammunition, food, medicine, etc for the coming resistance, and they organized and prepared an effective resistance movement at the town and county level, which included both pubic militia and underground “Sons of Liberty” cells.

And they let the Crown piss off all of the other citizens of Massachusetts with the egregious ban on town hall meetings, which the people ignored and intentionally violated while daring Gage to try to stop them from meeting, and because they had formed into well organize militia, that numbered in the tens of thousands, Gage knew he was powerless to stop those town hall meetings, as he made clear in his written request for more troops.

The patriots did not fire on the King’s troops until General Gage ordered his men to march on Lexington and Concord to seize Hancock and Adams, and to confiscate guns, cannon, powder, and food supplies. In other words, the patriot leadership had the discipline and wisdom to maneuver Gage into attempting wholesale gun confiscation. And that was the spark that fully justified armed resistance in they eyes of the greatest number of Americans at the time.

By doing so, they retained the moral high ground, while also engaging the King’s troops out in patriot dominated territory, where they were strong, well organized, and vastly outnumbered the Red Coats, and thus they kicked their ass all the way back to Boston. They poked Gage into vastly overstepping (and “stepping on his dick” as we would say today) and by doing so, they started the Revolution off with a win on all fronts – a military victory, a moral victory, and a morale victory. THAT is how you kick off a fight. And then they won a series of victories throughout 1775 that ended with Gage having to evacuate the British Army and Navy from Boston. And that is how you start off a Revolution.

LET OBAMA AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELER MARXIST BUDDIES “STEP ON THEIR DICKS” ON THE GUN ISSUE, AND MAKE A HARD STAND TO RESIST ON THAT

All of you who are impatient and itching for a fight, put your thinking caps on, and use your heads. Keep your cool, and don’t worry, the fight will come to you soon enough. Obama, and the other anti-gun idiot politicians, such as the Governor of CT, will not be able to resist the temptation to attempt to violate our right to bear arms by executive decree, such as barring anyone put on no-fly list and other “government watch lists” from owning guns – which would include me, by the way, as I am on an “Aviation Security” watch list, and get a special “SSSS” designation every time I fly. I can’t even check in and get a boarding pass from the ticket agent without the airlines calling DHS for permission to let me fly (which usually takes a half an hour), and I get the “full Montey” screening and groping each time.

Clearly, their intent is to eventually put all of you “dangerous” veterans, patriots, and constitutionalists on such watch lists, designate you as someone who is barred from owning guns, and then use that to disarm you, one at a time. And they actually think we will just roll over and let them do that.

The idiotic CT Governor, Malloy, is paving the fast track to the next American Civil War/Revolution with his plan to sign an executive order precluding “those on government watch lists” from purchasing or owning firearms. See this, and this. He is actually planning on confiscating the guns of anyone who lives in Connecticut who the Feds put on one of their many watch lists.

Who can be on those lists? Anyone, and everyone. What is the criteria for being put on such a list? Who knows? What due process is there? None. And Malloy thinks the gun owners of Connecticut, who have already refused to comply with his prior edicts on guns, will just comply and be disarmed. What a delusional fool! He is poking a hornet’s nest while smiling for the cameras.

Entually, all of us, across this nation, who dare to stand for liberty and the Constitution, will be on one list or another, and what is being done in Connecticut will be done in other states, and at the national level too. Obama is also considering an Executive Order decreeing background checks on private gun sales. And anti-gun weenies in NY want to restrict how much ammo New York state residents can buy. And in California, the police have now been given the green light to unilaterally disarm anyone they don’t think should have a gun, on their say-so alone, without the person even knowing about it or having a day in court, through “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (GVRO’s). Good! Bring it.

Let Obama and the other hoplophobes step on their dicks, with both feet, with cleats on. And organize local resistance, to help gun owners, like the old vet in Idaho, who are willing to take a hard stand, and put your muscle behind that hard stand, on the critical issue of guns, IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY (the three most important questions you have to answer are “who’s on your buddy team, who’s on your fire-team, who’s on your squad.”).

Get organized, get trained, get equipped, and help your neighbors unite in mutual defense and help to train them. Form minuteman companies and Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) in your town and county. Then let “them” come and try to take your guns. Make THAT the modern Lexington and Concord, and we will have the greatest number of Americans on our side, and the greatest number of the current serving military on our side, as possible.

That is how you do it. Not by trying to force the people of Harney County, Oregon to take a stand they apparently don’t want to take, over land use issues most Americans don’t even understand, and which rural America as a whole essentially gave up on long ago (just a sad fact – decades ago they rolled over and, with few exceptions, let their use of the land be stripped from them by activist judges and federal agencies with the blessings of the U.S. Congress). It will take time and lots of hard work at the local level to organize, educate, and create serious, lasting and effective local resistance on those land use issues in rural America. We should certainly do that, but it will not be done overnight. I think the gun issue is a far, far stronger one to focus on at this time, when it comes to hard stands.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder and President of Oath Keepers

https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

[Miss Annie]

The timing is perfect for Barry to bring this to a head with his war on guns next week.

Exactly what I was thinking! People better be careful because they are making his case for him.


Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?

If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?

But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.

I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!

The racial thang aside........ these are really good questions.
There are tons of people wrongfully imprisoned all the time. I don't feel like this is the right thing for the right time.
Who is running these militias?

[Mad Raven]

This is a little bit funny. They broke into some obscure ranger station that was empty for the holiday weekend. I'm sure the 4 federal staffers will be about as pissed as they were for getting paid during the government shutdown a couple years ago if they can't get through the door on Monday. If they don't get back into the office soon, all the trees and fresh air they give us will be in jeopardy.

[phill4paul]

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...


We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HAMMOND SITUATION:

I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty). They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue. In fact, they have made it very clear, through a public statement by their lawyer, in a letter to the Sheriff dated December 11, 2015, that:

Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond. In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660398-Letter-HammondRanchesInc.html

Unfortunately, Ammon Bundy has not made that clear. And despite Dwight and Steven Hammond’s decision to voluntarily report to Federal custody, Ammon has issued a video titled “BREAKING ALERT! URGENT CALL TO ACTION! ALL CALL FOR ALL PATRIOTS! MILITIAS! OATH-KEEPERS! FROM AMMON BUNDY RANCH!” In that video, posted on December 29, Ammon Bundy asks those who went to Bundy Ranch to now go to the town of Burns “to make a stand” and he urges them to “come to Burns and defend this family and defend this county.” Here is a transcript of the last part of his video:

“I’m asking you, and you know who you are, you that came, and you that felt to come, to the Bundy Ranch. I’m asking you to come to Burns on January 2, to make a stand. And I feel that this is every bit, and in many ways more important, than the Bundy Ranch. I feel – I know – that the abuses this family has endured is much greater than even the Bundy family. And this is something that cannot be ignored. It has to happen now. We cannot allow these violations to be so blatant and do nothing and expect that we will not be accountable for it. We will be accountable if we do not stand, and I’m asking you now, to come to Burns and defend this family and to defend this county, because it is not just the Hammonds that are being affected by this. They have put this whole county in depression. in the 80s, this county was a thriving county that the household income was higher than the national average, and the highest in the state of Oregon. Now, because of the federal control of the resources, now Harney County is in an economic depression. They are the lowest – they have the lowest income in the county (country) and it is $22,000.00 under the national average – $22,000.00 less than the national average. And it’s because they have no access – very little access – to their natural resources. And it is time that we make a stand, and I’m asking you to do that. And I want to thank you for your time and thank you for listening, and I hope that you can feel the urgency of what I am asking you to do. (emphasis added).

And on his website, Ammon has recently posted:

**Call to Action** We are asking all able body men and women to come to Burns Oregon and come prepared. This is not a false warning!!! We must not be okay with what is happening to the people of Harney County.

He then describes plans for a rally, march, and protest on Saturday, January 2, that will march though town and end by placing flowers in front of the Hammond family residence in town. That description sounds like it will be only a protest, and that is the apparent intent of the Three Percenter groups involved, but Ammon’s rhetoric goes way beyond just a protest. For example, on December 11th, he posted:

Please understand that we must exhaust all prudent measures before taking a physical stand against the horrific actions that the People of Harney County are enduring (including the Hammond’s). If this Notice is ignored, then one more Notice of Demand will be sent, it will list the many petitions that have been ignored and demand that the Hammond’s rights be restored. If that final Notice is rejected then People across the Union will have justification to assemble and once again restore individual rights. (emphasis added.)



So, at the least, Ammon is sending out confusing and contradictory messages of what he is asking people to do, and at the worst, he is planning on going far beyond a mere protest, and intends some form of armed direct action (and all despite the Hammonds making it known that Ammon does not speak for them and they intend to voluntarily report to federal custody.)

At the very least Ammon needs to make it very clear what he is asking people to do, and he needs to make it clear that he is going against the clearly stated intent of the Hammonds. His rhetoric is all about taking a stand and defending the Hammonds from being taking into custody and then going further and defending the entire county against the Feds, despite serious opposition by the local community against any form of armed confrontation.

BECAUSE THE HAMMOND FAMILY DOES NOT WANT AN ARMED STAND OFF, AND THEY WISH TO TURN THEMSELVES IN, OATH KEEPERS WILL NOT TAKE PART IN ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE A STAND OFF IN BURNS, OREGON.

Since Dwight and Steven Hammond, through their attorney, have made it clear they intend to turn themselves in and serve out the additional time, Oath Keepers cannot, and will not, try to interfere with that decision (peaceable assembly and protest is, of course, fine, but going beyond that against their wishes is not). We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. They have made it clear that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this.

Yes, they are apparently being coerced and threatened (told not to communicate with Ammon or face dire consequences), as is done to anyone who runs afoul of the Feds, but if they don’t want their family in the middle of an armed stand off and have decided it is best to just go back to prison, no patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on the Hammond family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.

In the Kim Davis situation, Oath Keepers offered her our protection against being arrested again for contempt, by order of the willful federal judge who was abusing his power. But Kim Davis, through her legal counsel, declined our protection and we had to respect her wishes and stand down and go home. It is the same here.

This org cannot and will not force itself on a family who does not want the help. We always get the consent of the person who is being threatened or oppressed before we take any action. Obviously, if someone is in the middle of being attacked with armed force, and are being murdered, patriots can and should defend them without waiting for them to ask for help, but that is not the case here. The Hammonds have had plenty of time to issue a call for armed help, and they have not, and instead, they have issued their statement of intent to comply with the Court’s order to turn themselves in.

We went to Bundy Ranch after the Bundy family directly asked for help in their strong stand, and we went there specifically to prevent them from being “Waco’d” after we saw clear preparation and intent by the Feds to use military trained snipers and Special Forces veteran mercenaries against cowboys and their families.

Likewise, the miners in the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon, and the miners in Lincoln, Montana asked for our help and we went there after seeing a pattern of behavior by the BLM of intentionally burning occupied cabins, drawing guns on miners, etc. that caused us to be concerned for the miners’ physical safety, along with evidence that BLM agents intended to use force to remove the miners from their claims without due process.

And in Ferguson, Missouri, we asked shop owners and residents if they wanted our protection, and only after they said “yes” did we deploy, rifles in hand, to guard them against deadly arsonists and violent looters. Without their consent, we would have had no right to go onto their rooftops.

And just this year, in Idaho, our Idaho Oath Keepers joined with Idaho Three Percenters and other patriots, to stand on the front lawn of a veteran who the VA had decreed “unfit to handle his own affairs” and therefore prohibited from owning firearms. The VA informed the veteran they they intended to inspect his home for firearms. This man’s neighbors and other patriots in Idaho let it be known that they would not let the VA enter this veteran’s home or disarm him. And the VA backed off and issued a retraction of their “finding” (all of a sudden, the VA doctor decided that the veteran was competent after-all). That was a righteous cause, and a victory for the right to bear arms, but we only took action because he asked for help, because he was willing to stand with us, and because it was a very clear and egregious violation of his fundamental rights. Without his consent and participation, we would not have acted.

CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HAMMOND SITUATION AND BUNDY RANCH

In addition to the fact that the Hammonds have not requested our help, and intend to report to federal custody to serve out the additional sentences, there are also several other important differences between this situation and Bundy Ranch. As stated above, at Bundy Ranch, we saw a very clear and present danger of imminent unlawful and excessive force being used against the Bundy ranching family (who’s family home is always full of children and grand-children). There were military trained sniper teams, Special Forces veteran “contractors” and video footage of BLM agents tazing Ammon Bundy, sicking attack dogs on him, and throwing his elderly aunt to the ground. The Feds also set up their absurd and disgusting “First Amendment Areas” and tried to confine protesters to them, and arrested one of the Bundy sons for being outside of the taped off designated protest area.

All indicators were that the Bundy’s were at risk of being killed in a Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. And that is why we went(along with many other groups and individuals), after the Bundy family directly asked for help. And because the whole Bundy family, and many of their cowboy friends and neighbors were willing to take a hard stand, with the support of veterans and patriots, they prevailed, the Feds blinked, and backed off.

That was a clear win for Team Liberty, while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of the great majority of patriotic Americans -which is exactly why the Feds backed off. They knew they had overstepped, that the “optics” were bad, and they had severely underestimated the resolve and resistance, and could not win without using overwhelming military force, and they knew that if they tried to use that military force – as many leftists were screaming for them to do – the military would split at least in half, and many or most of the current serving trigger pullers in the Marine Corps and Army infantry would have sided with the resistance – joining all of us pissed off veterans – in the resulting civil war.

In the Hammond case, there is no clear and present danger of the family being mass murdered, there is no stand off, and the family has no intent of starting one. They have apparently been threatened with being sent to the worst sections of prison if they communicate with Ammon, and that is certainly an abuse of their rights, but they have chosen to not request assistance, to NOT take a physical stand against serving the additional sentence, and they have chosen to turn themselves in. We must respect that choice.

If you want to go protest, by all means do so (and I think going armed while you peaceably assemble and protest is perfectly within your rights, but beware agent provocateurs and hot heads), but do not allow yourselves to be roped into an armed stand off the Hammonds do not want. They have made their choice, and their neighbors are also apparently unwilling to take a hard stand. Respect that, even if you disagree with them.

HOW THE FOUNDERS KICKED OFF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION THE RIGHT WAY

Those who intend to try to force this into some form of modern “Lexington Green” or “Concord Bridge” against the wishes of the Hammonds and their neighbors need to take a hard look at the Founders’ example and their wisdom. The Founders, even after the Boston Massacre, did not immediately take up arms and fight. They gave the Crown and Parliament plenty of rope to hang themselves and show their true face to the colonists, and drive more Americans over to the Patriot cause. The Founders focused on smart resistance that poked at the Crown and goaded them into further abuse of more of the American people, and goaded Gage into attacking as the clear aggressor, to arrest the patriot leaders and confiscate arms and ammunition.

Even after General Gage was appointed Royal Governor over Massachusetts, and placed Boston under martial law (and suspended all town hall meetings throughout the Massachusetts colony) the patriots still did not fire upon the King’s troops. Instead, they formed militia and minuteman companies in each town and county, they stored up ammunition, food, medicine, etc for the coming resistance, and they organized and prepared an effective resistance movement at the town and county level, which included both pubic militia and underground “Sons of Liberty” cells.

And they let the Crown piss off all of the other citizens of Massachusetts with the egregious ban on town hall meetings, which the people ignored and intentionally violated while daring Gage to try to stop them from meeting, and because they had formed into well organize militia, that numbered in the tens of thousands, Gage knew he was powerless to stop those town hall meetings, as he made clear in his written request for more troops.

The patriots did not fire on the King’s troops until General Gage ordered his men to march on Lexington and Concord to seize Hancock and Adams, and to confiscate guns, cannon, powder, and food supplies. In other words, the patriot leadership had the discipline and wisdom to maneuver Gage into attempting wholesale gun confiscation. And that was the spark that fully justified armed resistance in they eyes of the greatest number of Americans at the time.

By doing so, they retained the moral high ground, while also engaging the King’s troops out in patriot dominated territory, where they were strong, well organized, and vastly outnumbered the Red Coats, and thus they kicked their ass all the way back to Boston. They poked Gage into vastly overstepping (and “stepping on his dick” as we would say today) and by doing so, they started the Revolution off with a win on all fronts – a military victory, a moral victory, and a morale victory. THAT is how you kick off a fight. And then they won a series of victories throughout 1775 that ended with Gage having to evacuate the British Army and Navy from Boston. And that is how you start off a Revolution.

LET OBAMA AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELER MARXIST BUDDIES “STEP ON THEIR DICKS” ON THE GUN ISSUE, AND MAKE A HARD STAND TO RESIST ON THAT

All of you who are impatient and itching for a fight, put your thinking caps on, and use your heads. Keep your cool, and don’t worry, the fight will come to you soon enough. Obama, and the other anti-gun idiot politicians, such as the Governor of CT, will not be able to resist the temptation to attempt to violate our right to bear arms by executive decree, such as barring anyone put on no-fly list and other “government watch lists” from owning guns – which would include me, by the way, as I am on an “Aviation Security” watch list, and get a special “SSSS” designation every time I fly. I can’t even check in and get a boarding pass from the ticket agent without the airlines calling DHS for permission to let me fly (which usually takes a half an hour), and I get the “full Montey” screening and groping each time.

Clearly, their intent is to eventually put all of you “dangerous” veterans, patriots, and constitutionalists on such watch lists, designate you as someone who is barred from owning guns, and then use that to disarm you, one at a time. And they actually think we will just roll over and let them do that.

The idiotic CT Governor, Malloy, is paving the fast track to the next American Civil War/Revolution with his plan to sign an executive order precluding “those on government watch lists” from purchasing or owning firearms. See this, and this. He is actually planning on confiscating the guns of anyone who lives in Connecticut who the Feds put on one of their many watch lists.

Who can be on those lists? Anyone, and everyone. What is the criteria for being put on such a list? Who knows? What due process is there? None. And Malloy thinks the gun owners of Connecticut, who have already refused to comply with his prior edicts on guns, will just comply and be disarmed. What a delusional fool! He is poking a hornet’s nest while smiling for the cameras.

Entually, all of us, across this nation, who dare to stand for liberty and the Constitution, will be on one list or another, and what is being done in Connecticut will be done in other states, and at the national level too. Obama is also considering an Executive Order decreeing background checks on private gun sales. And anti-gun weenies in NY want to restrict how much ammo New York state residents can buy. And in California, the police have now been given the green light to unilaterally disarm anyone they don’t think should have a gun, on their say-so alone, without the person even knowing about it or having a day in court, through “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (GVRO’s). Good! Bring it.

Let Obama and the other hoplophobes step on their dicks, with both feet, with cleats on. And organize local resistance, to help gun owners, like the old vet in Idaho, who are willing to take a hard stand, and put your muscle behind that hard stand, on the critical issue of guns, IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY (the three most important questions you have to answer are “who’s on your buddy team, who’s on your fire-team, who’s on your squad.”).

Get organized, get trained, get equipped, and help your neighbors unite in mutual defense and help to train them. Form minuteman companies and Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) in your town and county. Then let “them” come and try to take your guns. Make THAT the modern Lexington and Concord, and we will have the greatest number of Americans on our side, and the greatest number of the current serving military on our side, as possible.

That is how you do it. Not by trying to force the people of Harney County, Oregon to take a stand they apparently don’t want to take, over land use issues most Americans don’t even understand, and which rural America as a whole essentially gave up on long ago (just a sad fact – decades ago they rolled over and, with few exceptions, let their use of the land be stripped from them by activist judges and federal agencies with the blessings of the U.S. Congress). It will take time and lots of hard work at the local level to organize, educate, and create serious, lasting and effective local resistance on those land use issues in rural America. We should certainly do that, but it will not be done overnight. I think the gun issue is a far, far stronger one to focus on at this time, when it comes to hard stands.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder and President of Oath Keepers

https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

[Origanalist]

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...





https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

Looks like that's what they should do, what's Bundy doing here?

[nobody's_hero]

Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?

If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?

But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.

I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!

Really?

3,578 posts and you've been a member of RPF since 2007. You ought to have some clue that this is not about race.

Oathkeepers Militia protecting 4 businesses in Ferguson, MO, including a *gasp* black business owner:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-05/ferguson-conundrum-solved-community-security

http://plnami.blob.core.windows.net/media/2014/12/Natalies-Cakes-More-Oath-Keeper.jpg

Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race.

[tod evans]

Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race.

I personally will stand with country folk before I'd stick my neck out for city folk....

Doesn't matter to me if they're rich or poor, black white or green....

Folks who voluntarily clump up are cut from different cloth.

[Noob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=f3xrojlWE9A

[tod evans]

Credit to Noob for getting this posted first!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=f3xrojlWE9A



Large Group Of Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/02/3735576/150-armed-militia-members-take-over-federal-building/


BY JUDD LEGUM JAN 2, 2016 10:11 PM
CREDIT: CACOPHONY
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, which was seized by a group of militia on Saturday, January 2, 2016
Share 25,722
Tweet
A large group of armed militia members have broken into and occupied a federal building in Oregon. The group reportedly includes three sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had a tense standoff with federal officials in 2014.


Radical militia members from across the country descended on Harney County, Oregon today to protest the conviction of two local ranchers for arson on federal land. They claim “that the federal government had no authority in Harney County.” The militia occupying the headquarters building at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is a splinter group from the larger protest. The gambit seems intended “to provoke a standoff with the federal government.”

In a phone interview with the Oregonian, Ammond Bundy said that “would not rule out violence if law enforcement tries to remove them.” He called the headquarters building “the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds” and said he was “planning on staying…for years.” In a message on Facebook Bundy said he planned on establishing the facility as a base for militia members across the country:

Cliven Bundy is also advising the local ranchers, Steven and Dwight Hammond, not to submit to federal authorities as required on Monday. Instead, Bundy is urging them to go to the Harney County jail and ask for “protective custody.”

Meanwhile, Cliven’s son Ammon is reportedly rallying other militia members to join the occupation.

In an ominous sign, one member of the group, Jon Ritzheimer, posted a goodbye video to his family on YouTube today. “I want to die a free man,” Ritzheimer says.
UPDATE JAN 2, 2016 11:16 PM
A photo of the scene by Guardian reporter Jason Wilson:


Share Update
UPDATE JAN 3, 2016 12:14 AM
In response to the armed occupation, the local school district has closed schools all week:

[UWDude]

This occupier is done occupying. And it's only two hundred miles away. Hang separately. I wonder if the militia man I met at Occupy is there.

[tod evans]

Bundy response to Rhodes;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk

[edit]

10 min. threats by AUSA

[UWDude]

Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?

If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?

But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.

I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!

Occupy movements were so 2011. And fuck protesters, amirite or amirite? Let me read my MSM watered down version of events, and then make a decision.

Oh geeze, these guys burned park land.... ..pfft, I know the full story now, I read it in the news. The protesters should be rounded up.

I think it's time for you all to put your money where your mouth is, just so you can see how serious a game you are playing... and occupiers played, and all other protesters, whilst you clucked your tongues. Men, boys, and all that.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd be very sympathetic except Hammond himself said he didn't want this. In which case it's simply not going to be helpful. Audacity yes, but only if it's going to make things better not worse. Doing this when the victim explicitly does not want it is at best unhelpful.

[tod evans]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk

The AUSA (federal prosecutor) has threatened the Hammonds with harsher prison conditions if they associate with the Bundy's, 10 min. in.

[GunnyFreedom]

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...

https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/


The Hammonds explicitly do not want it. In which case they are totally right to sit it out. Without the support of the victim this action can only hurt and not help. OK's are right.

[tod evans]

I'd be very sympathetic except Hammond himself said he didn't want this. In which case it's simply not going to be helpful. Audacity yes, but only if it's going to make things better not worse. Doing this when the victim explicitly does not want it is at best unhelpful.

They're not having anything to do with the Hammonds per their request due to threats made by government lawyers.

This has nothing to do with the Hammonds family.

[GunnyFreedom]

They're not having anything to do with the Hammonds per their request due to threats made by government lawyers.

This has nothing to do with the Hammonds family.

I don't buy it. Government lawyers cannot compel them to active speech. They can say "do not ask for help" whereupon they would just stay silent. They cannot say "you must explicitly reject help." They don't have that power.

[tod evans]

I don't buy it. Government lawyers cannot compel them to active speech. They can say "do not ask for help" whereupon they would just stay silent. They cannot say "you must explicitly reject help." They don't have that power.

What?

Have you at least watched a min or two of the video?

An AUSA has the authority to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons what security level a person will be incarcerated under. Threatening the Hammond's with harsher confinement is completely believable.

[GunnyFreedom]

What?

Have you at least watched a min or two of the video?

An AUSA has the authority to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons what security level a person will be incarcerated under. Threatening the Hammond's with harsher confinement is completely believable.

Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to? Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.

I do not believe it is righteous to try and 'help' someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want said help.

I, and I am sure the OK's would be all-in if Hammond had simply said nothing. Fedgov can't put you in a harsher prison for saying nothing. Any DA or cop who threatens you with a harsher confinement for saying nothing is subject to 10 years in the big house...(not that this corrupt government would actually prosecute of course). If the Hammonds have a proper lawyer (and I am sure they do) they would have been told that the government cannot compell speech or if they made said threats they could actually force the fed to give them better conditions.

I like Bundy, but I'm not buying this. He's just trying to justify an attempt to relive some glory days.

It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent. They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.

You do not go into combat with no potential path to victory. You just don't.

[asurfaholic]

Major event. Can't do much from my home but pray for the safety of those who are making a stand against the out of control tyranny.

[tod evans]

Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to? Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.

I do not believe it is righteous to try and 'help' someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want said help.

I, and I am sure the OK's would be all-in if Hammond had simply said nothing. Fedgov can't put you in a harsher prison for saying nothing. Any DA or cop who threatens you with a harsher confinement for saying nothing is subject to 10 years in the big house...(not that this corrupt government would actually prosecute of course). If the Hammonds have a proper lawyer (and I am sure they do) they would have been told that the government cannot compell speech or if they made said threats they could actually force the fed to give them better conditions.

I like Bundy, but I'm not buying this. He's just trying to justify an attempt to relive some glory days.

It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent. They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.

You do not go into combat with no potential path to victory. You just don't.

Bundy very clearly states that he and the guys with him are not acting for or with the Hammonds, they are not "waging war" with the Hammonds approval or under their direction, where have you drawn this "war" language from anyway?

In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.

There's an interesting (to me) video here; https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/breaking-militia-takes-over-federal-building-in-oregon/

As the author states the guy who made it is a tad off but there is definitely food for thought there.



[edit]

Here's a pretty comprehensive article that's not just repetition of the MSM pablum;

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

[goldenequity]

Interview with Ammon Bundy this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/

[phill4paul]

Some thoughts at this early stage:

Seems to me that if this is not about the Hammonds then this is the wrong location and time. It would seem from these early reports that the community is not in support. That the local sheriff is not a "Constitutional Sheriff."

If their intention was to make a stand against the BLM it seems that it could be made in any thousands of other places. One that was possibly more sympathetic to their mission and one that was within a "Constitutional Sheriffs" jurisdiction.

A militia stand greatly increases it's likelihood of success with these two factors. Without them, I dunno.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it. Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down. Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game. When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor. When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the least likely routes to victory does not seem wise.

There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly. Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.

This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game. They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.

Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.

[Thor]

Interview with Ammon Bundy this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/


So, this is the first time I have heard about the so called poaching / slaughter of deer and the fire as a means to cover that up. I read they were burning juniper and sage to clear land for grass to grow for livestock and the fire got out of control. So something is being miscommunicated here. Either the Bundy's/Hammonds or the Government. Also, the second fire I read was a back fire lit to protect livestock and buildings and to combat a fire set by a lightning strike. Is there more to that one too, or is that it?


The prosecutor said witnesses saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer on public land.


"At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene," Williams wrote.


He said a teenage relative of the Hammonds testified that Steven Hammond gave him a box of matches and told him to start the blaze. "The fires destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took about 130 acres of public land out of public use for two years," the prosecutor wrote.


Williams also disputed the notion that the Hammonds were prosecuted as terrorists, as Bundy suggested.



I know the last sentence is a lie above, as the whole reason for the new 5 year sentence is domestic terrorism from burning US lands....

It would be interesting to see if the poaching cover-up claim has any merit or not for the first fire. Witnesses and teenage relative testifying... Even if it does, it still does not explain the charges on the second fire, nor does it cover the double jeopardy they are now being faced with after spending over 1 year (and 3 months for the son) in prison already to now have a 5 year sentence added to each with a new charge of domestic terrorism. "The last judge got it wrong, you need to server 5 more years for the same thing you already served time for." Really? WTF is that? Doesn't the 5th amendment of the constitution, let alone any protections from the State of Oregon constitution, prohibit them from being tried and convicted a second time for the what they have already served time for? Or am I missing something?

It would be nice to get a full scope of the story from an unbiased party, charges originally for each fire, defense they used, and how they can be retried (or have a sentence added) without being subject to double jeopardy. If anyone has more in-depth knowledge of these events, please share...

[XNavyNuke]

Honestly, I'm not so sure. Do they qualify as peaceful protestors?

Taking a building over is not without precident by protestors.


#OccupyBLM



Do they intend to get into a firefight with the government or are they armed for defense?

If we know, then their OpSec sucks like it did with the Bundy's.

XNN

[XNavyNuke]

It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent. They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.

You do not go into combat with no potential path to victory. You just don't.

You betcha. There are more than enough government intrusions out there where the victims/surviving families DO want publicity, protection, and support. This smells like personal vendetta.

XNN

[MelissaCato]

Alex Jones just did a live mention on Facebook, he doesn't support this stand off either.

[phill4paul]

Looks like that's what they should do, what's Bundy doing here?

I would imagine listening to Ryan Payne's bad advise.

[phill4paul]

If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.


The Bureau of Land Management is in the process of stealing another ranchers land.

Tommy Henderson has already lost land to the BLM and is currently fighting their latest attempt to take his property, “How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours’?” Henderson asked. “… Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours?”

http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-seizing-116-miles-ranchers-land-moving-texas-oklahoma-border/


The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/

[osan]

I applaud the spirit of this, but question the wisdom. Choosing not only one's battles, but the circumstances to his best advantage is part of smart action. I don't know what to call this move, but "smart" has yet to come to mind. Is there something essential absent from the article? This seems to be making them appear as the aggressors and as thieves. Not saying they are that, but this is likely to be the public perception and without substantial support therefrom, these guys stand to lose in a really spectacularly unpleasant manner.

What am I missing?

[osan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk

The AUSA (federal prosecutor) has threatened the Hammonds with harsher prison conditions if they associate with the Bundy's, 10 min. in.

Next step: punishing friends and family members for the acts of others. We are being thrown backward into barbarity.

Nice going, America.

[osan]

This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it. Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down. Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game. When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor. When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the least likely routes to victory does not seem wise.

There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly. Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.

This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game. They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.

Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Every last word.

[JK/SEA]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_most-read_pacific-northwest-news_article

''He said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands. ''

[Pericles]

This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it. Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down. Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game. When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor. When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the least likely routes to victory does not seem wise.

There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly. Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.

This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game. They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.

Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.
That right there. This reeks of an opportunist trying to create conflict for what he perceives to be his benefit.

What does occupying a building achieve? If this is part of a plan, then a new General Staff is needed.

[Pericles]

If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.



http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-seizing-116-miles-ranchers-land-moving-texas-oklahoma-border/


http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/


They are not at the Red River because other militias and supporters have the relationships with the land owners and the "leaders" of the Oregon effort would not be in charge of activity at the Red River.

[Pericles]

Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Errors-Caused-Lewiston-Fire-Trainee-planned-2918200.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

Its not illegal when the government does it.

[Dr.3D]

Its not illegal when the government does it.
Of course, it's only illegal when they want to get other people in trouble.

[raystone]

Can someone archive this webpage, because the Oregon Farm Bureau will likely remove it soon. The 8,000 member Oregon Farm Bureau unequivocally supported the Hammonds in October, including stating "This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers..." Now, the Oregon Farm Bureau president is running for national farm bureau president. He won't want to be called out on this.


http://www.tsln.com/news/18551282-113/story.html

SALEM, OREGON, October 7, 2015 –

Statement by Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue on sentencing of Steve and Dwight Hammond:

“Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land. We are gravely disappointed at this outcome.

“Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, a former OFB Board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president, have already served time in federal prison for their mistakes and paid their debt to society for the less-than-140 acres of BLM land that was accidentally impacted by the fires.

“This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

“Today’s verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked on this case quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

“This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the BLM, and undermine the cooperative spirit most ranchers have brought to the bureau in helping the health of the range.

“Please join Farm Bureau and declare your support for Steve and Dwight Hammond. Join over 2,600 other citizens from across the country and show BLM that this extreme abuse of power will not go unnoticed and is shameful. Sign the petition at www.savethehammonds.com. This must never happen again.

“OFB will continue to work to bring public and policymaker attention to this case.”

Comment from federal attorney Billy Williams:

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue’s response:

“BLM accused the Hammonds of endangering lives, but a jury found they did not. Saying they ‘intentionally’ set fire to public land or threatened lives is not what the jury concluded. Federal attorney Billy Williams is wrong in his overblown statements in court yesterday. But he has helped frame the debate as we start to look at BLM’s own actions. If Williams’ rhetoric is the standard, BLM will have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond what they’ve done in this case,” said OFB President Barry Bushue.

–Oregon Farm Bureau

[Pericles]

The Hammonds explicitly do not want it. In which case they are totally right to sit it out. Without the support of the victim this action can only hurt and not help. OK's are right.

There is some missing background here. Freedom Outpost is run by a guy name Gary Hunt who is part of the committee of States / Safety organization he heads. Ryan Payne is his designated militia commander in an attempt to build a nationwide militia.

Part of that effort is that any organization (Oathkeepers) or militia that do not follow their lead is denigrated.

[angelatc]

Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Errors-Caused-Lewiston-Fire-Trainee-planned-2918200.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

Before this story became such a hotbed of controversy, the local papers were very sympathetic - controlled burns were being done on private land for the same reason. I won't pretend to understand it or even remember the details, but they reported it as if was just part of the farming cycle.

[Badger Paul]

"Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."

No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either.

But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.

I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional." So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I? No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!

[roho76]

When the BLM shows up and realized that it might mean their lives upholding some stupid government objective they may not pursue this. I don't understand the mentality here. This may not be the best way to handle this but what are we supposed to do? Keep getting trampled on while begging for mercy???? These people never sleep and they never stop trying to ruin everything in their path. It's about fucking time someone says enough.

[Dr.3D]

"Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."

No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either.

But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.

I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional." So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I? No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!
Yeah, that's gotta be it, it's because Obama is kinda black. :rolleyes:

[tod evans]

"Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."

No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either.

But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.

I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional." So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I? No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!

Ummmm,

One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...

The other is telling government to go away.

[Ender]

Before this story became such a hotbed of controversy, the local papers were very sympathetic - controlled burns were being done on private land for the same reason. I won't pretend to understand it or even remember the details, but they reported it as if was just part of the farming cycle.

It was also reported that the land is in much better condition because of the burnings, but that report was not allowed in court.

My take is the Hammonds are accepting the double-dealings of .gov because their families are being threatened. There could be no other reason for not fighting this serious mockery of natural law.

JMHPOV

[Badger Paul]

"One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
The other is telling government to go away. "

Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?

You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get. And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.

Got this from the Gawker comment section to prove my point:

"Black kids get 2 seconds to comply with law enforcement before they’re shot. These guys point guns at federal agents, and nothing happens. Mandatory minimum sentences are all well and fine with these guys when one person has a crack rock, yet not ok when 2 guys start a fire (which some people are saying was to cover evidence of poaching on federal land, but IDK) that destroyed many acres of public land.

[Lucille]

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/perfect-timing-for-regime-federal.html


Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood.
[...]
I was first apprised of this a few minutes ago by folks on the ground out in Oregon. They report that Payne, Ritzheimer and every other "tiger-talking" fruit, nut and federal provocateur previously identified from the Bundy standoff were now in possession of the building and daring the Feds to do anything about it. My initial reaction was to observe that at least afterward we'll know who the federal snitches are because they will be the only ones who survive the raid to take back the building. My understanding is that this premeditated action has been condemned by the Oregon Three Percenters and other groups but the fact of the matter is that these people are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood. And the Hammonds themselves are disavowing this action in the strongest terms.

For the regime, this could not come at a better time. The old Roman adage "cui bono" applies here. There is nothing on the talking heads channels as yet, but by Monday, when Obama meets with his Attorney General on the subject of citizen disarmament, you can bet the farm that this will play right into that narrative. Perfect timing. You've got to give the federal handlers of these pukes credit. This is precisely the sort of offensive action on the part of the "militia terrorists" that they needed.
[...]
I'll have updates as I get them, but for now it looks like 2016 is going to start out with a huge propaganda victory for the regime.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/live-feed-from-oregon.html


The collectivists have begun to exploit it: "Right wing militia from Bundy Ranch occupy federal wildlife building in Oregon."


Authorities have not yet commented on the occupation but Zaitz reports that Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI are involved in the developing situation.

"And the FBI are involved in the developing situation." Yeah, both inside and outside the building, you can bet on it.

[Ender]

"One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
The other is telling government to go away. "

Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?

You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get. And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.

Got this from the Gawker comment section to prove my point:

"Black kids get 2 seconds to comply with law enforcement before they’re shot. These guys point guns at federal agents, and nothing happens. Mandatory minimum sentences are all well and fine with these guys when one person has a crack rock, yet not ok when 2 guys start a fire (which some people are saying was to cover evidence of poaching on federal land, but IDK) that destroyed many acres of public land.

If the black kids had guns pointed they would not be shot at, either.

As I said in my above post- the burnings improved THE LAND- BUT THE PICS AND PROOF WERE NOT ALLOWED IN COURT. BML burns the lands constantly and these fires have spread to private land- but hey they are gov so they can do what they want.:rolleyes:

[tod evans]

"One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
The other is telling government to go away. "

Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?

You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get. And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.

Got this from the Gawker comment section to prove my point:

"Black kids get 2 seconds to comply with law enforcement before they’re shot. These guys point guns at federal agents, and nothing happens. Mandatory minimum sentences are all well and fine with these guys when one person has a crack rock, yet not ok when 2 guys start a fire (which some people are saying was to cover evidence of poaching on federal land, but IDK) that destroyed many acres of public land.


It appears as though you're addressing me?

Have you actually read my posts about those stupid kids at the college in Mo.?

My position was very clearly articulated in that I moved for the townspeople to kick out the college and all associated parasites and raze the buildings in order to curtail government.

I've yet to comment on this latest thing in Or. other than to post articles...

I will say now though that I'm all for counties having full and complete control over land currently controlled by the feds and that includes colleges.

[69360]

I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?

I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.

[Miss Annie]

I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?

I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.

Yea,....... I am kinda wondering this too.
I am actually wondering if the militias have not been infiltrated by some CIA hacks that are getting them all lathered up because the timing of this and the executive action on gun control is just too convenient.

[tod evans]

I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?

I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.

Bundy put out a video laying it out in his own words, I posted it on page 1......

[angelatc]

When the BLM shows up and realized that it might mean their lives upholding some stupid government objective they may not pursue this. I don't understand the mentality here. This may not be the best way to handle this but what are we supposed to do? Keep getting trampled on while begging for mercy???? These people never sleep and they never stop trying to ruin everything in their path. It's about fucking time someone says enough.

The problem with this scenario is that the people who broke into the building are the aggressors in this instance. If the other family (going to jail for the second time for the same "crime,") had holed in in their house and called for backup, there might have been a chance this would have appealed to the civil libertarians on the left. Instead, those guys rolled over without even whimpering. This militia rode in to make a statement about people who don't even want to make a statement.

[69360]

Bundy put out a video laying it out in his own words, I posted it on page 1......

Yes, but the Bundy son is going against the explicitly stated wishes of the Oregon family. To me it seems like he just wants trouble for the sake of trouble.

[Badger Paul]

"So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"

Martyrdom, just like ISIS.

[69360]

"So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"

Martyrdom, just like ISIS.

Seems about right actually.

[Snowball]

Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
and militias.
Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
of wild areas for conservation purposes.
We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
welcome to poach or burn it.
I suspect that the Hammonds and/or Ammon Bundy have an agenda
which is not what it seems.
Nobody should support these criminals.

The proper course is to cordon them off and allow them to starve
until they leave peaceably and prosecute them legally for wasting
resources and disrupting the peace.

[angelatc]

It was also reported that the land is in much better condition because of the burnings, but that report was not allowed in court.

My take is the Hammonds are accepting the double-dealings of .gov because their families are being threatened.

JMHPOV

I agree 100%. The government has taken their land and their money, but they're still willfully complying with a clearly unconstitutional sentence? There has to be something we are not being told.

[angelatc]

Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
of wild areas for conservation purposes.

Uhm, you might want to read it again.

[XNavyNuke]

That right there. This reeks of an opportunist trying to create conflict for what he perceives to be his benefit.

What does occupying a building achieve? If this is part of a plan, then a new General Staff is needed.

John Brown was seriously lacking a grand strategy during his raids through the Kansas territory, and ultimately Harpers Ferry. That said, his flagrant militarizing the abolitionist movement precipitated in a matter of months, what had been simmering for decades while the abolitionists tried to work through legal means - civil war.

XNN

[kcchiefs6465]

Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to? Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.

Exactly. Just have the federal judge throw the federal prosecutor in prison. Sounds so simple when you spell it out in baaa's.

[angelatc]

In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.



Maybe they should blow up the twin towers. That got us to give the Saudi's an airfield.

[XNavyNuke]

During jury deliberations, after the panel had only returned a partial verdict and appeared hung, the Feds offered the Hammonds a deal. They thought that signing off on the deal would cause the Feds to give them a pass during sentencing. It didn't work out that way and has now blown up in their face.

The bigger issue here is the mandatory sentencing guidelines. (Thank you a Drug War). When ACLU, Heritage, and CATO all have problems with these legislative mandates, you would think the media might pick up on that aspect.

XNN

[donnay]

From an email sent:


Dear Friends,

Today we are marching in Oregon to stand up for the Hammonds, it is bitter cold with plenty of snow on the ground but we will not waiver.

We wish you were here, but if not could we ask a small favor?

Would you please forward this Press Release to your local newspaper and TV outlets?

This is perhaps the simplest thing you can do to help the Hammonds, we must bring attention to them now.



FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
CLIVEN D. BUNDY
PO Box 7175
Bunkerville, NV 89007
702-346-5564

January 1, 2016 - Bunkerville, NV USA

With great concern and love and much consideration from prayer, I come to you Harney County Sheriff of Oregon David M. Ward, rancher Steven Dwight Hammond, and rancher Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr.,

I, Cliven D. Bundy, have been involved for several weeks in the background striving to understand and comprehend your dilemmas in Harney County, Oregon. I understand that the grass that was burnt on each side of the fence was grazing rights that had been created through beneficial use, one side of the fence being private property and the other side of the fence being private property rights. The fires that were set were for a good purpose and had good results.

The United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch management. These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited power. These lands have been admitted into statehood and are part of the great State of Oregon and the citizens of Harney County enjoy the fullness of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution limits United States government.

It is my suggestion, Steven Hammond, that you go and check yourself into Harney County jail asking for protective custody. It is my suggestion, Dwight Hammond, that you go and check yourself into Harney County jail asking for protective custody. It is my suggestion, Harney County Sheriff David Ward, accept these two ranchers into your jail, notify the United States Solicitor in Washington DC that you have these two ranchers in Harney County jail, that they will remain there indefinitely under your protective custody and the protection of We the People of Harney County and We the People of the United States of America.

I suggest an Evidentiary Hearing or a Grand Jury be formed by We the People.

I feel that this action is immediately important, that it should be taken place before 10:00 am Saturday, January 2, 2016. I will hold these suggestions private until that time then I will release this letter to those having state and county jurisdiction and to the media.

Cliven D. Bundy




Hammond Family Facts & Events- http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic

BLM Destroys Ranches by Fire- https://youtu.be/KHyZQrMZ7lA


Ammon Bundy
ourchildrensfreedom.com

[erowe1]

What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?

And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?

[donnay]

What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?

And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?


The information is embedded in this thread.

[sparebulb]

Cliven seems has provided some good suggestions.

It is too bad that the Hammonds trial and deal went down the way it did. It sounds like they got some shitty legal advice.

It is hard to see a strategy for a good outcome.

[erowe1]

It is hard to see a strategy for a good outcome.

I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?

[Dianne]

Major event. Can't do much from my home but pray for the safety of those who are making a stand against the out of control tyranny.

That's the way I feel, but I'm too far away as well. If not, I would be there.

[youngbuck]

Domestic Terrorists!
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not then you ought to watch this (thanks for posting tod evans):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk)

[donnay]

I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?

It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.

[Dianne]

I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?

Occupying that little Federal building is being referred to as trespassing. Let the Federal Government be reminded, the building and the land belong to the people. The Federal Government owns nothing. It is our building and our land. The Congress and the White House are the same as all other welfare recipients who suck tax dollars out of the people so they may survive.

[erowe1]

It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.

What's that supposed to mean? And how does it answer my question?

It seems obvious to me that if there's no hope or plan for actually accomplishing anything good here, then it would be better not to take over that federal building. What steps come between doing this and achieving whatever the end goals are, and how reasonable is it to think these people can take those steps? If all their ducks are really in a row and they have a well-planned answer to that then great. But if not, then they'll just do more harm than good.

[erowe1]

Occupying that little Federal building is being referred to as trespassing. Let the Federal Government be reminded, the building and the land belong to the people. The Federal Government owns nothing. It is our building and our land. The Congress and the White House are the same as all other welfare recipients who suck tax dollars out of the people so they may survive.

That's it? Let the federal government be reminded of that? And then pack up and go home after reminding them of it?

[Dianne]

If the black kids had guns pointed they would not be shot at, either.

As I said in my above post- the burnings improved THE LAND- BUT THE PICS AND PROOF WERE NOT ALLOWED IN COURT. BML burns the lands constantly and these fires have spread to private land- but hey they are gov so they can do what they want.:rolleyes:

The neighbor behind me has a farm, and every couple of years he burns the ground. There is some benefit to doing so. I have no clue what it is, but seems to be fairly common. That's probably why the feds have now changed the story from burning the land, to covering up a deer poaching operation.

[Dianne]

Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
and militias.
Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
of wild areas for conservation purposes.
We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
welcome to poach or burn it.
I suspect that the Hammonds and/or Ammon Bundy have an agenda
which is not what it seems.
Nobody should support these criminals.

The proper course is to cordon them off and allow them to starve
until they leave peaceably and prosecute them legally for wasting
resources and disrupting the peace.

The Federal Government owns absolutely nothing. We the people own the Federal buildings, Federal land. The Feds don't have a pot to piss in. They serve as caretakers of our property only.

[Anti Federalist]

Good for them.

At least somebody is doing something.

[Dianne]

That's it? Let the federal government be reminded of that? And then pack up and go home after reminding them of it?

Yes. It's the people's land, not Obamas.

[roho76]

Who's the aggressor, Angela? I think you're confused, sweet heart. I can't imagine what your thoughts are on the American Revolution and who was the aggressor in that scenario. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Just not sure who's side you're on.

[donnay]

The neighbor behind me has a farm, and every couple of years he burns the ground. There is some benefit to doing so. I have no clue what it is, but seems to be fairly common. That's probably why the feds have now changed the story from burning the land, to covering up a deer poaching operation.

The benefits are putting minerals back into the ground, i.e.; potassium. It will also make soil more alkaline if too acidic.

[erowe1]

Good for them.

At least somebody is doing something.

Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

[erowe1]

Yes. It's the people's land, not Obamas.

OK. Then now that they've accomplished what you said, why do you suppose they haven't all gone back home?

[tod evans]

Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....

At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........

[erowe1]

Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....

At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........

Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?

It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.

[Anti Federalist]

Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?

[Anti Federalist]

Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?

[TheNewYorker]

Good news, the FBI is involved now

[pcosmar]

Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?

It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.

It draws attention upon the Federal Beast.

What form the response the Beast will make is yet unknown.
Usually,, and historically, it is violent.

How people respond to that violence, is yet to be seen.
The Beast was backed down once.. and it remembers.

[donnay]

Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

Standing up to an illegitimate government who are using Agenda 21 to take people's property. They label people "terrorist" so that they take their property.

All's well. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. Just have the federal judge throw the federal prosecutor in prison. Sounds so simple when you spell it out in baaa's.

Don't be stupid. This government doesn't prosecute their own, but putting it on the public record makes it impossible to carry out the action threatened.

What I'm saying is that it's bullshit. Federal Prosecutors don't tell you to make a political statement or face harsher confinement.

Do you accuse everyone with a brain and the ability to carry out deductive reasoning of being a sheep?

[Pericles]

John Brown was seriously lacking a grand strategy during his raids through the Kansas territory, and ultimately Harpers Ferry. That said, his flagrant militarizing the abolitionist movement precipitated in a matter of months, what had been simmering for decades while the abolitionists tried to work through legal means - civil war.

XNN

This is a cogent analysis. Generally, speaking the guy who thinks he is about to start the next civil war seldom does.

[tod evans]

Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?

It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.

Why?

Why does it matter what's done?

Is it your ass on the line?

Do you have something to lose if government escalates this situation? What about the next?

Would it be smarter to wait, or have somebody else do something different?

If you know how to "fix" a broken government then get on it, I don't think there's any fixing anything at this point......

[GunnyFreedom]

Bundy very clearly states that he and the guys with him are not acting for or with the Hammonds, they are not "waging war" with the Hammonds approval or under their direction, where have you drawn this "war" language from anyway?

Taking and holding a position with force of arms. WTF do you think that's called?


In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.

And you think random people from out of state taking possession of an unoccupied shed on federal land is going to have any effect on this at all?


There's an interesting (to me) video here; https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/breaking-militia-takes-over-federal-building-in-oregon/

As the author states the guy who made it is a tad off but there is definitely food for thought there.



[edit]

Here's a pretty comprehensive article that's not just repetition of the MSM pablum;

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Your source ties this action to the Hammonds. Didn't we just establish that this action is not connected to the Hammonds?

[GunnyFreedom]

If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.



http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-seizing-116-miles-ranchers-land-moving-texas-oklahoma-border/


http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-blm-wants-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/

I couldn't agree more.

But then they wouldn't be 'in charge.'

Again, this thing stinks to the rafters.

[GunnyFreedom]

What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?

And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?

What happened to the Hammonds is horrifically wrong. I would be all in favor of this except the Hammonds have explicitly said they did not want this kind of help. I think because of the circumstances, with the Hammonds turning themselves in peacefully to serve their sentences, this will mostly serve to set public opinion against the ranchers vs the BLM. There is no definable security goal. Forming a security perimeter around the Hammonds and not allowing fedgov to take them is a definable security goal. Seizing a random unoccupied shack on a federal park is just going to piss off a bunch of idiot liberals and mindless neocons.

[tod evans]

Taking and holding a position with force of arms. WTF do you think that's called?

I believe citizens standing against a government is called an insurrection but I could be wrong...



And you think random people from out of state taking possession of an unoccupied shed on federal land is going to have any effect on this at all?

I haven't posted what I think, why would you assume I have...



Your source ties this action to the Hammonds. Didn't we just establish that this action is not connected to the Hammonds?

I've posted several "sources" in this thread if you're talking about the treehouse one you quoted it'd really depend on which segment of the timeline and respective actions you wanted to talk about in relation to what words were spoken out of folks mouths in the videos earlier in the thread.

I'm not going to speak badly about these guys, nor am I going to embellish what they've said or done. The Hammonds are getting ready to loose their patriarch to a likely death in prison due to embellishment at the hands of the government......

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe citizens standing against a government is called an insurrection but I could be wrong...

I haven't posted what I think, why would you assume I have...

I've posted several "sources" in this thread if you're talking about the treehouse one you quoted it'd really depend on which segment of the timeline and respective actions you wanted to talk about in relation to what words were spoken out of folks mouths in the videos earlier in the thread.

I'm not going to speak badly about these guys, nor am I going to embellish what they've said or done. The Hammonds are getting ready to loose their patriarch to a likely death in prison due to embellishment at the hands of the government......

What fedgov is doing to the Hammonds is insanely evil. What the Bundys are doing is the opposite of helpful. There is no strategic value to it. There are no potential positives and a shit ton of potential negatives. You do not go into any kind of martial operation, war or insurrection or whatever, if you cannot even define a proper path to victory.

If you want to help the Hammonds, go protest, help fund a law group formulating an amicus brief, do any number of things, but the Bundys are not helping the Hammonds, they are helping themselves to a spotlight that belongs on the Hammonds, not the Bundys.

[angelatc]

Who's the aggressor, Angela? I think you're confused, sweet heart. I can't imagine what your thoughts are on the American Revolution and who was the aggressor in that scenario. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Just not sure who's side you're on.

Did you read the Oathkeeper's explanation as to why they do not support this?

[tod evans]

What fedgov is doing to the Hammonds is insanely evil. What the Bundys are doing is the opposite of helpful. There is no strategic value to it. There are no potential positives and a shit ton of potential negatives. You do not go into any kind of martial operation, war or insurrection or whatever, if you cannot even define a proper path to victory.

If you want to help the Hammonds, go protest, help fund a law group formulating an amicus brief, do any number of things, but the Bundys are not helping the Hammonds, they are helping themselves to a spotlight that belongs on the Hammonds, not the Bundys.

I'm posting newz blurbs as they pop up, trying to present non-MSM perspective.

It sure seems to me that the Bundy's haven't set out to wage a battle that anybody could win or lose, they're effectively squatting..

Have you listened to the 20 min. video yet? Bundy doesn't sound like a warrior psyching up for battle to me...

[Pericles]

What happened to the Hammonds is horrifically wrong. I would be all in favor of this except the Hammonds have explicitly said they did not want this kind of help. I think because of the circumstances, with the Hammonds turning themselves in peacefully to serve their sentences, this will mostly serve to set public opinion against the ranchers vs the BLM. There is no definable security goal. Forming a security perimeter around the Hammonds and not allowing fedgov to take them is a definable security goal. Seizing a random unoccupied shack on a federal park is just going to piss off a bunch of idiot liberals and mindless neocons.

The Hammonds have apparently decided that under the circumstances, the martyr card and keep their land is preferable to the rebellion card and potentially lose their land.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.

It's better to stand in a way that has a positive effect on what you are trying to change. If what you are going to do will ultimately make things worse, then it's better not to do anything than to make things worse. Standing just for the sake of standing sounds romantic and all that, but romance is not strategy. The first Bundy Ranch Standoff was strategically good, and you may (or may not) remember I backed that 100%.

When you can seize a moment to have a positive outcome, then act. If your actions are almost certain to have a negative outcome, then figure a different set of actions.

This is the same crap that has turned out government into an evil behemoth. Some crisis pops up and nobody wants to be rational. The want government to act just for the sake of acting and don't care that 9 times out of 10 the government will just make things worse.

What Bundy is doing here is simply not going to help. Instead, it will almost certainly have a blowback reaction and make the Rancher's position less tenable int he court of public opinion.

If, going into an operation it becomes clear that by carrying out your plan it will make things worse, then stop, reassess, and figure out something else to do that won't make matters worse.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Hammonds have apparently decided that under the circumstances, the martyr card and keep their land is preferable to the rebellion card and potentially lose their land.

Aye, and the one hand they actually elected to play -- the martyr card -- is likely to be eroded to uselessness by Bundy's current action when the public goes batshit against the Ranchers.

[erowe1]

Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?

What does that mean?

[erowe1]

Why?

Why does it matter what's done?


I was under the impression that you supported this. If not, then I'm not arguing with you. If you do, then obviously it should matter to you what's done.

[GunnyFreedom]

Good for them.

At least somebody is doing something.

But what, exactly, are they doing? I'm all for taking up arms, but making the situation worse is not helpful. Just doing something to be doing something is not strategically beneficial. I don't rightly give a flying fart what the BLM thinks or even, to be honest, what "the public" thinks except insofar as its strategic place in accomplishing the goal of relaxing the grip of federal tyranny.

If an action is going to be counterproductive, then my advice is to find a different action to take that will actually be productive.

[GunnyFreedom]

Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....

At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........

On the other hand, Patton criticized Eisenhower's approach to the Nazis, and yet that didn't mean Patton wanted the Nazis to win. You can't logically presume that anyone who doesn't think this specific operation is a good idea therefore is fine with the BLM bullshit.

[dannno]

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...

We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/


I don't have a strong opinion yet on whether this stand-off is a good idea, but I disagree with what Oath Keepers said up there to some extent.

As an analogy, if somebody was about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft, and you stood up to defend them and they said "no, it's ok, I don't want to be defended.." I still think you have the right to stand up and defend them. It isn't just them you are protecting, it is all the other alleged witches who might face similar persecution in the future.

Now, it's possible that the Hammond family is taking the stand that they are purely for liability reasons and in private they are cheering on their defenders, but I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on that either.

[phill4paul]

They are not at the Red River because other militias and supporters have the relationships with the land owners and the "leaders" of the Oregon effort would not be in charge of activity at the Red River.

Gotcha. It was really just a quick google which I thought might present a better atmosphere for militia action. Thanks for the info.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm posting newz blurbs as they pop up, trying to present non-MSM perspective.

It sure seems to me that the Bundy's haven't set out to wage a battle that anybody could win or lose, they're effectively squatting..

On federal property, as a militia, with weapons.

You do not go into an op of any kind without a plan for victory.

If all he wanted was to make a protest that's a lot different. Leave the weapons and the tactical gear at home, chain yourselves to the buildings and start singing "we shall overcome" and then it's something else entirely and it's not going to be counterproductive to this case.


Have you listened to the 20 min. video yet? Bundy doesn't sound like a warrior psyching up for battle to me...

Even more reason why bringing an armed and equipped militia into this is a bad idea.

[Pericles]

Good for them.

At least somebody is doing something.

As patton said, good tactics can mitigate a bad strategy, and bad tactics can doom even the best strategy.

[libertyjam]

But what, exactly, are they doing? I'm all for taking up arms, but making the situation worse is not helpful. Just doing something to be doing something is not strategically beneficial. I don't rightly give a flying fart what the BLM thinks or even, to be honest, what "the public" thinks except insofar as its strategic place in accomplishing the goal of relaxing the grip of federal tyranny.

If an action is going to be counterproductive, then my advice is to find a different action to take that will actually be productive.


And you still apparently haven't watched the video.

here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk&ab_channel=AmmonBundy

If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.

[Pericles]

Gotcha. It was really just a quick google which I thought might present a better atmosphere for militia action. Thanks for the info.

One phone call, and just about every militia in Texas will be on the Red River. One of the reasons that would happen is because we know 70% of the people of Texas would support that action and the state government would not stand in the way. In fact, that might even prompt the governor to arm the State Guard and incorporate militias into the State Guard.

[Anti Federalist]

What does that mean?

It means you better vote harder, since you disapprove of confronting the system in the manner these people are.

[tod evans]

On federal property, as a militia, with weapons.

You do not go into an op of any kind without a plan for victory.

If all he wanted was to make a protest that's a lot different. Leave the weapons and the tactical gear at home, chain yourselves to the buildings and start singing "we shall overcome" and then it's something else entirely and it's not going to be counterproductive to this case.



Even more reason why bringing an armed and equipped militia into this is a bad idea.


I've been reading about this most of the day and until you started with the perspective I hadn't heard anybody else referring to what Bundy is doing as a battle/war or "op"...

From what I know what they've done has been purely reactionary after getting shut down by the Hammonds.....But I honestly don't know..

I do however assume after the last televised interaction with the BLM on their own property that Bundy is at least cognizant about setting up a defense or staging an offence.....

[kcchiefs6465]

Don't be stupid. This government doesn't prosecute their own, but putting it on the public record makes it impossible to carry out the action threatened.

What I'm saying is that it's bullshit. Federal Prosecutors don't tell you to make a political statement or face harsher confinement.

Do you accuse everyone with a brain and the ability to carry out deductive reasoning of being a sheep?
Is this the case where the government came back and said he had not served enough time after he served the time given to him?

Irwin Schiff, what happened to him?

Now regardless of if they explicitly told him to make that statement, after years of harassment and a prison sentence over your head, one might be implicitly coerced into doing or saying things they otherwise might not have done/said.

Maybe he'd rather not be moved so far away from his family as to make visitation practically impossible? Vindictive cocksuckers that they are, it's easy to see why making waves might not be what he thinks is in his best interest.

Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.

[Anti Federalist]

Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.

Yes, this.

[Pericles]

And you still apparently haven't watched the video.

here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk&ab_channel=AmmonBundy

If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.

As the liberty movement has no formal mechanisms for decision making, things happen on the basis of personal relationships. Aamon and Ryan Payne have a strong personal relationship, and in this regard, they do not compensate for each other's weaknesses and strengths, but amplify them due to similar personality types.

[Anti Federalist]

But what, exactly, are they doing?

Poking the beast in the eye.

I'm always in favor of things that do that.

It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.

[kcchiefs6465]

As patton said, good tactics can mitigate a bad strategy, and bad tactics can doom even the best strategy.
Patton also said to shoot dead protesters and leave their bodies in the street.

[tod evans]

On the other hand, Patton criticized Eisenhower's approach to the Nazis, and yet that didn't mean Patton wanted the Nazis to win. You can't logically presume that anyone who doesn't think this specific operation is a good idea therefore is fine with the BLM bullshit.

I presume that oft times doing the wrong thing works out better than doing nothing.

It's apparent that you could provide needed tactical advice to those guys..........

[GunnyFreedom]

And you still apparently haven't watched the video.

Since I watched it on fedbook before it was even posted on RPFs, your assumptions demonstrate the presumptive nature of your thinking here.


here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk&ab_channel=AmmonBundy

If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.

Well rule #1 in any kind of struggle is "don't make things worse." The people who like this can't even get past rule #1 so how am I supposed to get them to understand higher strategic thinking if they cannot even grasp the foundation?

That video is basically a 20 minute emotional appeal. There is no reason or strategy in it. "Come, do something."

Maybe he's wants to keep opsec but not sharing his strategy, and that's fine for what it's worth, but what has actually taken place is more of an #Occupy demonstration but with militias and guns.

Once the Hammonds rejected help, there is no more a security mission involving them. At that point you can ditch the tactical gear and the weapons, dress in bright colors carry signs and make a protest. Make the Hammonds the victims in the court of Public Opinion and move the masses to get pissed at the BLM.

What they are doing now, is just going to make the masses pissed at the militias, and turn the BLM into heroes.

Rule #1, don't make things worse.

[Anti Federalist]

Rule #1, don't make things worse.

That's where we disagree I guess.

Things are going to have to get much, much worse before they get better.

[Pericles]

Poking the beast in the eye.

I'm always in favor of things that do that.

It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.

And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written. Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.

[Anti Federalist]

Dannno nails it.


I don't have a strong opinion yet on whether this stand-off is a good idea, but I disagree with what Oath Keepers said up there to some extent.

As an analogy, if somebody was about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft, and you stood up to defend them and they said "no, it's ok, I don't want to be defended.." I still think you have the right to stand up and defend them. It isn't just them you are protecting, it is all the other alleged witches who might face similar persecution in the future.

Now, it's possible that the Hammond family is taking the stand that they are purely for liability reasons and in private they are cheering on their defenders, but I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on that either.

[phill4paul]

As the liberty movement has no formal mechanisms for decision making, things happen on the basis of personal relationships. Aamon and Ryan Payne have a strong personal relationship, and in this regard, they do not compensate for each other's weaknesses and strengths, but amplify them due to similar personality types.

I agree with this assessment from what is known through the many thread posts here during the Bundy stand-off.

[Anti Federalist]

And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written. Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.

Can't argue with that I suppose.

[GunnyFreedom]

I've been reading about this most of the day and until you started with the perspective I hadn't heard anybody else referring to what Bundy is doing as a battle/war or "op"...

Militia. Tactical gear. Equipment. Weapons. What else is it if not an operation?


From what I know what they've done has been purely reactionary after getting shut down by the Hammonds.....But I honestly don't know..

I do however assume after the last televised interaction with the BLM on their own property that Bundy is at least cognizant about setting up a defense or staging an offence.....

Knowing how to set up a perimeter is not relevant to the counterproductive nature of what they are doing. All this is going to do is undo the good will the militias earned at the Bundy Ranch.

Just because someone is doing something does not automatically mean that thing is helpful.

[kcchiefs6465]

What they are doing now, is just going to make the masses pissed at the militias, and turn the BLM into heroes.

Rule #1, don't make things worse.
Well, before, during, or after this event, fuck a BLM.

Bunch of counterproductive tapeworms who ought get real fucking jobs.

They were corrupt before they changed their name. And really, 'the masses' wouldn't know the history of the BLM if I threw a book at them, sooooooo I should care about their ignorant, propagandized opinions why, again?

Because they vote? Fuck their vote.

I suppose this would have been more in line with America if they established a first amendment zone and parked a battalion of pigs to maintain a perimeter.

[GunnyFreedom]

Is this the case where the government came back and said he had not served enough time after he served the time given to him?

Irwin Schiff, what happened to him?

Now regardless of if they explicitly told him to make that statement, after years of harassment and a prison sentence over your head, one might be implicitly coerced into doing or saying things they otherwise might not have done/said.

Maybe he'd rather not be moved so far away from his family as to make visitation practically impossible? Vindictive cocksuckers that they are, it's easy to see why making waves might not be what he thinks is in his best interest.

Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.

According to Ammon Bundy, the Fed's requirement was to not associate with the Bundy's. Explicitly telling the militias not to get involved is an entirely different thing. If the Hammonds wanted the militias involved, all they had to do was stay silent on that. Carry the threat to Fox News and that makes it politically impossibly for the feds to punish them, as that would be extraordinarily illegal and now it's on prime time TV.

Sure, it's not just about the Hammonds, which is why Bundy's actions are a terrible idea. This is about EVERYONE in America who considers themselves part of a militia and who is willing to stand up and take action. Throwing up a strawman in front of the jackboots will make it awfully easy for the feds to undo the scant victories we've already had. We took 2 steps forward at the Bundy Ranch, we don't need to be taking 10 steps backwards now.

There are ways to win and ways to lose. Handing ammunition to your enemy is just not a best practice.

Never, never, never go into an op without a set goal and a clear definable path to victory. I am seeing nothing like that here.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, before, during, or after this event, fuck a BLM.

Bunch of counterproductive tapeworms who ought get real fucking jobs.

They were corrupt before they changed their name. And really, 'the masses' wouldn't know the history of the BLM if I threw a book at them, sooooooo I should care about their ignorant, propagandized opinions why, again?

Because they vote? Fuck their vote.

I suppose this would have been more in line with America if they established a first amendment zone and parked a battalion of pigs to maintain a perimeter.

So just fuck the victory at the Bundy Ranch, let's just undo all of that and set American armed resistance back by 20 years because by God it feels good emotionally.

[phill4paul]

Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
and militias.
Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
of wild areas for conservation purposes.
We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
welcome to poach or burn it.
I suspect that the Hammonds and/or Ammon Bundy have an agenda
which is not what it seems.
Nobody should support these criminals.

The proper course is to cordon them off and allow them to starve
until they leave peaceably and prosecute them legally for wasting
resources and disrupting the peace.

You're a very special Snowballflake.

[GunnyFreedom]

Poking the beast in the eye.

I'm always in favor of things that do that.

It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.

Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive. This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.

Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free. You can't do something just because it feels good. We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time. If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's where we disagree I guess.

Things are going to have to get much, much worse before they get better.

Well, that's a pretty crazy disagreement to have. I think making fedgov and the BLM more powerful and more respected is a bad idea because it runs directly counter to what we are all supposed to be trying to do. I mean, if the goal is to make DC more powerful then why not get behind Obama, McCain, or Romney? I thought we were trying to fight the beast, not make it happier and more powerful.

[phill4paul]

And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written. Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.

I'm going with Pericles on this. It is not like Oregon does not have it's own militia organizations. From appearances none of these support Ammon Bundys and Ryan Paynes actions. I'm sorry, but at this particular time, I do not believe that you go pissing in anothers back yard without their consent. The local militias have laid a ground work locally that can be seriously hampered by the actions of those that are not local, have no idea of the areas politics, militia capability and public relations.
It's just bad form. By all means train, equip and be a QRF if called on.
I've never much cared for this Ryan Payne character. I think this was his call and I'm suspicious of his motives.

[donnay]

They should take a stand where the community agrees with them and would stand with them, just like what happened with Cliven Bundy. I don't think the Hammond's community care one way or another.

[JK/SEA]

so these 'protesting, mis-guided wannabe militia types get blown up, who should i write my protest letter to, or just say fuck em?

[Lucille]

The progs are calling for blood...as usual.

Mike Vanderboegh is suspicious and pissed.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/no-more-free-wacos-national-three.html


Among the other principles is no first use of force. We call this, "No Fort Sumters." To do so would be to surrender the moral high ground. The Founders understood that. Indeed, even the people who responded to the righteous cause of the Bundys at the time of the standoff there understood it. Yet now we have a situation contrived by some of the same people who first showed their true colors in the aftermath of that confrontation throwing this crucial tenet into the garbage can. I refer the reader to my article of yesterday, "Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/perfect-timing-for-regime-federal.html)," and to the statement of the Oregon Three Percent organization (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-of-oregon-official-press-release.html) whose march was exploited by Ammon Bundy and his supporters to achieve the takeover.
[...]
As to the personalities involved, I can say this from personal experience on the ground at the time of the original Bundy confrontation. The sociopathic weasel (and likely fed provocateur) Ryan Payne insinuated himself into the Bundy family by going to church with them and promising to convert to their brand of the LDS church. Whether he actually did or not is unknown to me, but I was told by Bundy himself that this was the reason that they trusted him and took him into their personal defense detail, much as Cleopatra clasped the asp to her own bosom.

In addition, I am informed by someone on the ground out there that Ammon Bundy believes that it is his mission "to make the refuge into some sort of New Jerusalem." The parallels between Ammon and John Brown grow creepier by the minute. Others apparently view this as an opportunity for "suicide by Fed," acting out whatever private demons they have pursuing them.

Boil all of this down and this is what we have left as our own demands, our own declaration, if you will:


Good news, the FBI is involved now

"Yeah, both inside and outside the building (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/live-feed-from-oregon.html), you can bet on it."

[tod evans]

They should take a stand where the community agrees with them and would stand with them, just like what happened with Cliven Bundy. I don't think the Hammond's community care one way or another.

CNN had an interview this morning with some "guy" who had a very distinctive lilt to his speech pattern, he wasn't very happy..

That was one of the people CNN set forth to be representative of the locals.

[Anti Federalist]

Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive. This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.

Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free. You can't do something just because it feels good. We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time. If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.

Key word..."if".

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point completely and it is not without solid merit.

It might do just the opposite: a heavy handed and over the top "Waco-esque" response by the central government might ignite and invigorate this effort.

[GunnyFreedom]

You're a very special Snowballflake.

Bless his little heart. :D

[Anti Federalist]

Bottom line for me: I'm not going to sit back and criticize men who are doing what I lack the balls to do myself.

Maybe it will hurt, maybe it will help, but in the end, they are putting their lives on the line (literally) for what all of us talk about.

[Krugminator2]

Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive. This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.

Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free. You can't do something just because it feels good. We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time. If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.


I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence. That is not how civilization works. That is how savages act.

They have initiated force. They should be given one opportunity to surrender with no negotiation. If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.

[The Gold Standard]

I'm pretty sure Boobus would be all for a Waco style assault and razing the building to the ground to ensure no one survived, then printing the money to put up a new building.

I don't really know what to think of this. They have every right to stake a claim to unowned land. But big picture, I don't know what this accomplishes unless they have a way of holding this property against government attack. And if these people get out alive, I would be very suspicious that the government is behind it in the first place.

[kcchiefs6465]

Meh. I suppose being compared to John Brown isn't the worst thing in the world.

The slaves should have just asked for their freedom politely. Or waited until after their deaths for the possibility of their children being free. It's the American way, right?

[goldenequity]

"a place you can come for several years..."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iP5R1fYdC8

[kcchiefs6465]

I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence. That is not how civilization works. That is how savages act.

They have initiated force. They should be given one opportunity to surrender with no negotiation. If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.
It's like when the British passed the Stamp Act. Except some of the glorified founders of this country had a penchant for tarring tax collectors. But you know, they initiated violence by going against the courts of the king and any amount of force necessary would have been justified in quelling the rebellious nature of men who'd rather not be illegitimately bound.

[phill4paul]

I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence. That is not how civilization works. That is how savages act.

They have initiated force. They should be given one opportunity to surrender with no negotiation. If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.

Thank you for dropping by Eduardo, your posts towards incitement are always entertaining.

[GunnyFreedom]

Bottom line for me: I'm not going to sit back and criticize men who are doing what I lack the balls to do myself.

Maybe it will hurt, maybe it will help, but in the end, they are putting their lives on the line (literally) for what all of us talk about.

I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch. I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois. I have no problem cashing that check. My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans. I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory. I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant. If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me. If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.

[The Gold Standard]

Meh. I suppose being compared to John Brown isn't the worst thing in the world.

The slaves should have just asked for their freedom politely. Or waited until after their deaths for the possibility of their children being free. It's the American way, right?

Hey, if this isn't some CIA op, then I admire them for doing it. But I'm questioning the wisdom of it in the grand scheme when 99% of the people will be calling for them to be drone bombed or strung up in public.

[JK/SEA]

I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch. I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois. I have no problem cashing that check. My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans. I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory. I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant. If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me. If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.

think making these guys martyrs would help?

[phill4paul]

Ryan Payne. That name should be familiar to the members of RPF that followed the Bundy stand-off.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?451545-Bundy-Saga-Thickens-Ryan-Payne-Smoked-Out-Not-a-Ranger!!

[kcchiefs6465]

Hey, if this isn't some CIA op, then I admire them for doing it. But I'm questioning the wisdom of it in the grand scheme when 99% of the people will be calling for them to be drone bombed or strung up in public.
Kind of makes you want to move to the mountains, right?

War criminals joke on television about their crimes but the taking of property from an agency funded by way of the theft from all, an agency which is notorious for stealing land for political reasons, that gets them fired up.

It's a brave new world. I think I'm going to pour me a cup.

[Anti Federalist]

I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch. I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois. I have no problem cashing that check. My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans. I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory. I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant. If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me. If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.

That you did, and I (think) I cut a check for that effort.

Like I said, I understand your point, I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

[GunnyFreedom]

think making these guys martyrs would help?

I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd. It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias. The only positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result. The chances of both of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd. It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias. The only positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result. The chances of both of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.
1% of this country is 3.2 million people. They might not want to anger so many people.

[Pericles]

I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd. It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias. The only positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result. The chances of both of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.

Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.

If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.

[GunnyFreedom]

1% of this country is 3.2 million people. They might not want to anger so many people.

I was being general, not specific. There are not 3.2 million people in America who identify with the militia. Maybe 500,000 to 700,000 total? If we are lucky maybe as many as 1 million? Even at 1 million it's less than a drop in the bucket. The rule of threes applies. You need 3% direct active support and 30% passive inactive support.

[GunnyFreedom]

Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.

If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.

Aye, and like it or not public support is the name of this game. The 3% who fought in the American Revolution were only able to do so because of the 30% public support they received. Without that support, pretty much any effort to do anything is dead in the water.

[kcchiefs6465]

Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.

If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.
If it impedes their progress of taking land in Oregon, who am I to argue with their means? (Whether that be sit ins, voting, et. al) Far as I can see, they still are attempting to be left alone. They've also given warning that further encroachments will not be tolerated. Their line is in the sand. Now, the government can look at this and say, "We've overstepped our Constitutional (supposed) authority" and take a step back or they can further prove their nature.

What they've hinted at is waiting those there out. They know people are watching. Pray for these men and women as the government is well known for murdering peaceful individuals.

[kcchiefs6465]

I was being general, not specific. There are not 3.2 million people in America who identify with the militia. Maybe 500,000 to 700,000 total? If we are lucky maybe as many as 1 million? Even at 1 million it's less than a drop in the bucket. The rule of threes applies. You need 3% direct active support and 30% passive inactive support.
Whatever the number may be, if it keeps them on their toes and prevents (even temprorarily) the violation of rights, it is better than the alternative.

It is why I don't necessarily knock voting, or waving signs, or anything attempting to restore and protect rights.

If the government were founded on consent these people would not even be there.

[phill4paul]

The more I read the more I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bundy/Payne are pissing in someone else's back yard. No co-ordination, no consideration. This is NOT how it should be done.


The occupation of the refuge headquarters came as a surprise to several groups that helped organize the Jan. 2 demonstration in Burns, including 3 Percent of Idaho and other affiliated organizations. In a post on the 3 Percent of Idaho Facebook page, the group detailed its relationship to the demonstration and said the occupation came as a surprise.

"Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, Oregon 3%, it’s leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover after the rally," the post read. The Idaho group went on to say it does not condone the occupation.

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/militia-group-seizes-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-headquarters/Content?oid=3687251


**3% of Idaho Press Release**

Topic: Malheur Wildlife Refuge Siege

On January 2, 2016, various patriot organizations under the direction of the Oregon 3% and associated groups organized a peaceful rally in Burns, Oregon in a show of support for the Hammonds Family and the community of Harney County. The immediate aims of this peaceful protest were to voice dissent of the wrongful prosecution of the Hammonds, the family’s subsequent decision to report to prison for federal charges, and for the refusal of the Sherriff to protect and support the citizens of Harney County. Following the peaceful protest, members of militias and individuals voiced their decision to “take a hard stand” which would be to seize a Federal National Wildlife Refuge building in Malheur County, and succeeded in doing so.

Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, Oregon 3%, it’s leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover after the rally. The 3% of Idaho, 3% of Oregon, The Oregon Constitutional Guard, and PPN organizations in no way condone nor support these actions. They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process.

During the weeks leading up to the rally, none of the aforementioned groups made any Calls to Arms to it’s members, nor planned or advocated for any form of armed uprising. The citizens of Harney County remain in solidarity with the aforementioned groups, as well as support our efforts to remain peaceful in our attempt to exercise the 1st Amendment Right. For the time being, we will remain in Harney County to continue to show our support for the Hammonds, and the community. We will continue to release updates and information as it is available. We want to personally thank the citizens of Harney County and Burns for their hospitality and trust.

III% of Idaho

**3% of Idaho Press Release**Topic: Malheur Wildlife Refuge Siege On January 2, 2016, various patriot organizations…

Posted by 3% of Idaho on Saturday, January 2, 2016

http://beehive-2.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/oregon-and-other-patriot-groups-not-linked-to-malheur-wildlife-refuge-siege-3270118.html

[CPUd]

683781038645055489
683754092628426759
683730110965399552
683702645853310977
683695504853725189

[Uriel999]

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I am convinced Ryan Payne is a government shill.

Aamon Bundy is a naive fool being led to the slaughter by a fedcoat.

The timing is too perfect. EO's by Obama coming Monday and HR4269 with 124 sponsors.

Regardless, keep your powder dry.

[erowe1]

It might do just the opposite: a heavy handed and over the top "Waco-esque" response by the central government might ignite and invigorate this effort.

Yes. But that's counting on the feds to make that strategic mistake. I doubt they will.

[Uriel999]

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I am convinced Ryan Payne is a government shill.

Aamon Bundy is a naive fool being led to the slaughter by a fedcoat.

The timing is too perfect. EO's by Obama coming Monday and HR4269 with 124 sponsors.

Regardless, keep your powder dry.

Btw, I just want to point out that I've never been a "conspiracy theorist" either.

I believe 9/11 was done by terrorists. I believe all those mass shootings were done by crazy people (although the SSRI link truly needs investigating by science as the ties are profound), I don't think the Boston bombing was fake etc...but this event looks too weird.

I mean Payne could easily be a David Duke. It even just makes sense.

[kcchiefs6465]

The more I read the more I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bundy/Payne are pissing in someone else's back yard. No co-ordination, no consideration. This is NOT how it should be done.
Lol. I know right?

And they offended a bunch of socialists, too. Damn hooligans doing something different than other protesters.

[erowe1]

The Hammonds have apparently decided that under the circumstances, the martyr card and keep their land is preferable to the rebellion card and potentially lose their land.

The martyr card is a powerful one too. I hope the militia here don't weaken it.

[phill4paul]

Lol. I know right?

And they offended a bunch of socialists, too. Damn hooligans doing something different than other protesters.

We're just gonna have to see things differently on this, kc. This is not their backyard. It's not their hard earned acceptance by the locals. There were plenty of places in Nevada they could have whipped their dick out.

[chudrockz]

We're just gonna have to see things differently on this, kc. This is not their backyard. It's not their hard earned acceptance by the locals. There were plenty of places in Nevada they could have whipped their dick out.

True, but as long as they're pissing on the fedcoats, their penises have my support. ;)

[kcchiefs6465]

We're just gonna have to see things differently on this, kc. This is not their backyard. It's not their hard earned acceptance by the locals. There were plenty of places in Nevada they could have whipped their dick out.
Maybe they should have, then.

If they come knocking on my door let it be known that all are welcomed to come in defense of my liberty. The voters can come, out of staters, immigrants.... the more the merrier.

People would probably just cheer though. And jerk off to CNN rhetoric. Or not give a fuck one way or another. This is why we'll never have nice things. Probably predestination (or genetics) so I won't get too upset about it.

It's a brave new world and maybe I should just come to terms with that.

Anyways, happy New Years. I'm sure we'd get along just fine over a couple of pints.

[Thor]

It would be nice to get a full scope of the story from an unbiased party, charges originally for each fire, defense they used, and how they can be retried (or have a sentence added) without being subject to double jeopardy. If anyone has more in-depth knowledge of these events, please share...

This does not talk about the "poaching", but help fill in some historical information (if accurate) for sure:



The short summary is: in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge) in the wildlife reserve. They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.

Here’s the long version: including history, details, links video(s) and explanations:

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (were the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.



Continued here, and it is long...

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

[Uriel999]

HossUSMC on this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARpBS6O14FE

His opinion is interesting because he was at Bundy Ranch

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. But that's counting on the feds to make that strategic mistake. I doubt they will.

I'm quite confident in it.

That's all they know.

[Anti Federalist]

True, but as long as they're pissing on the fedcoats, their penises have my support. ;)

And that's pretty much where I am at as well.

[thoughtomator]

This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.

[Anti Federalist]

“Mow them Down,” Americans Once Critical of Police Killings Now Beg Feds to “Slaughter” US Citizens

By Matt Agorist on January 3, 2016   


http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oregon-militiamen-hammond-bundy.jpg
oregon-militiamen-hammond-bundy

Princeton, OR — On Saturday, multiple armed ‘militiamen’ took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ to protest the sentence handed down to two Oregon ranchers accused of arson.

The ranchers accused of arson are Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon. They were each sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for alleged arsons they committed on federal lands.

According to the Washington Standard, the problem is multifaceted.


First, both men were sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, following the trial. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under theAntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, even though he sentenced them to jail for the time he did.

The men agreed to a plea deal that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence in order to bring the case to a close.

Both men served their sentences and were released. Now, the feds have appealed those sentences and want the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed on the men, and so they appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed with the feds that the judge ruled illegally. However, now they are wanting to label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail.

Aside from being thrown in jail for a second time, the Hammonds are upset because they allege no crime was ever committed.

“They called and got permission to light the fire… We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem,” said Dwight’s wife Susan.

In a post to their blog, the Bundy family explained that the Hammonds were merely engaging in prescribed burns to keep the land healthy and productive. And, they assert that the Bureau of Land Management also conducts these burns.

The Hammonds lit a fire on their own property that spread to public land. No one was injured, no property was destroyed and the Hammond extinguished the fire themselves, according to the Bundys. The court even ruled that the fires actually had a positive impact on the land.

“With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions,” explains the Bundy Family.

On November 3rd, the Bundys issued a warning, which stated,


We further warn that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest. We advocate that all charges be dropped and that the Hammond family be allowed to return to the home and life that was so rudely interrupted. The Hammond family has paid enough for this mistake, if any mistake at all. Further punishments to the Hammonds will require restitution upon those who inflict the injustices.

We call upon aware citizens and government officials to promote the protection and freedom of the Hammond family, and by so doing, maintaining the spirit of liberty that this beloved nation is built upon.

Two months after this warning, the Bundys held true to what they wrote when they, and several other armed citizens, took over the refuge HQ.

The Bundys and the Hammonds allege that what the federal government is doing, by using the BLM to dictate the use of open lands, is a violation of the constitution. They now claim to have taken defensive action, after they allege criminal action on behalf of the federal government.

While the Bundys and the Hammonds actions are certainly questionable, they haven’t harmed anyone or any property. Regardless of your position on the action of the ‘militiamen,’ one thing is certain – every one of them deserves due process.

Over the past 2 years, a peaceful resistance to police brutality and misconduct has risen up in the United States. This resistance is entirely bipartisan, although some will attempt to claim otherwise for their own political agendas.



On both the right and the left, there have been heartening examples of unlikely groups of citizens coming together to peacefully resist the police state. However, there are also those on both sides who dangerously call for violence, the removal of due process, and the use of state force to implement their own version of tyranny.

In the past few months, examples of the neoconservatives’ calls for fascism have shocked those who are paying attention to the rise of tyranny in the U.S.

Donald Trump epitomized this fascism when he called for banning all Muslims entering the US and shutting down the internet last month. The resultant bandwagon of hate and ignorance has led to a slew of internet comments calling for turning the entire Middle East region into a “parking lot.”

However, this time, instead of the far right calling for insanely violent police state measures, it’s the far left. It appears that some of those on the left have thrown all logic and reason to the wayside and have begun calling, not only for the removal of due process for their fellow Americans, but also for their full-on slaughter.

On various Facebook posts about the militiamen, multiple antagonists claiming to ‘support Bernie Sanders’ and declaring their ‘peaceful Democratic stances’ have called for the murder of those men, women, and children at the Oregon refuge.

Bernie Sanders would certainly not agree that it is okay to drone strike American citizens without due process.

Those who call for violence against others, who have not harmed anyone, are the epitome of all that is wrong in the world today. Regardless of your political views, or positions on issues, denying due process, even to the vilest of criminals, is the work of tyrants.

The irony here is that the folks on the left want to use the same violence, which they ostensibly oppose when not used in a manner they see fit, on people who they disagree with.

Below are some of the shocking comments from supposed ‘peaceful’ people who are calling for the slaughter of others.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mow-down-americans-critical-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/#xwxMlPOZBzj3eHlX.99

[osan]

“This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

But they are not. They could give a tinker's damn. So long as they can text and drive at the same time, the world can burn for all they care.

This is why we are in such deep trouble and partly why I believe there is no solution here that does not involve the shedding of blood. That is what we have done to ourselves.



Comment from federal attorney Billy Williams:

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue’s response:

“BLM accused the Hammonds of endangering lives, but a jury found they did not. Saying they ‘intentionally’ set fire to public land or threatened lives is not what the jury concluded. Federal attorney Billy Williams is wrong in his overblown statements in court yesterday. But he has helped frame the debate as we start to look at BLM’s own actions. If Williams’ rhetoric is the standard, BLM will have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond what they’ve done in this case,” said OFB President Barry Bushue.

–Oregon Farm Bureau


Empty assertion that will almost certainly be proven false. They will be held to account for nothing. Who will hold them so when all their corrupt brethren in the relevant governmental agencies will see to it they are shielded? Answer: nobody.

Let us be serious.

[The Gold Standard]

This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.

Something does smell funny about it.

[Miss Annie]

This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.

Totally agree with this.

[wizardwatson]

"So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"

Martyrdom, just like ISIS.

Martyrs for stupidity, just like ISIS.

[Dianne]

The benefits are putting minerals back into the ground, i.e.; potassium. It will also make soil more alkaline if too acidic.

Thanks, I wasn't sure. As I reflect back, I do remember seeing lots of fields burned. At least, now I know why.

[Dianne]

This does not talk about the "poaching", but help fill in some historical information (if accurate) for sure:



Continued here, and it is long...

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

That all makes sense now. Another land grab, much like the 12 million people who lost their homes to foreclosure by the Fed run Fannie Mae. After the Feds confessed the foreclosures were done fraudulently and illegally, they so kindly sent the homeowners a $500. check for any inconvenience they may have suffered as a result.

[GunnyFreedom]

HossUSMC on this:

His opinion is interesting because he was at Bundy Ranch

He was also at the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon, which is kind of a big deal.

His rationale is pretty much the same as I've given except he focuses more on NIMBY and less on probability of success. He did mention one thing I didn't know, that the Oregon Militias also do not want them there. And looking up-thread it seems the Oregon militias -- not even participating in this -- are already getting widely demonized. This is going to set the militia movement back 10-20 years and leave this beast government more powerful and more secure in their despotism. Sometimes I think I might just be more of a "cassandra" than even Ron Paul was. :(

[GunnyFreedom]

“Mow them Down,” Americans Once Critical of Police Killings Now Beg Feds to “Slaughter” US Citizens

By Matt Agorist on January 3, 2016   

However, this time, instead of the far right calling for insanely violent police state measures, it’s the far left. It appears that some of those on the left have thrown all logic and reason to the wayside and have begun calling, not only for the removal of due process for their fellow Americans, but also for their full-on slaughter.

On various Facebook posts about the militiamen, multiple antagonists claiming to ‘support Bernie Sanders’ and declaring their ‘peaceful Democratic stances’ have called for the murder of those men, women, and children at the Oregon refuge.

Bernie Sanders would certainly not agree that it is okay to drone strike American citizens without due process.

Those who call for violence against others, who have not harmed anyone, are the epitome of all that is wrong in the world today. Regardless of your political views, or positions on issues, denying due process, even to the vilest of criminals, is the work of tyrants.

The irony here is that the folks on the left want to use the same violence, which they ostensibly oppose when not used in a manner they see fit, on people who they disagree with.

Below are some of the shocking comments from supposed ‘peaceful’ people who are calling for the slaughter of others.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mow-down-americans-critical-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/#xwxMlPOZBzj3eHlX.99

This totally makes my point. After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will. Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.

Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.

Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things worse, then do something else.

[squarepusher]

This totally makes my point. After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will. Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.

Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.

Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things worse, then do something else.

this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already. It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.

[nobody's_hero]

Ummmm,

One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...

The other is telling government to go away.

Winner winner chicken dinners for life.

[nobody's_hero]

"Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."

No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either.

But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.

I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional." So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I? No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!

I know that sometimes this forum starts looking like a Huffpo comment section because there are certain RPF members who use cries of racism to try to shut down debate. It's tiresome and intellectually lazy.

The BLM is and has been conducting a war on ranchers and farmers out west. That's what we're discussing. If you want to discuss the wisdom of taking over a federal office then I'll grant that I don't think it's particularly well-thought-out, considering Ammon Bundy didn't even provide any demands during an interview. He says they're just 'gonna stay there for years.' Maybe he was drunk and it seemed like a good idea at the time. But I don't recall him mentioning anything about race in the interview, so why bring that up?

And I don't give a flipping fuck whether government is headed by a corrupt 100%-white man, a corrupt 50%-black man, or a corrupt 100%-black man. Maybe you ought not pretend to know me and instead go post some comments in a DailyKoz circle jerk.

[XNavyNuke]

this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already. It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.

Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training. Now please step this way, as we provide you with our final test......

If you bother to study history, but bring your presentistic blinders, don't be surprised when the red ink flows on the final exam.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cflpNLjhi0s

XNN

[Badger Paul]

As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But now they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why? War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?

[phill4paul]

I'm quite confident in it.

That's all they know.

I'm sure Harry Reid is ecstatic at the prospect of a Dorner bombfire.

[pcosmar]

If, going into an operation it becomes clear that by carrying out your plan it will make things worse, then stop, reassess, and figure out something else to do that won't make matters worse.

Do you read the future? I am not seeing failure at this point.. though that certainly is possible.

anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.

[pcosmar]

this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already. It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.

And you are either quite ignorant of facts,, or deliberately dishonest.

How many people died in the last confrontation? The one at the Bundy Ranch,, when 200 well armed ,,tactically trained and equipped mercenaries were routed..

By some of these same men.

Not a shot fired from the ignorant trigger happy rednecks.. (I see them differently)

[pcosmar]

This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.

What bloodbath?

and who's blood?

Who died last time?

[Lucille]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck


Ammon, apparently trying to recreate what cannot be recreated, is looking for another Bundy Ranch stand-off. First, I would point out that such events can't be artificially fabricated. They have to happen in an organic way. Whenever a group of people attempt to engineer a revolutionary moment, even if their underlying motivations are righteous, it usually ends up kicking them in the ass (Fort Sumter is a good example). Ammon's wingmen appear to be Blaine Cooper aka Stanley Blaine Hicks (a convicted felon), and Ryan Payne (who claimed falsely during the Bundy Ranch standoff that he was an Army Ranger and who worked diligently to cause divisions between involved parties on the ground). This was the first sign that nothing good was going to come from the Hammond protest.

[pcosmar]

As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But now they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why? War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?

I would say that everyone (of sound mind and body) should join the fight against the beast where ever they are.
same beast in Ferguson and Nevada and Oregon.

BLM or Fusion Center makes little difference, just different arms of the beast.

[JK/SEA]

from Facebook.

Gavin Seim: It appears some 3% groups are actually opposing the Oregon patriots stand and supporting a terrorist goverment by opposing liberty (whether intentional or not).

Now let me be more clear. I'm not saying all these folks are loyalists. But I appeal to these groups to be bold for liberty.
Be careful your group is not infiltrated by loyalists. But also that good as good intentioned patriots, we do not support the terrorist goverment inadvertently by in fighting and fear. Hold leadership accountable and remember the message is liberty, not faction. We can unite.

[GunnyFreedom]

Y'all know it is possible for someone to say that "this one op is a bad idea" without being a fed stooge.

[JK/SEA]

Y'all know it is possible for someone to say that "this one op is a bad idea" without being a fed stooge.


and its also possible that this OP can bear fruit in spite of the lack of support from III.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-seeks-peaceful-end-armed-standoff-oregon-federal-building-n489606

[GunnyFreedom]

And you are either quite ignorant of facts,, or deliberately dishonest.

How many people died in the last confrontation? The one at the Bundy Ranch,, when 200 well armed ,,tactically trained and equipped mercenaries were routed..

By some of these same men.

Not a shot fired from the ignorant trigger happy rednecks.. (I see them differently)

You do know that a whole stinkin bunch of militia members who totally supported (and even participated in!) the Bundy Ranch op, do not support this one, right?

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you read the future? I am not seeing failure at this point.. though that certainly is possible.

anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.

I'm actually reading the present. All the good will that was won over the Bundy Ranch has already been pissed away. The entire set of Oregon militia members, most of whom actively participated at Bundy Ranch and Sugar Pines Mine, do not support this Ammon Bundy op. Metric pluck-tons of people I know personally who had gained respect for the militias after Bundy Ranch now want to see them "mowed down" or bombed with drones.

You don't have to look at the future to see what's happening right the hell now. This is already extremely counterproductive.

[JK/SEA]

You do know that a whole stinkin bunch of militia members who totally supported (and even participated in!) the Bundy Ranch op, do not support this one, right?

so?...doesn't mean they are right, right?

[GunnyFreedom]

so?...doesn't mean they are right, right?

And opposing Ammon Bundy doesn't make anyone wrong either.

However, there is a far stronger argument that says if the entire breadth of all the Oregon militias do not want you to conduct an op in Oregon, don't.

[GunnyFreedom]

and its also possible that this OP can bear fruit in spite of the lack of support from III.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-seeks-peaceful-end-armed-standoff-oregon-federal-building-n489606

The damage is already done. The feds are chuckling with glee. The entire American militia movement has been set back 20 years.

[kcchiefs6465]

This totally makes my point. After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will. Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.

Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.

Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things worse, then do something else.
They were calling for the slaughter of those at the Bundy Ranch as well.

[GunnyFreedom]

They were calling for the slaughter of those at the Bundy Ranch as well.

Not to even a fraction of the degree or the quantity of people as they are now. Face it, this was a bad idea. The Bundy Ranch op advanced the American Militia movement by 5 years, and the Ammon Bundy op has set us back 20.

Just because someone is "doing something" does not auto-magically make it a good thing.

[kcchiefs6465]

Not to even a fraction of the degree or the quantity of people as they are now. Face it, this was a bad idea. The Bundy Ranch op advanced the American Militia movement by 5 years, and the Ammon Bundy op has set us back 20.

Just because someone is "doing something" does not auto-magically make it a good thing.
Yawn.

No, practically every progressive on the Internet was calling for everything from a storming of the ranch to a drone strike. Same as they are now.

Your opinions are just that: opinions. Or do you have a scientific measurement to quantify the exact progress and regression of the militia movement? You throw out a lot of numbers which, from here, sound like complete bullshit.

You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

[phill4paul]

The damage is already done. The feds are chuckling with glee. The entire American militia movement has been set back 20 years.

While I don't think they are in the right for conducting this Op in other militias backyard I don't think you can quantify the effect this has had. At least not yet. It certainly has done a bang up job of dividing the militias and independent operators. I don't know if that was the purpose though or why they would do such.

[The Gold Standard]

anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.

I think that is his point. What could possibly come of this that is considered a success? They hold the building until the government relinquishes their claim on it? How likely is that?

If the feds kill all of them, the overwhelming majority of Boobus will cheer and it may incite them to call for their masters to crack down on all anti-government sentiment. They could be martyrs too, but to whom? The local militias up there don't even want them involved.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think that is his point. What could possibly come of this that is considered a success? They hold the building until the government relinquishes their claim on it? How likely is that?

If the feds kill all of them, the overwhelming majority of Boobus will cheer and it may incite them to call for their masters to crack down on all anti-government sentiment. They could be martyrs too, but to whom? The local militias up there don't even want them involved.
Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.

[phill4paul]

Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?

I would say that the "militia analyst" are saying what they are saying because, even though other militias don't appreciate this Op, they have stated that a heavy-handed approach would in turn force their hands. I don't know whether it was Mike V. or Rhoades that stated that Bundy has written a check that he expects other militias to cash. They do not appreciate being put in that situation.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yawn.

No, practically every progressive on the Internet was calling for everything from a storming of the ranch to a drone strike. Same as they are now.

Your opinions are just that: opinions. Or do you have a scientific measurement to quantify the exact progress and regression of the militia movement? You throw out a lot of numbers which, from here, sound like complete bullshit.

You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

I can see it with my own eyes. During the Bundy Ranch standoff barely anyone I knew in FB was hostile. Now my fb is lit up with calls to bomb them.

This call to let them be and do something else is insane.

I see a man jamming a fork into a wall outlet and I speak up to say "that's a bad idea" and you are going to tell me to find my own light socket to play with? Really?

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harming the militia movement in America. I care about the militia movement. Hell, I'm a member of the militia movement.

You don't get to auto-magically assume that what Bindy is doing is somehow good just because something is being done.

Why would you go batshit at people who recognize that what they are doing is counterproductive unless you actually WANT to see harm done to the militia movement?

I mean, if you were being rational here, you would be acting like Anti-Fed. He disagrees with me, but acknowledges that I at least have a rational argument and a valid point. He's not trying to shut dissent down via the use of dubious sophistry.

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harmful to the militia movement. You want me to shut up. I will not. I care about advancing the American militia movement. I now will have to double down on secrecy with my own group lest we end up under surveillance.

If someone is going to be an idiot and actively bring harm to the American militia movement, I am going to call them out on it. You don't like it? Tough cookies. Deal with it.

[erowe1]

You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

I don't get why I've seen multiple posts in this thread expressing something like this, as if exchanging opinions is out of place in an internet forum.

If there were something positive I could do that would effectively convince these militia members to back down now, I would. As it is, merely stating here that I think they should will have to do.

[GunnyFreedom]

While I don't think they are in the right for conducting this Op in other militias backyard I don't think you can quantify the effect this has had. At least not yet. It certainly has done a bang up job of dividing the militias and independent operators. I don't know if that was the purpose though or why they would do such.

I do not think it was intentional. I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong. If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.

[GunnyFreedom]

It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.

Clearly the BLM and this "wildlife refuge" is wicked wicked evil bad. Opposition to what Ammon is doing does not imply support for this wicked government.

[phill4paul]

I do not think it was intentional. I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong. If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.

On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.

[69360]

I don't know if anyone saw this, but #YallQueda waging #Yeehad in reference to these guys in Oregon is hilarious no matter what side of the issue you are on.

[GunnyFreedom]

On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.

Oh, yeah, there is definitely a better than zero chance that this Payne guy is crooked as a three dollar bill. At this point I'd be more surprised if Payne wasn't a stooge than if he was. I wasn't thinking about him when I responded. I totally think he's dirty as hell.