“Armed anti-government protesters have taken over a building in [the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge] in Oregon,” cnn.com reports. “Accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.” Amongst and speaking for the 100 to 150 militia men (and growing) involved: Ammon Bundy [above]. He’s the 40-year-old son of Cliven Bundy, famous for his families’ confrontation with the feds over land rights. Ammon and his armed followers have inserted themselves into a local incident involving father and son ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. I highly recommend you click here to read a full account of the decades-long dispute from the conservativetreehouse.com. The short version . . .
The Hammonds were convicted for domestic terrorism for setting fire to about 130 acres of Refuge land in 2001. The prosecutor said they set the fire to cover-up poaching; the Hammonds said they set the fire to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The father and son were sentenced to five years in prison. More on that in a moment . . .
Bundy claims the issue is much wider. He says the feds have taken over the space of 100 ranches since the early 1900s: “They are continuing to expand the refuge at the expense of the ranchers and miners.” The background seems to support Bundy’s claim that the Hammonds are the victims of a federal initiative to remove ranchers from their land.
Regardless of the specifics, Ammon Bundy and his followers reckons the Hammonds’ plight is a[nother] hill to die on.
He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday at 8 a.m. ET. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the “people’s constitutional rights.”
“This refuge — it has been destructive to the people of the county and to the people of the area,” he said . . .
He did not explicitly call on authorities to commute the prison sentences for the Hammonds, who are scheduled to report to prison Monday. But he said their case illustrates officials’ “abuse” of power.
“Now that people such as the Hammonds are taking a stand and not selling their ranches, they are being prosecuted in their own courts as terrorists and putting them in prison for five years,” Bundy said.
“People need to be aware that we’ve become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people’s rights, and they are doing that against the people.”
I’m not sure Bundy knows what he wants to achieve with what’s now a siege – other than to make a strong anti-government statement and confront the “powers that be” over federal land management. While Ammon Bundy and the rest of the militia holed-up in the Refuge have the full support of hundreds of landowners, the local populace isn’t well pleased. The occupiers don’t care.
“We will be here as long as it takes,” Bundy said. “We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves.”
Ammon Bundy said that the group in Oregon was armed, but that he would not describe it as a militia. He declined to say how many people were with him, telling CNN on Sunday that giving that information might jeopardize “operational security.” . . .
“We are not terrorists,” Ammon Bundy said. “We are concerned citizens and realize we have to act if we want to pass along anything to our children.”
That’s no small point. Both Hammonds are now convicted terrorists who served part of their sentence – until the feds asked a judge to reexamine the sentence. Again, here’s the 411 from theconservativetreehouse.com:
In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges (dropping arson charges), they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death . . .
On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014 . . .
In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
The Hammonds are due to report to jail tomorrow. There’s no indication that they will fail to do so. Nor is there any reason to believe the Bundy militia will back down. Here’s a highly emotional message from one of their members, who’s clearly prepared for armed conflict.
https://youtu.be/sbGdMKpHDDE
Regardless of the justification for this action and the passions surrounding it, anti-gun rights organizations used the previous Bundy ranch showdown to portray gun owners as hair-trigger domestic terrorists. That conflict de-escalated at the last possible moment.
If this one tips over into a gun battle between the feds and the militia – and sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com reports that a federal SRT team is staging for a possible confrontation – they’ll do it again. Watch this space. Meanwhile click here for a Twitter feed from a local reporter covering the showdown. [h/t DrVino]
I hope we win. Does anybody else feel like the government isn’t of the people, by the people or for the people anymore?
If this is not “double jeopardy” I’d like someone to tell me why it’s not.
Because they weren’t given another trial for the same crime, only re-sentenced under the legal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines under which they were convicted. A point should be made that the ones that have actually been convicted are not contesting their convictions or their sentences. These guys are just looking for an excuse to screw with the government.
Only 1 conviction without another trial but instead an appeal of the sentence imposed resulted in the appellate court finding the sentences imposed by the trial court to be inadequate and warranted longer sentences to be imposed immediately in adition to time already served.
Double jeopardy requires the convening of a jury who finds the accused innocent and then under the same facts and charges the individual is again tried in spite of the initial jury finding the accused innocent. That is not what happened her from the limited facts that have been reported.
Federal statutes have a mandatory minimum without parole also, I think. I thought this might be related to WA releasing ~3k convicts too early, but sounds like its all federal.
This is 100% federal. They were convicted under a “terrorist” law that proscribes 5 year mandatory minimum, but successfully argued in court that being sentenced to 5 years for doing what they did is cruel and unusual punishment (because it is disproportionate). Now a higher court has overturned that bit.
Thanks guys.
Win what?
These yahoos are more clueless than the Wall Street occupiers. Sounds like nothing short of a new country will please them. And how are we supposed to all agree on that without a civil war or two? Just block the road and starve them out.
Wait what? Did you catch the part that death is an appropriate punishment under this law? According to them, and court records show, that they actually called the BLM to report the fire before they set it. They played the recording in court. Terrorism? For letting a fire get out of hand?
Mandatory minimums need to go anyway, but they accepted the sentence and said they wouldn’t appeal it. What if the government changes it’s mind later and decided that they want death, will you support that then?
Just so you know….
There are multiple “Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.”
One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.”
There aren’t going to be any winners here, regardless of outcome.
Yep. Everybody loses. (Except maybe, in the short term, the federal government, which pretty much does whatever it wants anyway.) Total clusterfark in every direction.
But there’s no rule saying the collapse of our current polity has to be quick, painless, or pretty. Expect to see more of this, and worse as time goes on. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
“Does anybody else feel like the government isn’t of the people, by the people or for the people anymore?”
sure it is. the problem is that sometimes, more of The People see things differently than you and outvote you. The proper thing is to either deal with it, or campaign to get it changed in the future. Not to throw temper tantrums and threaten to break stuff like a three year old who isn’t getting his way.
if you’ll remember, the Clinton “Assault Weapons” ban went away by us electing a Congress willing to let it sunset. Not by donning fatigues, strapping AR-15s to our backs, and threatening to shoot people.
Well, alrighty then. Time for some people to put up or shut up.
more dead soldiers/blain cooper/sexy trannysoreass. Publius. How about it guys. You on the way to Oregon yet?
Here’s you chance to earn your stripes.
Wat?
We got some guys commenting on this site that are always about fighting the man. At least they’re always encouraging others too. Here’s a golden opportunity to put their “beliefs” into action.
Let them go to Oregon and file comments from there.
Ahhhh. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Naturally, jwm cannot imagine non-violent criticism and protest of the government. To you, all dissent involves violence. Obviously, unthinking and brute barbarism is all you know. 🙂
You could still go and establish a “free speech zone” and harass everyone, besides us. Oh look your still under your bridge.
>free speech zone
That’d be the entire country, brah.
So, you’re gonna sit this one out. Where it’s nice and safe. Kinda figgured as much. If change comes to this system it won’t be thru any effort on your part.
But it’s cool. You’re on record as being the non violent, un brutish type. So next time you comment about fighting cops, blather, blather, etc. I just have to type one word.
“Liar.”
Please, post a link or quote where I encourage the act of offensive violence, ever. All moral people relish the karmic justice of invading government murderers being sent home in body bags. The same can be applied for gangster cops. In TTAG parlance, that would be a DGU.
On the other hand, one of the very first posts I called you out on was you calling for the nuclear annihilation of Mecca and most of the Middle East. I believe you used the term, “glass parking lot”. Oh, the irony.
FLAME DELETED
The nuke comment, as you well know, was just a little hyperbole in a comment. You know, like when you suggested a claymore mine on the front porch to answer cops at the front door.
But you’ve made your point. No change will come thru you. You’re to moral to take it to the bad guys.
The meek shall inherit the earth. But only if the strong take it for them.
Alas, a claymore is defensive. All the cops have to do is not barge through the door in a no-knock raid based on fabricated evidence, as is the norm.
By the way, what change did you effect in Vietnam? Oh right, you changed nothing and wasted your time losing the war. Don’t you get sick of inciting violence with your track record?
Nice one mangling that bible verse. Did the military chaplain teach you that blasphemy?
“The nuke comment, as you well know, was just a little hyperbole in a comment. You know, like when you suggested a claymore mine on the front porch to answer cops at the front door”
>when I call for the indiscriminate murder of a billion people, it’s just hyperbole. I’m not violent! Really!
>when someone else suggests using a small explosive device to defend one’s home against government home invaders, that is offensive violence! The horror!
Hehe 🙂
Appologies for feedign the troll.
Sorry bro, but we WON the Vietnam war. What happened was the Democrats that swept into power afterwards refused to honor our part of the Paris accords that ended the war. Kindof like you wanted us to not honor the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War and let Saddam get away with whatever he wanted. Last time you hippies did that, it wound up with millions of Vietnamese in mass graves. Good job.
“Sorry bro, but we WON the Vietnam war”
– Failed to achieve the stated political objective
– Failed to force the North Vietnamese government to submit to the will of the US government
If you want to redefine victory in war as winning a handful of skirmishes, then sure, the US won. Also please point out the part in the Paris Accords that said the US was obligated to do anything about the inevitable collapse of the South Vietnamese regime, that the Democrats (Gerald Ford?) failed to fulfill.
Also, failure to remove Saddam resulted in Vietnamese mass graves. WTF?!? 🙂
Political Objectives:
1. Stop the NVA invasion of South Vietnam. == Achieved (See: Tet Offensive)
2. Stop the Vietcong insurgency in South Vietnam. == Achieved (See: Tet Offensive… Again.)
As for the details of the Paris Accords.
We agreed to provide military aid to the South Vietnamese under the Paris Accords. Congress refused to fund said agreement.
https://youtu.be/7hqYGHZCJwk
>posting Dennis Prager
>ever
The political goal was to stop the spread of communism into the whole of Vietnam. That was obviously a failure. The Tet Offensive was but a single battle in that war.
The Tet Offensive was an insurgency, not an invasion. It was largely conducted by the Vietcong, with help from the NVA regular army. Moreover, the defeat of the Vietcong in that single battle in no way defeated the insurgency, considering that the US military continued to spend all its time conducting counter-insurgency operations, and that MACV operations completely collapsed in the northern border regions in 1968.
Also, the Paris Accords said nothing whatsoever about aid. Nixon *pledged* aid, but it was completely non-binding. On top of that, the US Senate never ratified the Paris Accords, so even if there was any mention of military aid, it would also be legally non-binding.
Oh really? Is that why the Vietcong had not a single success after Tet until we pulled out of the Paris accords?
Do you even history bro?
Maybe because the Vietcong wasn’t the entirety of the insurgency in South Vietnam? It it were, why didn’t the US government simply declare victory and leave after the VC was defeated? Oh right, they were still busy fighting the insurgency.
>Do you even history bro?
>thinks the US won in Vietnam
topkek
Um… We did declare victory. They were called the Paris Accords. Why do you think North Vietnam was forced to the bargaining table?
A ceasefire, four years after Tet, that allowed the NVA to stay on conquered territory and demanded the withdrawal of all US troops, that is is considered a victory? Oh my.
“We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.” – John Negroponte
MDS, I was making it clear that both my comment and your claymore comment were hyperbole. But trying to talk honestly to a dishonest person is a waste of time.
After all, a troll gotta troll. 🙂
Heh. Now you are claiming to know when other people are serious or using hyperbole. A claymore will stop the pigs cold, would it not? And when I called out your “glass parking lot” comment, you doubled-down. No hyperbole defense back then. 🙂
Stop this pathetic damage control. Just admit your violent pro-government animalistic bloodlust, it is obvious to all to see.
Heh. Now you claim to know the intentions of other peoples’ posts. Your damage control is truly pitiful.
A claymore would stop the home-invading piggies cold, would it not? And defending one’s home is a noble cause indeed. To clear it up for you, it is a serious suggestion for a defensive tactic.
Why did you double-down on your nuke comment when you were called out the first time, instead of claiming hyperbole? Only now do you backtrack, when you obliviously try to project your own violent thoughts onto others. Let’s face it, even if you really were exaggerating, only a seriously disturbed individual can casually suggest the deliberate mass genocide of a billion people.
Let’s boil it down: you are either a homicidal maniac, or your words mean absolutely nothing because you can’t decide if they are serious or bluster. I like those choices. 🙂
The man switching personalities mid thread is talking about my mental stability. The irony. 🙂
>switching personalities
>simply changing the name field to avoid censorship
>can’t actually cite an example where I am ever inconsistent between two names
>doesn’t even know what a “personality” is
ENGAGE MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL! 🙂
Also stop stealing my lines, “oh, the irony” is mine. Be smart. Be original. It’s hard for you, but you should at least try.
The crazy person always has a “reasonable” explanation for their behaviour. And which one of your 5-6 or more personalities trademarked “irony”. Next you’ll be telling folks the “smiley face icon” is yours.
Meglo mania. I don’t even see that trait in the ones I take to the secure facilities. But then, your crazy stands out in a crowd.
And censorship? This is a privately owned site. His rules apply. Or don’t you agree private property rights apply. If not kinda puts you on the same level of the swat teams you rail against. now that’s irony, brah. 🙂
>suggests indiscriminately murdering a billion people with nuclear weapons
>calls other people crazy
Good one. Do you ever look yourself in the mirror and go full Joker?
By the way, censorship on a private site is still censorship, even if it is totally within the rights of the site owner to apply censorship. You imply connotation when there was none, and bloviate about property rights when the relevant field of intellectual property is an entirely different field. Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance, as expected from a mindless government killer. 🙂
For now I will support the Bundy’s on this one.
The Hammonds are getting screwed twice, which they shouldn’t be.
Yeah. They voluntarily serve their sentences and two years later it’s decided that they have to go back to jail for 4 more years?
Not a good situation to be in.
Of course the feds broke them they already fought it as long as possible the Hammonds gave up because they couldn’t keep fighting forever that is the face of federal tyranny unlimited funds armies of lawyers and they own the judges. Sure the bundy group might be a little suspect but the statists will push forever till they get what they want
What else can be done it’s not like Obama wasn’t gonna go full derp on gun rights anyhow
The smart thing for Obama to do in this situation is commute their sentences to get the siege to break and avoid bloodshed
But Obama and smart in the same sentence? Only if I’m saying “Obama isn’t smart”
You do understand that when you support Bundys, you’re specifically going contrary to Hammonds’ expressed wishes?
I’ve been watching this develop. The locals don’t appear to want the Bundy’s or their friends there.
And taking over a federal building? This could get ugly.
(Personally I can’t stand that the feds have created Hart Mtn and Malhuer as wildlife refuges. They eliminate hunting in huge tracts of land. )
It looks like large tracts of hunting area are being closed or severely restricted in Oregon. I’ve been told Weyerhaeuser was thinking of charging a $300 fee to hunt on land that has been free for decades. That makes it cost around $400+ before factoring gas and other supplies to drive around. That land not a walkable or tree stand kind of hunting area.
We used to fill our freezers with meat from hunting each year growing up as sometimes my dad was out of work due to weather as a logger. So we ate good no matter what. That is becoming much harder to do these days.
Wayerhaeuser bought most, if not all of plum creek logging land. I read that they are now the largest private land owner in the U.S.
The fee where I hunt, (now used to hunt), is $250.00.
Screw that and them.
I’m working on a horse pack-in hunt for the snake river for elk instead.
So much for property rights.
What do you mean by that? Weyerhaeuser is deciding to charge a fee to hunt on their land for the first time in decades (or ever?). Some people like my family members and Tom in Oregon are deciding not to pay and not to hunt on the land. I don’t see a violation of anyone’s property rights here. It just diminishes the locations that one can hunt in the state for an affordable price.
I personally wouldn’t pay the fee to hunt there and would look for somewhere else. My dad is looking at switching to mostly fishing because hunting has become too expensive to be enjoyable.
It’s their land, legitimately acquired and held under law. If they chose to not charge fees previously, it was their right to do so, but it doesn’t bind their future decisions. If they choose to charge high fees now, it is also their right to do so. Part of property rights is the ability to restrict access to your property, including by charging fees.
Now, it may be unwise to allow private companies to hold so much land, especially when that land has environmental or otherwise public importance. The proper way to remedy that would be for the state government in question to use its powers of eminent domain to revert land to public ownership, while compensating the current owner.
https://youtu.be/GPX-mW4l1rU
Sorry…couldn’t resist.
What happened to double jeopardy? How can they be jailed, released, and jailed again for the same thing?
Exactly. They were found guilty of the charge and did their time. Unless they violate any terms of probabtion there’s no reason for the .gov to scoop them back up and re imprison them.
I don’t agree or like it, but re the double jeopardy thing – the fact of their conviction is not what’s being re-visited. To try them again on their arson charge would be DJ. The length of their sentence was appealed by the government. They did time and were released while that appeal was under review. The Hammond’s lost that appeal, sadly. Higher courts said they should revisit that issue, the length of their sentence, as, from what I understand, the lower court judge was very lenient – at least as lenient as he could be. So, the matter got remanded and the Hammond’s will likely have to serve more time.
Evidently the district court judge was *more* lenient than he had the power to be, he sentenced them to less than the statutory minimums for the crimes for which they were convicted.
You don’t believe they should be put back into jail? And you are not willing to fight for them?
Something about no one being left to fight when they come for you.
Here’s the official DoJ report: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
The Hammonds appealed the mandatory five year sentence for arson and won, but then the government appealed and the 9th Circus Court upheld the appeal and reinstated the original five year sentence with credit for time served.
I personally disagree with the appeal ruling in this case as I believe mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional. However, these men were tried by a jury and convicted and while I also disagree with the charges originally brought against them if they appealed the verdict and lost it looks like they have no choice other than to serve their sentences. It’s a very unfortunate situation all around.
It’s curious the Fed Gov cries foul with regard to mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses, but is pushing for them here. The Fed Gov has no business owning and operating land other than military bases, IMHO.
I believe public lands should be for grazing cows and the enrichment of singular families, just ’cause I say so. And if I wanna over-graze it or burn it or run native wildlife out so I can make more money, I’m going to do it, like it or not. For the rest of the public, you need to go find your own land – I was here first. And to all that federal money that goes into me being able to sell my products that enrich my family, like the railroad and highway systems, I say thank you – suckers.
And you Negros, you at least had a happy family life as slaves.
Go, Jimmy ! As a person with Choctaw ancestry I just want ALL you anglo murdering thieves to kill each other off so we can get “our” land back, the way the great father meant it to be. For now we can ignore the fact that my predecessors slaughtered the Mammoths and a whole slew of other species after we crossed the landbridge to America. Soon the Hispanics and Muslims will take care of the problem in Amerika and anglos will all be slaves anyway.
What percentage of your genome is Choctaw?
The Choctaw were one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” and sided with the U.S. in the War of Independence. They were one of the first Indians to become citizens. Hell the only time they fought the U.S. Army was when some of them were wearing Confederate gray!
In short the Choctaw have been American as long as there was been an America to be part of.
And America repaid them by making them the first victims of the Indian Removal Act.
Ranchers setting fire to their own land is nothing new, it promotes new grass and eleminates tough weeds and invasive trees. I know Bundy made some off color statements, a lot of them were “allegedly” taken out of context. From the information I have seen the us.gov and the Bundy’s were both wrong, but I do not understand how setting a fire to grazing lands, even if intentionally destroying evidence of a lesser crime is terrorism. This is going to be an important chunck of history. Look at all the liberal news agency’s calling for NRA to be treated like terrorist. I was hoping we could have America back by peaceful means, now it will take a prayer. I am not for another ” shot heard around the world”, but neither was the Majority of the colony.
The facts were that the Hammond actors burned public land…twice..cause they feel they should be able to – all the while the taxpayers were funding to fight other fires on BLM land nearby. Like the Bungy’s, they were only leasing the grazing rights from the public (at a highly subsidized rate below private lease rates, so yes, they were all receiving welfare), yet chose to treat it as they now have ownership. It is clear the Bungy’s have anointed themselves lords over public land, and can exclude any use or person contrary to their own personal profit.
As I understand it,Hammonds burned only land that was under their control,be it lease or outright ownership.
>> As I understand it,Hammonds burned only land that was under their control,be it lease or outright ownership.
Nope, they’ve burned quite a bit of publicly owned land. They claim that they have started those fires on their land and couldn’t stop them before they crossed the boundary. The feds, meanwhile, claimed that at least one of those fires was started on public land to conceal evidence of illegal poaching.
I still don’t see the link between arson and terrorism unless they meant to kill people to scare the population, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Like I said during the 1st Bundy episode, this isn’t the line in the sand for most people.
Apparently you missed the part where a government report actually stated that the “preserve’ was actually what was harming the native wildlife and that the migratory birds were more likely to utilize worked land rather than preserved land in contravention to the stated goals of the “preserve”
Its all there in the CTH linked information.
Are there any reports that have reached different conclusions? If so, how many?
Reaching a predetermined conclusion by cherry picking evidence is easy. Until you know the full story, you wouldn’t know who is right.
I would rather they had not taken up arms at this particularly perilous time for gun rights.
Out of morbid curiosity, when in the past few years hasn’t it been perilous for rights, period?
I was thinking about that and you are right, but we also have money bags Bloombag and Hildabeast now who would like to see us with nothing but flintlocks.
So while I agree that gun rights are always under attack from someone, the antis are really on the offensive. They know they have to keep the pressure on and they are.
I am missing where it would be better a year ago or a year from now vs right now.
Gee, if you can’t figure it all out, I’m not wasting my time explaining it.
I didn’t put a time frame in my comment now did I!
You did.
When times are most perilous, we must be most ready to defend our rights.
I’m not a conspiracy nut, but this seems awful convenient seeing how Obama is going to unveil his executive actions in the next week.
You saying the bundys are ,gov shills?
Nope, just saying it’s convenient. Read that however you want.
It’s not the first time the government has used a legitimate group, (Bundy could be the real deal , a man defending his property from a Government power grab, what’s not to like?), to have an agent provocateur within the group to instigate that group to do something that would cause them to cross the line into what could be defined as insurrection with alot of dead bodies on both sides.
If they don’t have the support of the local population, but especially the “injured” party? Then they are on very shakey ground. And the timing is suspicious. Just before our presidential election, when the democrat party is pounding the drums for a renewal of the assault weapons ban. What do they know that we don’t?
This has been on the news radar since the Bundy Ranch situation quieted down. Not a new story.
From a few days ago:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-return-of-pathological.html
Interesting. I haven’t read about this Ryan Payne before. But it fits perfectly the government play book, use the agent provocateur to get the defiant group to cross the line, then BOOM! The Jack Booted Thugs have the excuse they want to crush them.
There is no possibility of this ending well. After being embarrassed at the Bundy ranch, I don’t think the gov is backing down. If a shot gets fired, these guys are dead. They have 0 tactical advantages here.
Sure there is a possibility it ends well. They shut off the power to the building, people get tired, cold and hungry and say f—- this. The media attention causes the feds to “rethink” their position and the whole thing goes away.
And it could be another Ruby Ridge or Waco. Shot’s get fired from both sides and people die. Let’s hope not and hope clear thinking minds prevail and folks on each side are willing to make concessions where the situation is defused and both sides claim victory.
This is how I feel, there is a chance clear heads will prevail.
I keep seeing people bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge. This is not like either of those situations. In those events, the government was in a standoff with a group that was on their own property. Bundy’s group took over a building that wasn’t theirs. I could see the government using this as an example of what would happen if other groups like this try to actually take up arms against them. If the government takes them all out, there won’t be any meaningful public outcry, becauses they made their choice when they decided to take this action.
the scary part is I think the Bundys *want* another Ruby Ridge.
The incident would carry a lot more weight if they were Native American. Just sayin’.
My ancestry in North America predates our current Federal government by nearly 200 years rather than perhaps a couple of thousand. Does that make them any less Johnny-come-lately for me?
Now’s the perfect time for the feds to move in and seize cliven bundy’s cows and himself for that little dust up.
While clivens muscle is in Oregon.
I’m about 1 1/2 hours drive away from this with a few more days off.
It would be good for ttag to have eyes on the situation. I would be curious to hear if you can even get to the location? Have the feds set up any sort of road blocks or check points?
No clue, but since this is probably going to be a siege…here’s the lay of the land:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2655393,-118.8441759,570m/data=!3m1!1e3
The area is very isolated. I’ve hunted birds and song dogs down there.
The .gov will just choke off the food supply. It’s below freezing and won’t get warmer for a month or two.
The sad part of this is that the .gov just keeps increasing the size of the wildlife refuge.
I hope the Hammonds don’t lose their ranch due to being cruelly and unusually punished because the .gov will swoop in, take it, and make it part of the preserve.
Then the Hammonds will have to move to Salem, get subsidized housing, food and phones and eventually vote democrat so they can keep their free stuff.
The end.
The government knows that if they go in with guns blazing it will be civil war. Militia groups are mobilizing around the country. Even if it was just a few dozen patriots… The chaos they would cause is huge.
Dear Assholes:
You’re not helping. Please get off our side.
Love,
Patriotic Americans
Yup….
All I can think of is this:
https://youtu.be/_h4DZeBleLs
I don’t doubt for a second that the .gov is trying to put these people over a barrel and blatantly abusing the legal system, but is armed men taking over one of their buildings a winning strategy?
Why not? After all sit-in have worked for the left have they not?
It worked in California back in the late 60’s: https://youtu.be/KD3uemBXG74
Nailed it in one.
It is nothing more than a sit in while exercising a Natural, Civil and Constitutionally protected right. No different than Occupy, BLM, or any leftist shitbags. The difference here is that these guys wont burn down the town, or actually do anything illegal.
This is federal/public land…not private property so they have every right to assemble and protest there.
The feds should set up a First Amendment Zone so protesters can, you know, protest. Under the strictest of controls, of course, like they did at the Bundy ranch last year. How did that work out? Pretty bad for the G.
Meanwhile, the protesters are setting up a Second Amendment Zone, like they did at the Bundy ranch last year. How did that work out? Pretty bad for the G.
We are all very fortunate that the people who run the BLM are as incompetent, grasping and stupid as the people who run the VA, IRS, State Department and every other component of the almighty Federal government. Otherwise, 1A and 2A wouldn’t just be in trouble — they’d be as dead as the 9th and 10th.
This looks like it will be our generation’s Boston Tea Party. Today it is ranchers in the feds sights. Next week, Obsama is targeting all gun owners and buyers. The 2nd Amendment is our only balance against this governmental overreach bordering on tyranny.
How is it that some ghetto rat or white trash tweeker with a loooong felony record can shoot up a convenience store and get probation while these two men get sentenced to prison not once but twice? Have modern Americans become so blind, so ignorant that they cannot see what is going on in this country? Our veterans are treated like shit, while BLM scum are hailed as heroic? For the love of God ( or whatever you believe in) open your eyes. It’s not Dem vs Rep. It’s the treasonous govt vs We The People. We have given up and lost so many of our rights already. Please read the Constitution. Talk to people who maybe aren’t exactly like you. Find common ground we can all agree on and fight the real enemy.
Because the most oppressed members of our society are middle class straight white males.
I don’t know of too many gang-banger/tweeking felons – those with long records especially – that get probation after shooting up convenience stores… . But yes, sadly, most Americans are blind. +1
Two words:
Ethan Couch.
I’ve seen this movie before!
Sorry I ragged on you RF. This is not going to end well. I see labeling them “terrorists” as the height of absurdity. And double jeopardy too. Also see Bury Soetoro will wade in this deep shite as ”justification” for America control. Or maybe the .gov will wimp out. Perilous times indeed…
I have been following this story for a long time as I have spent much time in that area. Here are some relevant points.
1 – the sentencing judge clearly stated that he was not following the mandatory sentencing guidelines, hence the governments appeal of sentencing. Judges don’t get to do this. It is not double jeapordy.
2 – the Hammonds have clearly stated their readiness to report to jail (I believe they are due Monday). They did not solicit militia “support”.
3 – Bundy’s group says the Federal Govt has no authority here due to their obscure interpretation of a section of the Constitution. They say the land should be returned to “loggers and ranchers”. I am not sure why loggers and ranchers should be so lucky, no one is claiming illegal land takings.
I’m not sure what these occupiers are thinking or smoking but they need to stop it. Maybe a few days of fresh air on the refuge will clear their heads and bring them to their senses.
Yup…not their land….belongs to all of us. There is fantastic hunting across the country on Wildlife Refuge’s…and in many cases the only affordable public hunting in an area. I have had many great hunts of natl wildlife refuges hunting areas.
I’m a city dweller in CA. My only hunting access is thru public lands or fee paying private land. I choose the public lands.
Last night called a pack of coyotes in very close. Not quite close enough but we’re getting better at it. Full dark with just a headlight makes for interesting times.
I remember the Libertarian Party wanting to abolish the BLM and sell off Federal Lands back in 1980.
Ironically, we’re now $20,000.000,000,000 in debt and the only way out is to sell off a large chunk of public land. Or economic collapse, whichever.
LOL. That would be a reverse “Lousiana Purchase” with China playing the role of Jefferson!
There’s nowhere near 20 trillion dollars worth of federally-owned land in the country. The feds control something like 600 million acres, and most of it ain’t worth anywhere close to $30,000 per acre.
Looks like economic collapse is the only option.
You’re forgetting Puerto Rico.
Oh wait…
Never mind.
They’re trying to force the government to make a move, hoping to spark a revolution.
It isn’t going to work out that way. The only thing this does is help Obama with his ‘executive actions’.
I see my response to this thread as a native american was deleted, as one of Jjimmyjonga’s. How interesting.
Look again, it is still there.
While I dont condone militia grandstanding. I detest that the government is using criminal penalties to carry our policy objectives, ie taking lands and forcing ranchers off the lands. This case along with the Nevada case, and some others seems to indicate a pattern of federal government land agencies to force out civil owners from adjacent lands. I doubt these tactics are not approved at the highest levels. All property owners adjacent to public lands need to be vigilant and protest government actions before they get to this point
Cut the power and phones, prevent anyone from entering the area and see how long the nuts want to stay. Arrest them when they leave. Just my two cents.
How do you prevent anyone from entering if they are willing to shoot their way in?
The linked article is one sided, poorly written, and doesn’t appear to have been proofread. I wouldn’t use that as the “full account”.
Regardless, the Bundys aren’t wanted by the Hammonds, so they should pack up and go find a cause that does. The situation may suck, but adding the occupation to it does not help the people involved in any way.
Armed insurrection like this can only hurt the average 2nd Amendment supporters and our natural rights. We should be distancing ourselves from these types of people as fast as possible.
Fundamental principal in business; If you do business with another private party and feel you’re treated unfairly by that party you can petition the government to arbitrate your disagreement. If you do business with the government and you feel you’re treated unfairly by the government you can petition the government to arbitrate your disagreement with the government. Anyone see the potential problems with that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g
Don’t think I want any side of that fence.
What a mess.
But I’ll say this: if the government came back four years after I was released and wanted me to do five more years, there’d probably be armed resistance on my part.
Read the Conservative Treehouse links, and some more here from the comments of the Oregonian, the local press that is doing good work explaining how the locals dont want the Bundy’s there- but support the Hammonds, who have been given a raw deal by the Feds for some time.
http://rangemagazine.com/features/fall-15/range-hammond-sp13-enemies_of_the_state.pdf
http://rangemagazine.com/features/fall-15/range-hammond-su14-government_tyranny.pdf
Also read Sipseystreet, noting that ALL of the local Oregon miliias have made it clear they are NOT behind the Bundy’s and are opposed to an armed takeover of the federal facility. The Hammonds have said they do NOT want the Bundy’s there, and intend to follow the law and serve their sentence.
This has the potential to go sideways, and no matter what- the illegal takeover plays into the Obama/Gun Grabber narrative that the StateRunMedia will gleefully capitalize on, to avoid talking about how bad Obama and Hillary’s record have been on the economy, foreign policy, and illegal actions.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
Mike V and the Oath Keepers claim some moral authority over the patriot movement when there has been non granted. Their moral high ground is often not based on constitutional fact but rather internal politics of the III% movement.
Their statements on this issue should tell you all you need to know. They are worried about the optics of the situation rather than the constitutional principal.
Posted on Zero Hedge last night:
Oregon Standoff A Terrible Plan That We Might Be Stuck With
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
Well, there is whole host of things wrong with this situation, which is why I never supported or endorsed “Operation Hammond Freedom” to begin with. There is a lot of misinformation out there at this time on the debacle in Oregon, and certain alternative media outlets seem to be conveniently overlooking particular facts. I suspect that some people in the movement simply want to “kick it off” (a second American revolution), and they don’t care if the circumstances of that kick-off are favorable or terrible (I realize “favorable” is relative, but starting this fight from a much stronger position is more than possible). This attitude was prevalent among some at Bundy Ranch, as certain groups refused to dig in positions for a real fight in the hopes that they would be “martyred” for the cause. This, in case you were wondering, is idiotic.
Oath Keepers including founder Stewart Rhodes was the only organization to predict how Ammon Bundy’s vague calls for action on the part of the Hammond Family would actually play out. They received a lot of ignorant attacks in response, and yet, they were absolutely right.
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.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck
http://alt-market.com/articles/2775-oregon-standoff-a-terrible-plan-that-we-might-be-stuck-with
Re Vietnam: We punk out and don’t declare war but have police actions. Why were we there? Maybe oil drilling rights in the Gulf of Tonkin? The South Vietnamese gov is on record thinking we weren’t there helping them fight the communists. In fact they said they had that covered. They say they thought we were there to continue French imperialism, (Fog of War)
Aren’t we all tired of the same old thing? Going to war for fat cat pockets. Our honest loyal men dying for creed and country then the gov reduces their VA benefits. (Cheney)
Today’s question. Do you think, be honest, that if these “occupiers” were “third world types” that the response would have been swift and powerful? Do you think the media calls one group terrorists and others mentally ill or agreaved patriots? When the man was arrested for making bombs to blow up mosques why aren’t we seeing continuous news feeds of journalists in his home or his neighbor’s garage?
Who’s side are we on? Fair is fair. What do we actually stand for? It says Liberty and Justice for All.
Linn county sheriff vehicle (west of bend) just passed through bend headed east to burns. Guess they’re pulling surrounding le in to help contain.
Comments are closed.