The truth about the Oregon stand off

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JohnnyWeedSeed, Jan 5, 2016.

  1. These guys are true heros and I tip tin my hat to them. I don't want to see violence come from this but I fully support their right to defend themselves if the mafia, I mean government, decides to initiate force against them. If it comes to that, aim true and good luck boys!




    https://www.copblock.org/150936/fbi-moves-in-on-oregon-militia-occupation-what-they-arent-telling-you/

    oregon_standoff1
    FBI Moves In On Oregon Militia Occupation – What They Aren"t Telling You

    JANUARY 4, 2016 BY ASA J 63 COMMENTS

    As armed Americans take a stand against a tyrannical federal government near Burns, Oregon, the timid amongst the right and the totalitarian amongst the left offer a resounding chorus: Nothing good can come of this.



    I disagree. If nothing else, the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters by the Bundy led militia serves as a much needed symbol for the silent majority of the nation – a silent majority that is fed up with the encroachment on our liberties. Symbols are important, and it only takes a spark to start a prairie fire.

    Coincidentally, that"s just what 73-year-old Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr. and his son, 46-year-old Steven Dwight Hammond did – start fires. The men said they started a series of range fires on their own private property – first in 2001 to burn off an invasive species, and then in 2006 to protect their land and feed crops from fires already ignited by lightening – a tactic known as "back burning.”

    The fires spread onto public land controlled by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the ranchers were prosecuted in 2012 as part of a plea arrangement on an array of charges, from conspiracy and arson to attempting to damage property through fire and terrorism.

    As part of their plea deal, the Hammond"s agreed not to appeal their sentences. Dwight was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven was sentenced to 11 months – far below the mandatory minimum of five years their charges demanded – which judge Michael Hogan called "grossly disproportionate” and a "shock [to] his conscience.”

    Unfortunately for the ranchers, the feds did challenge the sentencing getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals involved in order to overturn Hogan"s decision and send the men back to prison to serve the entire five year term. They are scheduled to report to the federal Terminal Island prison in San Pedro, California today.

    Unbeknownst to most Americans, the federal government claims ownership of nearly 650 million acres of land in the country – almost 30 percent of the nation"s land mass.

    fed-lands

    This type of land monopolization by government, which is sold to the populace as being "the people"s land” or "common property,” is nothing less than communism and has many detrimental affects. First and foremost, its important to understand that the government is not the people.

    It is a separate entity than us. We are not them. We need only to look at the example of the Hammonds to see the reality of this in action, but economist and political theorist Dr. Murray N. Rothbard exemplified this fact perfectly in his essay, Anatomy of the State:

    …With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government.” The useful collective term "we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

    Primarily, the government "ownership” of vast amounts of land has harmful economic affects on the very people the land is supposedly being maintained for: the people. It"s basic supply and demand. If 30 percent of all land is being kept off the market by the feds, just what to you suppose is going to happen to property prices? They are going to be much higher than they would otherwise be.

    This is the primary qualm the Bundy led militia in Oregon has with the present situation surrounding the Hammond case. Not only did the feds essentially railroad the ranchers by overturning their sentencing, the case appears to be just another ploy by the government to continue its illegitimate land grabbing from ranchers.


    According to Tri-State Livestock News, former BLM range technician, watershed specialist and Oregon rancher Erin Maupin said backfires set by other ranchers had burned federal lands in the past, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced.

    Maupin said ranchers "would call and the BLM would go and help put [fires] out and it was not a big deal,” but that there were numerous instances of BLM fires spreading onto private land causing ranchers to lose significant numbers of cattle, resources, and other property. Maupin claims she is unaware of the BLM ever compensating ranchers for the destruction.

    Just as it was exposed, under the auspices of environmental protection, that Sen. Harry Reid wanted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy off his Clark County ranch in 2014 in order to aid a Chinese solar power firm his son represents to build a solar energy complex, corruption also seems to be afoot in Oregon.

    As part of a 2000 deal to prevent the government from designating Steens Mountain as a federal monument, area ranchers traded in their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, which allowed Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness with 100,000 acres being deemed "cow-free.”

    "The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” Maupin said. "[The Oregon Natural Desert Association was] relentless in their pursuit to [drive ranchers] off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness.”

    After the Hammonds are displaced from their property – which is likely considering the $400,000 they now owe the federal government as part of their sentencing – the feds will be free to fully exploit the natural resource rich area in Harney County. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the land has a high potential for silver, gold, copper, mercury, uranium and other valuable commodities like natural gas and oil.



    "It"s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch,” area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee Rusty Inglis said. "It would tie in with what they [already] have.”

    This is the kind of corruption the Ammon and Ryan Bundy led militia group is standing up against in Oregon. Despite this, the brothers have been mercilessly condemned by the left, the mainstream media, and the GOP establishment – with even Sen. Ted Cruz asking them to stand down.

    There have been calls to "mow [the men] down.” Popular media personalities like Montel Williams have even called for "the massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy,” and labeled the ranchers as "treasonous terrorist thugs,” that need to be "disemboweled” in a now deleted Facebook post.

    As for the Hammond family, they have made it clear that they don"t want the support of the Bundys and wish to quietly turn themselves in. If the Hammonds wish to submit to being slaves to the federal government without resistance, that"s their decision. It is also the decision of the Bundys however, to stand by their convictions and take up what cause they wish.

    "The end goal here is that we are here to restore the rights to the people here so that they can use the land and resources. All of them.” Ryan Bundy said. "We"re planning on staying here for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we"ve made at the last minute.


    For the most part, local cops and federal law enforcement agencies have kept their distance but as history has taught us in cases like Waco and Ruby Ridge, that likely wont last for long. The FBI has now reportedly taken charge of the law enforcement response to the situation and is working with the Harney County Sheriff"s Office, the Oregon State Police, and other local and state agencies.

    "Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge, as well as the law enforcement officers involved, we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response,” the FBI said in a statement. They maintain they are looking for "a peaceful resolution to the situation.”

    Ammon Bundy said at a press conference Monday that officials have sent messages to the occupiers inside the refuge saying that authorities do not intend to approach the group – which have now taken the name of "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.” He also maintained that he did not believe officials would try to forcibly remove the protesters.

    Watch:



    The situation has interesting similarities with a historical incident in Ireland called the Easter Uprising. During the week of Easter in 1916, Irish Republicans mounted a revolt to end British rule and establish an independent Republic.

    Starting out with only several hundred members of the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army and Cumann na mBan, the rebels seized key locations in Dublin. After gaining the support of around 1600 fighters, the uprising was quickly suppressed by the British army, and most of the leaders were executed.

    As I said before however, it only takes a spark, and the rebellion succeeded in changing the political landscape in Ireland. In December 1918, the Irish Republican Sinn Féin party won 73 seats out of 105 in the General Election before forming a breakaway government and declaring independence from the United Kingdom.

    Following the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty, Ireland effectively gained independence as the Irish Free State in 1922 with Northern Ireland exercising an option called the Ulster Month to remain in the United Kingdom. Latter, the nation became a republic, with an elected president, under the constitution of 1937.
     
  2. Well, that is a rather one-sided view of the situation.
    It is also highly misleading. Even the Hammonds don't want them there. Other "militia" groups, and even the wacko right wing candidates won't support those fools.
    .
    .
    Who actually bought and paid for the land? The government on Land purchases, more then a hundred plus years ago.
    This is not a new abuse of governmental power.
    .
    Yes it was with tax payers monies, however not just the future residents, nor necessarily descendants of those residing there now. They have no claim to the land for their own personal use.
    In many cases the land is State Trust land that was allowed to be used by the States to help pay for things like school programs etc. Given trust to the States from the government.
    .
    .
    Bundy owed (still owes) over $1 million in grazing fees. That is our money earned by his inexpensive lease (contract) to graze his cattle. His not paying essential gave him a competitive advantage over other ranchers that honored their contracts.
    The article conveniently skipped the allegations that the fires were used to cover up deer poaching too.
    :smoke:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. I'm not gonna lie I didn't read your whole post but I would like to address one point you raised. You said I support their right to defend themselves from the government. I just want to ask wouldn't this violate the non aggression principle. If I break into your house and say I'm staying here and I won't be violent unless you try to return or remove me is that really peaceful. I mean that is essentially what they are doing by occupying a building owned by the government and saying they won't leave/ will incite violence if anyone tries to make them leave.
     
  4. Of course the "wacko right wing candidates" don't support them. They are part of the government. Why would government gonna support anti government people? As far as the deer poaching allegations, what exactly were they? I haven't heard anything about that but I can tell you that the state does not own the deer so fuck them and their licence and tags.

    I consider the government to be illegitimate and have no ownership of that land. It would be more like you setting up camp in the wildness and I come along and tell you that you need to pay me to be there and I'll shoot you if you don't.
     


  5. From a DOJ release:

    "Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out "Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to "light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations."

    http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-r...


    This trial was in the town I live in, though I wasn't really aware of it back in 2012.

     
  6. Not that I believe a word that the DOJ has to say but I also hold no respect for the states clams to that land. I'm fine with them hunting deer out there regardless of licence and im fine with them using that land in any way they want without authorization from the state.
     
  7. Why should they be able to do what they want to with land that is clearly not theirs? It belongs to you and I as much as it does to them.
    :smoke:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Ya, I figured you wouldn't care if they were poaching. I just wanted to pass on the info since you said you didn't know about the allegations.

     
  9. #9 Grinder12000, Jan 5, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2016
    Well - they are getting a GREAT deal from the fed and you and I are paying for it. Terrorists I call them. They are getting a 93% deal on that land. I call them a bunch of terrorists who want what is not theirs. Perhaps let them pay the going price for grazing. I'm sick of those idiots getting freebies from the gov!




     
  10. If that is a fact then and it belongs to me as well then I give them my permission to do as they please. This isn't the case though. The government clams ownership and we are not the government. The people and the government are two separate entities.

    Thanks for the info. And no, I don't give a shit about "poaching". All that means is you didn't pay your extortion fee to the thugs before going hunting.
     
  11. Yet, where did the money come from to purchase the land?
    It wasn't explored, then confiscated, it was bought from Countries that had a claim on it.
    :smoke:
     
  12. It was stolen from the tax slaves. And whom did the government buy it from with this stolen money? Local governments who stole it from someone else?
     
  13. #13 A guy, Jan 5, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2016
    Ya, the Hammonds and the terrorists are different issues now but I definitely see and deal with hypocritical cry baby ranchers all the time. I live in Eastern Oregon surrounded by dryland wheat and rangeland and a number of my clients are ranchers who graze in National Forest. They look at public land as their land because they're the ones extracting the greatest financial value out of it and they complain when they're tagged for ruining it with poor management practices and have big fits whenever there's talk of laws to limit the damage. They're the biggest government moochers out there.
     
  14. Read my last post again - It was bought from foreign Countries.
    :smoke:

     
  15. And how did these foreign countrys own the land to begin with?
     
  16. Here is the weird thing - all the gun toting lunatics say if we all carried guns we would not have to worry about terrorists - yet where were they when terrorists take over our government - oh wait - they ARE the terrorists! hmmmmmm
     
  17. They "discovered", explored and surveyed it. Basically stole it from the Indians.
    .
    But that is mote to this debate, unless you want to give it all back to the Indians.
    That case would be a lot stronger then supporting these home grown terrorists.
    :smoke:


     
  18. Only if you believe as you do. I believe that the government are the terrorists. Ones man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
     
  19. So the land in the US is stolen but are the dudes in that building native americans?


    If not, well, it isnt fuckin their land either, by your logic
     
  20. I want to give it to whomever lives there, improves or uses the land regularly and stakes a physical claim to the land. Not some group of government thugs with guns who decide that they own it.
     

Share This Page