150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

Details are sketchy, probably a lot of disinformation at this time.




http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/150-militia-take-over-forest-reserve-hq-in-oregon-call-us-patriots-to-arms-videos-3270032.html


150 Militia Take Over Forest Reserve HQ In Oregon, Call US Patriots To Arms! (Videos)

(Before It's News) (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/150-militia-take-over-forest-reserve-hq-in-oregon-call-us-patriots-to-arms-videos-3270032.html)
https://img.rt.com/files/static.en/original/breaking.jpg
150 Militiamen including 3 of Cliven Bundy’s sons have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon and are calling upon militias around the country to rise up in arms and join them in their zone of liberation to continue the fight. The occupation started over a local court case involving ranchers and the federal government. One of the militiman posted a video earlier today that basically tells you that he is in this for the long haul. In fact, what he says makes you think he isn’t going to come out of this alive. Check it out:





You can also watch the video of the leader of this uprising explain what has happened and why they are doing it:



Keep an eye on this folks. This could be potentially explosive.. Stay tuned..

[monty]

http://youtu.be/HDvUVl96y9g

[monty]

http://youtu.be/sbGdMKpHDDE

[monty]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4001
(a)No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

Building on this theme, we now add a corroborating citation from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, paragraph 2 (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/frcrm/query=[jump!3A!27nrule+26!27]/doc/{@2215}?), in the middle,
"On the other hand since all Federal crimes are statutory (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) [ see United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.ed. 259 (1812) (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/u.s._v._hudson11US32.htm)] and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are based on acts of Congress, . . ."
2. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:In order to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to conduct criminal prosecutions, one would have to find out what the specific definition of "Act of Congress," is. We find such a definition in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/frcrm/query=*/doc/{t772}?) prior to Dec. 2002, wherein is defined "Act of Congress." Rule 54(c) states:
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm#2.%20TERRITORIAL%20JURISDIC TION

The Supreme Court rewrote the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and "conviently" omitted the above statement. You will need to find a copy dated before Dec. 1, 2002 that includes the above definition.

[JohnQPublic]

2016 is starting out as a wild year...

[JohnQPublic]

What is the "III" or "111" in John Ritzheimer's rear window?

[JohnQPublic]

Story is getting legs:
Militiamen take over federal wildlife refuge in Oregon after (http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382511/Militiamen-federal-wildlife-refuge-Oregon-anti-government-rally-support-two-ranchers-heading-jail-arson.html#ixzz3wA9KOfLg) anti-government rally to protest jail time for two ranchers (http://anti-government rally to protest jail time for two ranchersRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382511/Militiamen-federal-wildlife-refuge-Oregon-anti-government-rally-support-two-ranchers-heading-jail-arson.html#ixzz3wA9bVur1 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook)

[Cebu_4_2]

Story is getting legs:
Militiamen take over federal wildlife refuge in Oregon after (http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382511/Militiamen-federal-wildlife-refuge-Oregon-anti-government-rally-support-two-ranchers-heading-jail-arson.html#ixzz3wA9KOfLg) anti-government rally to protest jail time for two ranchers (http://anti-government rally to protest jail time for two ranchersRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382511/Militiamen-federal-wildlife-refuge-Oregon-anti-government-rally-support-two-ranchers-heading-jail-arson.html#ixzz3wA9bVur1 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook)


I am unable to get this link to work.

[monty]

I am unable to get this link to work.

Try this link Cebu

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/peaceful-protest-oregon-wildlife-refuge-action-36061121


The the feds broke the law USC Title 18 Part III Chapter 301 Part 4001(a) by putting the Hammonds in prison.

(a)No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.


Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Pre Dec. 1, 2002:

"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress LOCALY APPLICABLE TO AND ENFORCEABLE IN the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_54.htm

[mick silver]

seen on the news this morning a preacher telling the Militia go home that they had no place being there let the laws work . I all most got sick when he said let the laws work , hey dumb shit the laws have not worked so far . only thing this government knows is force preacher man .....................

[monty]

seen on the news this morning a preacher telling the Militia go home that they had no place being there let the laws work . I all most got sick when he said let the laws work , hey dumb shit the laws have not worked so far . only thing this government knows is force preacher man .....................

I found the law these judges and DOJ attorneys broke, now how do we get them convicted? Lorreta Lynch isn't going to allow themto be prosecuted. And the main stream media would never print this.

They have falsley imprisoned these men once before, fined them $400,000.00 now after spending over $1,000,000 dollars in legal fees they have to go back to jail ilegally again.

I would think since these DOJ employess stepped outside the constitutional restraints they are guilty of impersonating public servants. They probably can be sued by the Hammonds for all the dammages and suffering because they were not acting in their official capacity.

[boogietillyapuke]

What is the "III" or "111" in John Ritzheimer's rear window?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&q=iii+percent&ei=2zeJVvvtAcuJmQGqsZ6wDQ#imgrc=_


III%. The alleged number of patriots that actually participated in the revolution against the king.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

[monty]

I sent an email to all the Hammond's attorneys and to the Harney County Oregon sheriff with the information about the federal law the DOJ broke. I carbon copied it to Bundy Ranch, Ramona Hage Morrison, daughter of the late E. Wayne Hage (Hage v US) and to my brother who also was dragged into federal court for having his cows "trespass" on BLM range.

[monty]

Obama ordered Hammond Ranch destroyed


http://youtu.be/m6DCk_MkuIs

[mick silver]

the DOJ knows the laws they broke they are no longer under the same laws that they force on us monty , I hope your able to helps your brother

[7th trump]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4001
(a)No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

Building on this theme, we now add a corroborating citation from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, paragraph 2 (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/frcrm/query=[jump!3A!27nrule+26!27]/doc/{@2215}?), in the middle,
"On the other hand since all Federal crimes are statutory (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) [ see United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.ed. 259 (1812) (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/u.s._v._hudson11US32.htm)] and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are based on acts of Congress, . . ."
2. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:In order to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to conduct criminal prosecutions, one would have to find out what the specific definition of "Act of Congress," is. We find such a definition in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/frcrm/query=*/doc/{t772}?) prior to Dec. 2002, wherein is defined "Act of Congress." Rule 54(c) states:
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm#2.%20TERRITORIAL%20JURISDIC TION

The Supreme Court rewrote the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and "conviently" omitted the above statement. You will need to find a copy dated before Dec. 1, 2002 that includes the above definition.

Yeah so whats your point?
You as a federal "US citizen" are congress's subject....goy if you will!

"The People" are free and above Congress. You, the "US citizen", is not!

Whats so damn hard about understanding the pecking order of things Monty?
You posts these idiots doing ignorant acts that will probably get them killed and get others killed because you yourself are fanning the flame of ignorance.
You're just as ignorant and dumb as they are if you keep ignoring the pecking order of how this all works.
You are doing exactly what they want you to do.

[monty]

Yeah so whats your point?
You as a federal "US citizen" are congress's subject....goy if you will!

"The People" are free and above Congress. You, the "US citizen", is not!

Whats so damn hard about understanding the pecking order of things Monty?
You posts these idiots doing ignorant acts that will probably get them killed and get others killed because you yourself are fanning the flame of ignorance.
You're just as ignorant and dumb as they are if you keep ignoring the pecking order of how this all works.
You are doing exactly what they want you to do.

I am domiciled in Nevada without the boundaries of the statutory United States (District ofColumbia). I am not a stautory US citizen. I am a constitutional citizen of the United States of America and a citizen of Nevada.

I will find the Supreme Court decisions back this up.

“When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences whether intended or not. 13. One can not elect to make his home in one place in point of interest and attachment and for the general purposes of life, and in another, where he in fact has no residence, for the purpose of taxation. . . .” Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939).

[monty]

Get out of the admiralty jurisdiction of US. Citizen. You have the choice.

http://annavonreitz.com/top12steps.pdf

[7th trump]

Get out of the admiralty jurisdiction of US. Citizen. You have the choice.

http://annavonreitz.com/top12steps.pdf

Very good article and everyone should download this.

I agree with most of it except about the federal reserve.
The federal reserve has nothing at all to do with your birth rights and operating as the US government.

This document also leaves out what Social Security does to one's citizenship. You cant claim not to be in that jurisdiction and yet participate in a federal welfare program puts you right back in that jurisdiction.
The only documents you sign are SS documents and the ssn is required on just about everything you do when dealing with the government.
The ssn needs to be shed of all use.

[Shami-Amourae]

http://s7.postimg.org/utae4lf2z/1451840945082.png (http://postimg.org/image/6cs8a4ec7/full/)

http://s7.postimg.org/6vxbje5qz/1451841033907.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s7.postimg.org/vdpf7a8bf/1451841065230.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s7.postimg.org/bx4pkrd7f/1451841086007.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s7.postimg.org/res7ogjob/1451841110118.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

http://s7.postimg.org/yacg7ke57/1451841753005.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s7.postimg.org/drhk2i07v/1451842106968.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/qvn4f6s9j/full/)

[monty]

Yeah so whats your point?
You as a federal "US citizen" are congress's subject....goy if you will!

"The People" are free and above Congress. You, the "US citizen", is not!

Whats so damn hard about understanding the pecking order of things Monty?
You posts these idiots doing ignorant acts that will probably get them killed and get others killed because you yourself are fanning the flame of ignorance.
You're just as ignorant and dumb as they are if you keep ignoring the pecking order of how this all works.
You are doing exactly what they want you to do.

I am posting this information so you and ohers can see how the fedeal govenment is raping and robbing the ranchers, miners and loggers in the western states. This strikes too close to home for me. I grew up on a Nevada ranch. These people are my friend and my neighbors. One family has been on their ranch, the oldest ranch in central Nevada, since 1863, one year before Nevada was addmitted to the Union. Now they are bullied by these BLM bureaucrats. They are forced to move their cattle at the whims of the BLM. The cattle lose any wieght they have gained. Then they have to truck water to the cattle because they were forced to move the cows to an are too far from a well or stream to get a drink. All these acts are designed to put a hardship on the ranchers and force them out of business.

I am not fanning the flames.

I did not entice or encourage Ammon Bundy and his compañeros to take over a federal building. That was a huge mistake on his part part. Reading his Redress for Grievances I believe he knows and understands the federal district courts are legislative territorial courts operating on admiralty law. He should know by comandeering a federal building he is now in federal juridiction and has committed a federal crime.

Any one who falls into their US Citizen trap and does not excert his rights has no rights. A subject has no rights.

[mick silver]

http://s7.postimg.org/drhk2i07v/1451842106968.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/qvn4f6s9j/full/)

[mick silver]

http://s7.postimg.org/bx4pkrd7f/1451841086007.png (http://postimage.org/)

[mick silver]

this make me sick

[Shami-Amourae]

this make me sick

White gun owners are going to be forced to turn in their guns, or turn into White Nationalist outlaws, and join in on the rebellion we are forming now.

[monty]

this make me sick

Me too Mick.

[mick silver]

White Nationalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations List of white nationalist organizationsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#mw-head), search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#p-search)
This list is incomplete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists); you can help by expanding it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_white_nationalist_organiza tions&action=edit).
The following is the list of well-known white nationalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalist) organizations, groups and related media:
White nationalism is a political ideology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology) which advocates a racial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism_(racial_categorization)) definition of national identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity) for white people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people); some white nationalists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalist) advocate a separate all-white nation state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state). White separatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatism) and white supremacism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacism) are subgroups within white nationalism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) The former seek a separate white nation state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) and National Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) to their ideology.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) The vast majority of white nationalists are separatists, and only a smaller number are supremacists.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) Both schools of thought generally avoid the term supremacy, saying it has negative connotations.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-2)

[Shami-Amourae]

White Nationalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations List of white nationalist organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#mw-head), search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#p-search)
This list is incomplete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists); you can help by expanding it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_white_nationalist_organiza tions&action=edit).
The following is the list of well-known white nationalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalist) organizations, groups and related media:
White nationalism is a political ideology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology) which advocates a racial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism_(racial_categorization)) definition of national identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity) for white people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people); some white nationalists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalist) advocate a separate all-white nation state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state). White separatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatism) and white supremacism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacism) are subgroups within white nationalism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) The former seek a separate white nation state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) and National Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) to their ideology.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) The vast majority of white nationalists are separatists, and only a smaller number are supremacists.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-Swain-1) Both schools of thought generally avoid the term supremacy, saying it has negative connotations.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations#cite_note-2)

You cannot have limited government, freedom, and liberty without White Nationalism. Limited government is a White idea. If you allow Jews and muds to invade everything turns a Marxist dystopia. All of these collectivistic/dystopian/Marxist ideas are Jews and their non-White pets. This is why people in Libertarian movement are turning towards White Nationalism, and why the ones remaining are literally all SJW Leftists. If you look at the current Libertarian movement that grew substantially under Ron Paul all thats left are Leftists. The rest have moved onto the Alt-Right, which is the future if we want to have a future.


The Founding Fathers of America were all White Nationalists. This is why the Left hates them so much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Naturalization Act of 1790 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790)

Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person" who had been in the U.S. for two years. In effect, it left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We pretty much only allowed White into our nation up until 1965:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965


The Hart-Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy) since the 1920s. The new law replaced the quota system with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. The bill set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere), former citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_United_States_citizens_who_relinqui shed_their_nationality), ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).

Check out this immigration policy we used to have based on merit, which weeded out most undesirables.

[cheka.]

media central control room in nyc has the story now. they are going to have a field day with this

[Horn]

I have not been following too closely, seems they are being agitated by BLM from their land? Charged as terrorists is agitation. No reason not to have militia protecting their land and cattle/assets if that's where the militia are is on their land.

are they (the militia) trying to impose themselves somewhere else other lands otherwise?

[mick silver]

Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so "endangered" that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy's family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle. A tortoise isn't the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn't of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise's habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid's former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they've a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they've had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor. BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It's easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn't make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare
http://news.yahoo.com/peaceful-protest-followed-oregon-wildlife-refuge-action-021853717.html#

[mick silver]

Militia members occupy US building in Oregon after protest
http://news.yahoo.com/peaceful-protest-followed-oregon-wildlife-refuge-action-021853717.html# If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

[Horn]

Yeah is what I see correct, they went and took over some other national wildlife refuge to make a point?

why not just protect what the original owner's ranch and grazing/watering that was setup originally, until he has an appeal?

seems they're overreaching and will endup making an example out of themselves, big gov. will love the result.

[Cebu_4_2]

Those comments... Are they all that stupid or am I missing something obvious?

[midnight rambler]

Those comments... Are they all that stupid or am I missing something obvious?

How do we know those are not bots driving perception management??

Could be a combination of both real and spoofed.

[mick silver]

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_big-photo http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2016/01/03/standoffjpg-58cc9454beac9523.jpg

[mick silver]

Showdown in Burns

Militia standoff in Oregon: Key players (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_standoff_in_oregon_key.html#incart_story_p ackage)
Militants continue occupation of Oregon refuge, police keep low profile (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_continue_occupation_of.html#incart_story_p ackage)
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_story_p ackage)
Burns residents confront militia over fears of violence (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/burns_residents_confront_milit.html#incart_story_p ackage)
Oregon ranchers' fight with feds sparks militias' interest (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html#incart_story_p ackage)

All Stories (http://topics.oregonlive.com/tag/showdown%20in%20burns/posts.html)
http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html/968935417/StoryAd/OREGONLIVE/default/empty.gif/53414c336631614a664c7741424b4433?bt=1099&bt=c0131&bt=6047&bt=c0104&bt=6112&bt=6309&bt=2084&bt=3055&bt=7052&bt=2096&bt=6329&bt=male&bt=7062&bt=8222&bt=c0249&bt=6317&bt=c0213&bt=9002&bt=6332&bt=6162&bt=6376&bt=7051&bt=6158&bt=0019&bt=6168&bt=6230&bt=c0460&bt=c0541&bt=6152&bt=all&bt=c0333&bt=c0841&bt=8099&bt=2055&bt=c0505&bt=4043&bt=2027&bt=2070&bt=2041&bt=6164&bt=6119&bt=6156&bt=7049&bt=7050&bt=6057&bt=4044&bt=6375&bt=2013&lid=5f99c6dbfa30a28329f5062412b1ff3d&gal=19482576&tag=ammon%20bundy&tag=cliven%20bundy&tag=dwight%20hammond&tag=harney%20county&tag=showdown%20in%20burns&tag=steven%20hammond (http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html/968935417/StoryAd/OREGONLIVE/default/empty.gif/53414c336631614a664c7741424b4433)

[Horn]

Hopefully they will peaceably take over the wildlife refuge, but refuse peace on the ranch.

I have a feeling from what I'm reading they mean force business on both places.

[Jewboo]

White gun owners are going to be forced to turn in their guns, or turn into White Nationalist outlaws, and join in on the rebellion we are forming now.



http://i.imgur.com/ciuAzBF.png http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/b/bf/HomertheVigilante.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20061006102247


There is no "we". "We" ain't gonna drive to Oregon with our guns to join those so-called White Nationalist outlaws.

Get real.


:rolleyes:

[mick silver]

and join in on the rebellion we are forming now.
were this happen at shami ?

[mick silver]

http://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/midnightride.jpg

[monty]

I just watched Pete Santilli and the local tv guys interview Ammon Bundy at the wildlife refuge. So far all is peacefull. Santilly ripped the tv reporter for repeatinmthe posts twiiter that they are domestic terrorists. He told the stick with the facts and leave the hearsay alone. I think it will be on jewtube soon.

[mick silver]

What would Putin do?

[mick silver]

some good comments ... http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_continue_occupation_of.html#incart_most-commented_pacific-northwest-news_article

[monty]

https://livestream.com/accounts/13464984/events/4610169

[mick silver]

I have to join ... not ...
https://livestream.com/accounts/13464984/events/4610169

[madfranks]

Strong willed white Christian men are a dying breed. Give it another generation or two, and we're toast.

[Shami-Amourae]

Strong willed white Christian men are a dying breed. Give it another generation or two, and we're toast.


Christianity yes, but White people no.

Especially once designer babies come to pass and transhumanism.

I'm not worried as much as I used to be.

Christians should be worried since their religion will go extinct in the next 100 years. When you have a religion where people think their savior is about to come any day or so for thousands of years, and shit gets worse and worse for them, their religion cannot survive.

[gunDriller]

What would Putin do?

Something logical - like note that the ranchers have equal weight with, or are a form of, wildlife, and are therefore protected.

[Bigjon]

Facts & Event - Hammond Family (http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html)
Facts & Events


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.


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.


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.


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.


During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”. 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.


By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and now the once thriving privately owned Silvies pains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.


By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.


In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*


In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.


The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.


Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.


The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9WOe5UHSL8/Vn_lvg3IoUI/AAAAAAAABXk/DGqdMxQEqSw/s320/Hammond%2BRanch%2BDwight.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F9WOe5UHSL8/Vn_lvg3IoUI/AAAAAAAABXk/DGqdMxQEqSw/s1600/Hammond%2BRanch%2BDwight.png)
Dwight Hammond (Father)


The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sale their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.


The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.


In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.


In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.


The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff's office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wl4utfSLgYI/Vn_k-fEqfOI/AAAAAAAABXY/o-2W4KocJZQ/s320/Steve-Hammond.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wl4utfSLgYI/Vn_k-fEqfOI/AAAAAAAABXY/o-2W4KocJZQ/s1600/Steve-Hammond.jpg)
Steven Hammond (Son)


In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different 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. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.


Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.


In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; " I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.


During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail that would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.


Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.


Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.


June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as "Terrorist" under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.


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.


Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FMBnaD8W_IM/Vn_m038EycI/AAAAAAAABXo/EOmyKq5fhEk/s320/Hammond%2BFamily.jpeg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FMBnaD8W_IM/Vn_m038EycI/AAAAAAAABXo/EOmyKq5fhEk/s1600/Hammond%2BFamily.jpeg)
Hammond Family


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.


Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their resentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution.
Notes:


Rhonda Karges – Resource Field Manager for the BLM is the wife of Chad Karges Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife refuge.
Rhonda specifically deals with all the BLM issues relating to the area in and around Hammonds property including “grazing denial”. Her husband just happens to be the person in charge of all the issues surrounding the Hammonds ranch such as “water and access”.


Soon after the water rights dispute the federal government influenced the State of Oregon to change their water law in favor of federal agencies. Wildlife is now considered in the State of Oregon as an accepted beneficial use for government agencies only.


Being convicted as Terrorist made the Hammonds felons. They have been striped of their right to have guns. The Hammond live 53 miles from the closets town and have no practical way of defending themselves or their cattle. Several times they have watched baby calves be eaten by predators and could do nothing to prevent it.


Conclusion
The abuses and corruptions affecting people like the Hammonds are symptoms of a more encompassing problem. Government employees (fulltime & elected) have changed their culture from one of service to, and respect for the people, to the roll of being a masters. On the subject of the land, it is evident that government employees are no longer assisting the people in claiming, using and defending property. Instead, they have become the people’s competitor to the benefits of the land, and are willing to use force on those who they erroneously compete against.


The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.


The impact of the federal government controlling the land and resources inside the western states is hard to calculate. The negative impact on the people can be seen economically, politically, and socially. In order for any people to survive, let alone prosper, it takes the land and resources to do it. Everything we eat, the clothing we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, and so on, come from the earth. All physical comfort and prosperity originates from the earth. Individuals composing the federal government, understanding the origination of wealth, are reserving these resources for themselves and are willing to use force to retain them. The ramifications of their action are slowly forcing the people of the west into poverty.


Due to the fact that people cannot survive without land and resource, the federal government’s action in administering the lands for their own benefit will be the cause of public discontent and unrest until it is corrected.


The solution is very simple, the land and resources must be made available to its rightful owners, the people. This can be done peacefully if the states & counties would check and balance the federal government as designed. When this happens, the people will begin to prosper and much of the economical, political and social problem of the west will diminish. Prosperity, peace and tranquility will be the results.


Thank you,
Ammon Bundy
Bundy Family

Links

Letter to Harney County Sheriff - David Ward: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/letter-to-sheriff-ward-harney-county.html

Facts & Events : http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

Violations, Corruptions and Abuses: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/violations-corruptions-and-abuses-in.html


Conclusion: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/conclusion-in-hammonds-case.html


Letter to Government Official and Aware Citizens: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/hammond-family-declared-as-terrorist.html
Posted 1 week ago by Ammon Bundy (https://plus.google.com/106288401876871287931)

[Bigjon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHyZQrMZ7lA

BLM Destroying Ranches by Fire 002
Published on Dec 31, 2015
Days after the Hammonds were sentenced as "Arsenal Terrorists" the BLM started multiple fires that killed & injured cattle, burned homes and destroyed other property.

[7th trump]

So you have your private cattle on public land and they want you to stop grazing your private cattle on this public land.
You resist and they retaliate then you cry about it?

I wonder if the Hammonds gave a percentage of the profits to BLM for grazing on the land if this wouldnt have happened.
Seems to me the Hammonds want their cake and to eat it too!

Theres more to this story thats not being told.
What the heck did the Hammonds do to piss someone off at the BLM?
Sounds too fishy to me!
They bought other land with grazing rights and these rights are pulled as soon as the Hammonds set up shop there.
The Hammonds did or did not do something they were told to do or agreed too.

Its a shit hole desert...who gives a rats ass. I wouldnt graze any grass eater in the desert.
Mr. Hammond isnt a very smart rancher if you ask me.
Hes a cheap ass for sure.
Bet the meat tastes terrible beings its less than par of grazing quality grass.

[Bigjon]

I did not entice or encourage Ammon Bundy and his compañeros to take over a federal building. That was a huge mistake on his part part. Reading his Redress for Grievances I believe he knows and understands the federal district courts are legislative territorial courts operating on admiralty law. He should know by comandeering a federal building he is now in federal juridiction and has committed a federal crime.

Any one who falls into their US Citizen trap and does not excert his rights has no rights. A subject has no rights.

Is there any evidence that the Federal government got approval from the legislature of Oregon State and actually paid money for the property?

I doubt it.

[Bigjon]

So you have your private cattle on public land and they want you to stop grazing your private cattle on this public land.
You resist and they retaliate then you cry about it?

I wonder if the Hammonds gave a percentage of the profits to BLM for grazing on the land if this wouldnt have happened.
Seems to me the Hammonds want their cake and to eat it too!

Theres more to this story thats not being told.
What the heck did the Hammonds do to piss someone off at the BLM?
Sounds too fishy to me!
They bought other land with grazing rights and these rights are pulled as soon as the Hammonds set up shop there.
The Hammonds did or did not do something they were told to do or agreed too.

Its a shit hole desert...who gives a rats ass. I wouldnt graze any grass eater in the desert.
Mr. Hammond isnt a very smart rancher if you ask me.
Hes a cheap ass for sure.
Bet the meat tastes terrible beings its less than par of grazing quality grass.

Numbers is it really you!!
You shoot off your big mouth more than anyone I know, without making any sense.
Read here:http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?86967-150-Militia-Take-Over-Makhuer-National-Wildlife-Preserve-Headquarters&p=809063&viewfull=1#post809063

[Ares]

Is there any evidence that the Federal government got approval from the legislature of Oregon State and actually paid money for the property?

I doubt it.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 stipulates that the Federal Government is only allowed to legislate and control land within the 10 mile square of The District of Columbia. Unless the land was sold to DC : "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;-" Like you said I highly doubt the Oregon legislature willingly sold off over half of the state to the Federal Government.

So under what authority or Jurisdiction does the Federal Government have? Imaginary jurisdiction if you ask me.

[monty]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 stipulates that the Federal Government is only allowed to legislate and control land within the 10 mile square of The District of Columbia. Unless the land was sold to DC : "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;-" Like you said I highly doubt the Oregon legislature willingly sold off over half of the state to the Federal Government.

So under what authority or Jurisdiction does the Federal Government have? Imaginary jurisdiction if you ask me.


And the Property clause The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.conservapedia.com/U.S._Constitution) states that "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 ...." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).
The Congress is to dispose of the public lands of the newly crated states, hence the Government Land Office that sold land and issued land patents signed by the president. The various homestead acts. Now the Government Land Office has been incorporated into the Bureau of Land Management and they suddenly decided thay own and can buy or steal more of the states land.

And Nevada was addmited to the Union with less than the required 60,000 people so the money grubbing Eastern bankers wanting control of our natural resourses romanced the politicians of the day into letting Nevada join the Union with less than 60,000 people if they would cede all the public land to the US. This was done before statehood without the consent of the state legislature and without purchasing it. I belive the 9th circuit court briefly addressed this in Gardner vs Nevada and agreed it was wrong, but since it was not in Gardener's original defence and was brought up on appeal the court couldn't consider it in the appeal case.

consequently the feds claim they own 87% of Nevada.

[midnight rambler]

What would Putin do?

The real question is: What's The Donald going to have to say about this when asked? You KNOW that's coming...the NYC central media control room operators are NOT going to pass up that opportunity.

[Ares]

Oregon Standoff: A Terrible Plan That We Might Be Stuck With

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.

I have watched extensive video from the event in Oregon and am privy to accounts from participants. From the information at my disposal, it would appear that Ammon and team did NOT make clear their intentions to occupy the federal wildlife refuge building except to a select few, inviting protesters to "take a hard stand" without revealing what this would entail until they were already in the middle of it all. OPSEC? No, I think not. Obviously the goal was to lure as many protesters to Oregon as possible to the event in the hopes that they would jump on board with the stand-off plan once they were more personally involved. Numerous protesters were rightly enraged once they discovered the ultimate motives behind the event.

The plan is basically this - use the Hammond family as a vehicle (yes, this is what is being done) even though they did not want any kind of standoff to result and specifically refused aid. Occupy federally owned buildings which have little to do with anything of importance and have no symbolic power as did Bundy Ranch. Elicit federal response. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Bundy Ranch had many positive elements going for it, which is why it ended the way it did. This standoff has none of the same elements. I suppose one could ask, though, why do I care?

It's true, these people have every right to make positively naive strategic errors and I don't have to participate directly if I don't like it. The problem, however, is that Ammon and friends have decided they want to be the "tip of the spear" (his words, not mine). I do not think they understand what this means, or they don't care. What it means is, even though I think the entire Oregon plan is ill conceived; literally the WORST possible way to launch a fight against federal corruption, if the federal government moves in a heavy handed manner to kill these people, I and many others will have to fight as well by default when a FAR better tactical and social position could have been achieved. My conscience simply will not allow the rationalization of the deaths of liberty minded people even if their stupidity brought about the circumstances. And frankly, that pisses me off.

As a student of asymmetrics, I understand that choosing the time, place and circumstances is 95% of the battle ahead against an advanced opponent. More organization is needed. More preparedness. More training. More public awareness. The Oregon standoff could steal away what little time we had left.

The Oregon standoff potentially forces the hand of the Liberty Movement, not the hand of corrupt government - the exact reverse of what should be happening.

Mike Vanderboegh has outlined similar thoughts expertly in this article (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/perfect-timing-for-regime-federal.html). Everything he has written is exactly what was going through my own mind when I heard of the happenings in Oregon. Ammon Bundy and companions are not the tip of the spear. Not even close. What I do fear is that they are cannon fodder beckoning a nationwide government crackdown to which I and others will then be forced to personally respond to with equal f*cking measure. And all of this on the worst possible terms and at a very inconvenient time (executive actions on gun control mere weeks from now).

And here's the best part; those of us who remain critical of the clinically retarded maneuver being executed here are going to be called cowards and "keyboard warriors"; it's a given. We are all ready to fight for the future of this country, we have been training diligently for it and helping many others along the way. But, because we do not support two dimensional planning there are those that will say - "Now we find out who the real patriots are!"

Against stupid plan = coward against freedom and action. Just watch.

If the Feds use brutality to handle the Oregon conflict, it will indeed "kick-off". There wont be any way to stop it. Just don't get too excited, folks. This is no Lexington or Concord. I really don't know what to call it...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-03/oregon-standoff-terrible-plan-we-might-be-stuck

[midnight rambler]

I really don't know what to call it...

For starters, how about stupid, moronic, and asinine*?

This is great news for the Southern Poverty Law Center, I'm quite sure they're elated with this development.

*asinine - marked by an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment

[Ares]

For starters, how about stupid, moronic, and asinine*?

This is great news for the Southern Poverty Law Center, I'm quite sure they're elated with this development.

*asinine - marked by an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment

It also strikes me as asinine. The Hammonds did not want this (not sure why since they have been totally and wholly screwed by the Federal Government.), and even told the Oath Keepers that they did not want any assistance with making a stand. The Oath Keepers are honoring that request. Bundy seems to be wanting to kick off another Civil War / Revolution. But doesn't have the situation in his favor like this author was discussing.

If the Feds perform another Ruby Ridge / Waco it could kick it off. Maybe that's what Bundy is wanting? To be martyred and remembered for starting it? I honestly don't know. It just strikes me as being poorly planned, and poorly executed.

[midnight rambler]

I think the author of that article hit the nail on the head, Bundy is trying to re-create his one-off success. However it looks like he's offering himself and others as cannon fodder for nothing. He will likely be remembered as 'that numbskull who caused us all a buncha undeserved grief'. I can safely and confidently predict it will not end well.

[Shami-Amourae]

Breaks down what's going on from more of a neutral perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jr9NWBrWnw

[JohnQPublic]

Aha.. It turns Out That The Hammond Ranch Is Sitting On Natural Gas And Uranium that China Wants..Like The Bundys Ranch Was.....


(http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=36534)Breaking News: Obama Orders Hammond Ranch Destroyed! (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/01/breaking-news-obama-orders-hammond-ranch-destroyed-2767990.html) (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=36534)

[JohnQPublic]

https://youtu.be/jBBJe7FmRXI

[Neuro]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 stipulates that the Federal Government is only allowed to legislate and control land within the 10 mile square of The District of Columbia. Unless the land was sold to DC : "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;-" Like you said I highly doubt the Oregon legislature willingly sold off over half of the state to the Federal Government.

So under what authority or Jurisdiction does the Federal Government have? Imaginary jurisdiction if you ask me.
Could it have something to do with Oregon being a federal territory before becoming a state...

[mick silver]

hey 7th we the fvcking people own that dirt not the ass holes from the government . soorer then later 7th you will have to stand up and be a man

[7th trump]

hey 7th we the fvcking people own that dirt not the ass holes from the government . soorer then later 7th you will have to stand up and be a man

So they are going to prison for starting a fire to cover up poaching?

You Mick arent "We the People"...you are a subject "US citizen" pal!
How do I know.....because you haven't made one comment or effort about the difference between the two.....just another GSUS masquerading to be fully awake.



I've made a stand bud....and I won my stand with the IRS, my employer and the SSA.
Heres an idea Mick....stop acting like you're awake and just go back to sleep!

[mick silver]

thanks 7th for letting me know how you stop the NWO

[monty]

Could it have something to do with Oregon being a federal territory before becoming a state...
No. The federal government only has jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory and in the insular possessions. When Oregon was admitted to the Union the jurisdiction over persons and property transfered to Oregon. Pollard's Lessee vs Hagan US Supreme Court (1845) among several others.

[Ares]

So they are going to prison for starting a fire to cover up poaching?

You Mick arent "We the People"...you are a subject "US citizen" pal!
How do I know.....because you haven't made one comment or effort about the difference between the two.....just another GSUS masquerading to be fully awake.



I've made a stand bud....and I won my stand with the IRS, my employer and the SSA.
Heres an idea Mick....stop acting like you're awake and just go back to sleep!

The government charged them for "Deer Poaching" (Which neither of them were convicted of mind you, they were convicted of arson) the Deer do not belong to the government and neither does the land. It's a bullshit charge and if you even bothered to read into the case you'll see the Hammonds have gotten the shit end of the stick for over 20 years.

[monty]

The government charged them for "Deer Poaching" (Which neither of them were convicted of mind you, they were convicted of arson) the Deer do not belong to the government and neither does the land. It's a bullshit charge and if you even bothered to read into the case you'll see the Hammonds have gotten the shit end of the stick for over 20 years.

Constitution lawyer, Larry Becraft wrote an article in News with Views about federal jurisdiction. He uses the Fish and Wildlife Service as an example.

Ammon Bundy has taken over the Fish and Wildlife reserve in the name of the people of Oregon. Asinine as MR posted, yes. The FBI is enroute and will be on th scene if not already there. Clearly they do not have jurisdiction. This property is not a territory nor is it an insular posssession. The fish and the wildlife belong to Oregon.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED
PART 1



By Attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Jr.
June 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
We suffer a plague of the acronymic alphabet agencies: DEA, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, FBI, TVA, IRS, BATF, ad nauseam. One may study the U.S. Constitution searching for the specific provision granting Congress authority over airplanes, telecommunications, securities as well as a wide variety of other matters and learn that Congress has apparently been denied authority over these subject matters.


This raises an extremely interesting question: where do we find the Constitutional authority for such agencies and the laws they administer?
By statute, all federal agencies must confine their activities to the jurisdiction delegated to them: see 5. U.S.C. §588. While this is a simply statutory command, there is an evident problem in that most federal agencies fail to publish any statements, either in the C.F.R. or some other source, which define their jurisdiction in clear and express terms.


The C.I.A. is one agency where it is easy to determine its jurisdiction because a statute has deprived it of any domestic jurisdiction; see Weissman v. C.I.A., 565 F.2d 692, 696 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, to determine the jurisdiction of other agencies requires some study.
Perhaps the best way to determine the jurisdiction of any given federal agency is to examine various cases regarding the subject matter of that agency. For example, the United States Constitution does not provide that Congress has any authority concerning the fish and wildlife within this country and this has been previously litigated with obvious results. In McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 394- 95 (1877), the Supreme Court held regarding the fish within the oceans:


"[T]he States own the tidewaters themselves and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running." The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and interstate commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the state.....


http://www.newswithviews.com/images/Article-Support-NWV.gif (http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm)
Like fish, the Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife within the states of this nation and this has been noted in several cases. A ready example of such a case is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March, 1913, could apply.


Through this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal officials started enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting migratory birds.


Shauver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the Tenth Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which hunting could be controlled. In so concluding, he held:


"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."


Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where another man arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:


"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game in this country resides in the states, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."
The above decisions have never been overruled and they stand today as valid authority for the proposition that Congress under the Constitution does not have any direct grant of power to regulate and control fish and wildlife within our country.
If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been created and currently operates?


Part II and III, coming soon.
© 2004 Lowell Becraft - All Rights Reserved

[Ares]

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!

[Ponce]

The FBI wants a "peaceful" solution......but have orders to destroy the ranch......well, maybe, just maybe........here we go.

V

[Ares]

The FBI wants a "peaceful" solution......but have orders to destroy the ranch......well, maybe, just maybe........here we go.

V

Ponce, how far away are you from this stand off?

[Ponce]

349.8 miles........


v

[Ares]

Definitely a bit of a drive then.. lol

[midnight rambler]

Perfect timing. How convenient this ill conceived plan is. Just plain stupid to challenge adrenaline charged testosterone cowboys who get a nut exercising their monopoly of force. As one cop friend advised me after Mt. Carmel, "They thumbed their nose at law enforcement and we just can't allow that."

http://www.infowars.com/oregon-stand-off-could-boost-obamas-gun-control-push/

[mick silver]

but midnight 7th help by stop paying his taxes , so he's no longer part of the NWO . once you step out of line you will be called anti-government are white terrorists' as the niggar burn down city . I didnt hear what they were called

[7th trump]

Constitution lawyer, Larry Becraft wrote an article in News with Views about federal jurisdiction. He uses the Fish and Wildlife Service as an example.

Ammon Bundy has taken over the Fish and Wildlife reserve in the name of the people of Oregon. Asinine as MR posted, yes. The FBI is enroute and will be on th scene if not already there. Clearly they do not have jurisdiction. This property is not a territory nor is it an insular posssession. The fish and the wildlife belong to Oregon.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED
PART 1



By Attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Jr.
June 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
We suffer a plague of the acronymic alphabet agencies: DEA, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, FBI, TVA, IRS, BATF, ad nauseam. One may study the U.S. Constitution searching for the specific provision granting Congress authority over airplanes, telecommunications, securities as well as a wide variety of other matters and learn that Congress has apparently been denied authority over these subject matters.


This raises an extremely interesting question: where do we find the Constitutional authority for such agencies and the laws they administer?
By statute, all federal agencies must confine their activities to the jurisdiction delegated to them: see 5. U.S.C. §588. While this is a simply statutory command, there is an evident problem in that most federal agencies fail to publish any statements, either in the C.F.R. or some other source, which define their jurisdiction in clear and express terms.


The C.I.A. is one agency where it is easy to determine its jurisdiction because a statute has deprived it of any domestic jurisdiction; see Weissman v. C.I.A., 565 F.2d 692, 696 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, to determine the jurisdiction of other agencies requires some study.
Perhaps the best way to determine the jurisdiction of any given federal agency is to examine various cases regarding the subject matter of that agency. For example, the United States Constitution does not provide that Congress has any authority concerning the fish and wildlife within this country and this has been previously litigated with obvious results. In McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 394- 95 (1877), the Supreme Court held regarding the fish within the oceans:


"[T]he States own the tidewaters themselves and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running." The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and interstate commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the state.....


http://www.newswithviews.com/images/Article-Support-NWV.gif (http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm)
Like fish, the Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife within the states of this nation and this has been noted in several cases. A ready example of such a case is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March, 1913, could apply.


Through this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal officials started enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting migratory birds.


Shauver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the Tenth Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which hunting could be controlled. In so concluding, he held:


"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."


Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where another man arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:


"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game in this country resides in the states, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."
The above decisions have never been overruled and they stand today as valid authority for the proposition that Congress under the Constitution does not have any direct grant of power to regulate and control fish and wildlife within our country.
If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been created and currently operates?


Part II and III, coming soon.
© 2004 Lowell Becraft - All Rights Reserved


Seriously Larry Becraft?
That guy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag....his track record in court proves this.
Hes another moron who drank the cool aid having a license as a lawyer....two strikes against him!

[monty]

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!


Perfect timing. How convenient this ill conceived plan is. Just plain stupid to challenge adrenaline charged testosterone cowboys who get a nut exercising their monopoly of force. As one cop friend advised me after Mt. Carmel, "They thumbed their nose at law enforcement and we just can't allow that."

http://www.infowars.com/oregon-stand-off-could-boost-obamas-gun-control-push/


Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.

[7th trump]

but midnight 7th help by stop paying his taxes , so he's no longer part of the NWO . once you step out of line you will be called anti-government are white terrorists' as the niggar burn down city . I didnt hear what they were called

You're only considered anti government when you step out of line being a complete moron.
I stepped out of paying taxes because I choose to no longer participate in Social Security and stood on my Constitutional Bill of Rights not to participate.
Its an individual decision that didn't bring attention to myself to the likes of these guys.
I did bring attention to myself before learning the truth about taxes, settled with the IRS after understanding its not the IRS (they are just a collection agency). The IRS just enforces the laws its has to abide by....and yes they give you plenty of time before they make a move.
Social Security is what makes you liable for income taxes....not the statutes in the IRC.

What these guys are doing is equivalent to owing a tax for taking or accepting a benefit and then not paying for it (a tax).....and that's where trouble begins.
You want to stop paying taxes?........then you don't tell the IRS to go to hell.....you find the root cause of being liable (Social Security). That's where you start and who you deal with...not the IRS. The IRS is the last agency that knows you are liable. Social Security Administration is the first to know and updates all IRS tax information to the IRS database.
You use your head and research the laws to gain knowledge.....not having a stand off over a subject you don't have a damn clue about like these guys.

Lets hope it ends well without a shoot out....but I'm not holding my breath. These guys are stupid trying to make a point using emotions to gain support rather than intelligence.

[Ares]

Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.

It kind of does if they believe themselves to be "U.S. citizens". They are declaring that they are a citizen of the District of Columbia.

[Ares]

You're only considered anti government when you step out of line being a complete moron.
I stepped out of paying taxes because I choose to no longer participate in Social Security and stood on my Constitutional Bill of Rights not to participate.
Its an individual decision that didn't bring attention to myself to the likes of these guys.
I did bring attention to myself before learning the truth about taxes, settled with the IRS after understanding its not the IRS (they are just a collection agency). The IRS just enforces the laws its has to abide by....and yes they give you plenty of time before they make a move.
Social Security is what makes you liable for income taxes....not the statutes in the IRC.

What these guys are doing is equivalent to owing a tax for taking or accepting a benefit and then not paying for it (a tax).....and that's where trouble begins.
You want to stop paying taxes?........then you don't tell the IRS to go to hell.....you find the root cause of being liable (Social Security). That's where you start and who you deal with...not the IRS. The IRS is the last agency that knows you are liable. Social Security Administration is the first to know and updates all IRS tax information to the IRS database.
You use your head and research the laws to gain knowledge.....not having a stand off over a subject you don't have a damn clue about like these guys.

Lets hope it ends well without a shoot out....but I'm not holding my breath. These guys are stupid trying to make a point using emotions to gain support rather than intelligence.

It's not really the same as not paying a tax. They are contesting Federal Jurisdiction within a state. According to the Constitution the Federal Government has zero jurisdiction within a state unless the state with consent of it's legislature sold the land to the Federal Government. Reading through the history of Oregon and how Theodore Roosevelt just declared the land a nature reserve basically usurped jurisdiction within a state which is illegal and unconstitutional.

I see your point, and I agree they did this haphazardly.

[monty]

It kind of does if they believe themselves to be "U.S. citizens". They are declaring that they are a citizen of the District of Columbia.



Yes, it is important that you understand "who you are". That is what we learned in government classes in the 1950's.

[Ares]

Yes, it is important that you understand "who you are".

Agreed and makes sense if you think about it. Why wouldn't "federal law" apply to citizens of the District of Columbia while they travel the various states of the union?

[monty]

Agreed and makes sense if you think about it. Why wouldn't "federal law" apply to citizens of the District of Columbia while they travel the various states of the union?

The same reason your home state law wouldn't apply if you were visiting Horn in Costa Rica.

[7th trump]

Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.

Stop drinking the cool aid!!!
Federal law and all acts of Congress (when applicable) apply to "US citizens".
That article you posted about a judge spilling the beans says international law applies to "US citizens"....every state has laws on their books specifically stating so.
Why because US citizens are subjects to Congress and Congress only has jurisdiction over what the Constitutions allows....international affairs and territories and such.
The "State of Iowa" is federal territory, the union state Iowa is not a territory....two different jurisdictions.
US citizens reside in "The State of Iowa" ...."We the People" inhabit the Union state of "Iowa".

Most GSUS'ers don't have a clue about this and believe they are awake when in fact they are sleeping just like the sheeple are.

[Ares]

The same reason your home state law wouldn't apply if you were visiting Horn in Costa Rica.

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

[7th trump]

It's not really the same as not paying a tax. They are contesting Federal Jurisdiction within a state. According to the Constitution the Federal Government has zero jurisdiction within a state unless the state with consent of it's legislature sold the land to the Federal Government. Reading through the history of Oregon and how Theodore Roosevelt just declared the land a nature reserve basically usurped jurisdiction within a state which is illegal and unconstitutional.

I see your point, and I agree they did this haphazardly.
I'll give you that Ares but lets be smart about this.....we don't know for sure Oregon didn't. I bet Oregon accepted some federal money, privilege, ect in return.
Legislatures were a hell of a lot more keen on government operation back then than they are today.
Civics class was taught back then.....not today with this government (federal government) class.

[7th trump]

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

Spot on Ares....spot on!

The definition to "United States" and "state" in the IRC proves this.
The word "includes" is an expanding term to include the territories and insulars...........DC and all the "State of XXXX" aren't mentioned because they are the main subject to "UNITED STATES" and don't need mentioned.
STATE is the same way.............state not only includes the federal "STATE of XXX" states but the territories as well.
When you start reading the IRC in that way everything comes into view....all the court cases begin to make sense.

[Ares]

I'll give you that Ares but lets be smart about this.....we don't know for sure Oregon didn't. I bet Oregon accepted some federal money, privilege, ect in return.
Legislatures were a hell of a lot more keen on government operation back then than they are today.
Civics class was taught back then.....not today with this government (federal government) class.

I don't doubt it, I just haven't been able to find it where the legislature of Oregon consented to it. It may not be online, and would require someone going to the Oregon legislature archives to look through the logs to see if its there or not.

[monty]

Stop drinking the cool aid!!!
Federal law and all acts of Congress (when applicable) apply to "US citizens".
That article you posted about a judge spilling the beans says international law applies to "US citizens"....every state has laws on their books specifically stating so.
Why because US citizens are subjects to Congress and Congress only has jurisdiction over what the Constitutions allows....international affairs and territories and such.
The "State of Iowa" is federal territory, the union state Iowa is not a territory....two different jurisdictions.
US citizens reside in "The State of Iowa" ...."We the People" inhabit the Union state of "Iowa".

Most GSUS'ers don't have a clue about this and believe they are awake when in fact they are sleeping just like the sheeple are.
http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/federal/frcrp/rule_54.htm
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 54(c)

"Act of Congress"
c) Application of Terms.
As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.


The State of Iowa is a body politic. It has no territory. Iowa State is geographical and does have territory.

Federal jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. You must have commited the crime in their geographical territory of The District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or an insular possession, not in their body politic "State of Oregon".
But you must also understand this by knowing who you are and where you are domiciled. Like Palani, in his watershed.

They have jurisdiction over you while you are in their federal courthouse which stands on federal land, but if you didn't commit the crime in their jurisdiction they don't have jurisdiction to try you for the crime. Jurisdiction is territorial.

What article about what judge spilling the beans? I don't recall posting that

[Shami-Amourae]

It's really scary how many people, err Leftist zombies are calling for the actual death of these protesters. I check my Facebook at there are those zombies. I don't even comment on Facebook, just observe the idiocy.

A lot are arguing about how great it is that White people did this since if brown people did it they would be called terrorist, but the media is somehow in defending these people since muh Michael Brown. They actually believe in their twisted minds they are rebels going against the establishment when their entire world view is shaped by the Establishment media, universities, and so on.

I hate White anti-Whites. They are the lowest scum in the world. They are the only people in the world I truly hate.

http://s10.postimg.org/b0bls6afd/1444076984114.jpg

[monty]

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

[Shami-Amourae]

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

I agree. I think the protesters are justified since the Hammonds were wronged by the Federal government, but the way they are going about it is probably not going to end well for the Hammonds or the patriot movement.

[Ares]

I saw that last night when I was watching Pete Santilli's livestream. You are correct refering to them as protesters. But there timing is completly totally wrong.

The zombies don't have a clue. Really sad.

If it was left to the people, we'd still be a British colony. Very few people actually fought during the American Revolution. Something on the order of 3% or less actually cared enough to fight. So take 97% of the population and cut it in half and you are left with one half loyal to the crown, the other half didn't care either way. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[monty]

Not exactly, we have compact laws in America. The states are considered a union with the District of Columbia being the federal seat. So it would make sense that if you declare yourself to be a citizen of the District of Columbia that the laws passed in the District of Columbia would apply to you in other states. Remember the Federal Government is the only entity allowed to cross state lines. Other states are not allowed nor have jurisdiction in other states. The Federal Government does, but with permission. It's citizens are subject to its laws and since the Feds have a presence in every state their citizens are subject to federal laws no matter where they go. State citizens are under no such obligation or oppression.

You are probably going to force me to read some more.

If you were in a D. C. resident in Ohio and you robbed the bank in Clevland you would be tired in the state court having jurisdiction in Cleveland. You are still subject to all the state laws of Ohio while you are visiting there. If you robbed the Post Office or the mail while visiting in Ohio you will be prosecuted by the feds. Or commited some crime that violated the interstate laws such as kidnapping and transporting across state lines.

I think it would be difficult for the District of Columbia to prosecute you for committing an act that would violate one of their laws while you are visiting in Ohio. Remember, jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. There is a lot of case law to support this.

You can be extradited from one state to another or to the District of Columbia if you flee to avoid prosecution.

Is it not fraud when the US deceives you into declaring under the penalty of perjury you are a citzen of the District of Columbia (U. S. Citizen) when in fact you are not?

Are fraudulent actions against you not null and void?

[Horn]

It's really scary how many people, err Leftist zombies are calling for the actual death of these protesters.

We need to quit referring to them as leftist liberals, when in all actuality they are death dealing communists, that's the difference between 60's and now. I am not surprised by their "nationalism".

[Shami-Amourae]

We need to quit referring to them as leftist liberals, when in all actuality they are death dealing communists, that's the difference between 60's and now. I am not surprised by their "nationalism".

http://s15.postimg.org/ki5nvfjsb/1451922915807.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

http://s15.postimg.org/yd3ydwe7f/1451926476547.png (http://postimage.org/)

[Bigjon]

The original contract that was ratified is the Constitution of 1787. Everything "our" Federal Govt did after 1862 is fraud, changing the meaning of words by legislative fiat is fraud, adopting amendments by legislative fiat is fraud.

The whole Federal govt has been and is a fraud since 1862.

[monty]

You can see a couple of video interviews here at the Malheur Reserve. You need to create an account, they only ask fo an email address and a name.

http://livestream.com/accounts/13464984/events/4610169/videos/107582691

http://livestream.com/accounts/13464984/events/4610169/archives

[Shami-Amourae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_3blaPsHds

[Horn]

In the Repugs camp, Cruz is the only to come out against it all others are "distant".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/04/cruz-calls-for-peaceful-end-to-oregon-standoff/

[Cebu_4_2]

Story is getting twisted out in MSM land...

WTF Is Happening in the Oregon Militia Standoff, Explained

Dozens of white, armed American militants have gathered in the state to take a stand against government "tyranny"


By Tim Dickinson (http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/tim-dickinson) January 3, 2016




http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2016/article/wtf-is-happening-in-the-oregon-militia-standoff-explained-20160103/222637/medium_rect/1451833383/720x405-GettyImages-484181309.jpg Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon — pictured here, in 2014 — appears to be leading the takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. George Frey/Getty On Saturday night, dozens of white, armed American militants stormed a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon seeking to take a "hard stand" against federal government "tyranny." It's a wild story. Here's what you need to know.
Sidebar

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2016/article/the-oath-keeper-who-wants-to-arm-black-lives-matter-20160103/222306/small_rect/1451396027/300x169-151116_guns_ferguson_17.jpg
The Oath Keeper Who Wants to Arm Black Lives Matter » (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-oath-keeper-who-wants-to-arm-black-lives-matter-20160103) Q: Where is this?

A: The building seized by the militants is at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/) — a remote, marshy oasis in Oregon's high desert famed for its spectacular migratory bird populations. The standoff is in the remote southeast of the state — far closer to the Nevada line (124 miles) and Boise, Idaho (217 miles), than to Portland (305 miles). The closest city is Burns, Oregon, population 2,800, 30 miles to the north.

Q: What sparked the militia takeover?
A: The answer here is complicated. In short, the militants are outraged about a mandatory minimum sentence received for arson by a local rancher and his son.

The ranchers, Dwight Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son Steve, 43, were convicted of federal arson charges, stemming from a pair or fires on federal land near their ranch. The first was reportedly set in 2001 to cover up their illegal poaching of a deer on government property. It burned 139 acres. The second was reportedly set in 2006 as a defensive measure, to protect the ranch from an approaching lightning-sparked wildfire. That arson reportedly endangered volunteer firefighters camped nearby. The government would seek $1 million in damages. (For a deep dive of the backstory read this piece in The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html#incart_story_p ackage).)

Q: So some Oregon ranchers got busted for arson. Where's the tyranny?

A: The ranchers' case became a cause celebre in the patriot/militia movement because the pair were sentenced for their arson crimes under a provision of a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/pdf/PLAW-104publ132.pdf). And they were oddly sentenced twice.

The federal law in question doesn't just deal with terrorism. It created a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for arson on federal land: "Whoever maliciously damages or destroys... by means of fire...any...real property...owned or possessed by...the United States...shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years…"

The first federal judge to handle the case concluded that the mandatory sentence was too stiff and gave the pair far lighter sentences, which they served. But the U.S. attorney in the case called foul; the federal government took the rare step of appealing the sentence. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit imposed the mandatory minimum, ruling that: "given the seriousness of arson (http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison), a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The ranchers are due back in federal prison Monday to serve out their five years each.

But this odd re-sentencing, under a statute that makes it sound like the cattlemen were being prosecuted for terrorism, inflamed the paranoid passions of the anti-government patriot and militia movements, and brought the militants to Burns for a rally on Saturday.

Q: The Bundys are involved in this, aren't they?

A: Yup. Tensions between Western ranchers and the federal government have been running at a fever pitch since an armed standoff between supporters of Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management. Recall that Bundy does not recognize the claim of the federal government to the land that his cattle roam in Nevada. He owes more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees and fines. The feds briefly seized his cattle back in 2014, leading to an armed standoff that the feds chose to de-escalate rather than risk provoking another deadly showdown like occurred at Waco or Ruby Ridge in the 1990s.

Q: So Cliven Bundy is in Oregon?

A: No, but at least two of his sons are. Ammon Bundy appears to be leading the takeover. In a video (https://www.facebook.com/sarah.d.sandell/videos/1112061878804653/) posted to Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sarah.d.sandell/videos/1112061878804653/), he declares: "We have basically taken over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. And this will become a base place for patriots from all over the country to come and be housed here and to live here. And we're planning on staying here for several years." Calling his group "the point of the spear," Ammon Bundy called on like-minded militants to "bring your arms."

Q: What do the militants want?

A: In a phone in interview with The Oregonian, another Bundy son, Ryan, laid out the militants' demands: that the Hammonds be released and that the surrounding federal lands be ceded to local control. "The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area... will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control," Ryan Bundy said. He added, "What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."


Q: Has the federal government reacted to this latest Bundy provocation?
A: Not yet.

[mick silver]

http://s15.postimg.org/yd3ydwe7f/1451926476547.png (http://postimage.org/)how you like your bacon cooked pig f head

[monty]

In the Repugs camp, Cruz is the only to come out against it all others are "distant".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/04/cruz-calls-for-peaceful-end-to-oregon-standoff/

Cruz
"Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters in an icy parking lot before a campaign stop at a Christian bookstore."

I haven't seen any use of force, heard any threats of violence on others, actually it is quite the opposite.

[Cebu_4_2]

I Studied Oregon’s Militia Movement. Here’s 5 Things You Need to Know

Spencer Sunshine (http://usuncut.com/author/spencer/) | January 3, 2016 ‘Patriot’ groups are a spinoff cult of white supremacists.
5800
SHARES
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fusuncut.com%2Fnews%2F5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-oregon-militia-takeover%2F)Twitter (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I%20Studied%20Oregon%E2%80%99s%20Militi a%20Movement.%20Here%E2%80%99s%205%20Things%20You% 20Need%20to%20Know&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusuncut.com%2Fnews%2F5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-oregon-militia-takeover%2F)


While the news of the Bundy gang forcefully taking over a federal building in Oregon may come as a surprise to some, the occupation is part of a larger pattern for those who have studied far-right political movements. Here are five points that provide a greater context for why this is happening, who the occupiers are, and who actually supports their radical viewpoints.
1. It’s actually a land grab — with guns

Despite the talk about supporting the Hammond family in Burns, Oregon, the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is actually part of a long-standing campaign by radical right-wingers to dismantle federal land ownership in the West (http://westernpriorities.org/2015/08/10/going-to-extremes/). Some elected officials are working through mainstream channels to get lands transferred to state (http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/endless-litigation/Content?oid=3100196) or county governments, or to allow them equal say over their use. But the Malheur takeover seems to be an attempt to spread a tactic of armed federal land takeovers. These armed groups are part of the “Patriot movement”—the successor to the 1990s militia movement—which has seen a rebirth since the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
2. The paramilitaries are powered by conspiracy theories

“Agenda 21” was denounced in at least one sign at the march in Burns that preceded the takeover. Agenda 21 (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability) is a non-binding UN resolution recommending sustainable ecological development. But it’s been turned into a conspiracy theory by the right, which sees a sinister global socialist agenda in things as small as building a local park (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d3802772-608a-11df-b185-001cc4c002e0.html). Patriot movement activists don’t see what’s happening to Dwight and Steven Hammond as an unusual-but-unfair legal case. Instead, they are portraying it as part of a socialist agenda to seize rural private land and drive predominantly white farmers into the cities. There, they believe the government will detain right-wing activists, seize privately held guns, turn the cities into concentration camps, and allow the UN (or China) to invade.
3. The ‘Patriot’ movement is a child of the White Power movement

Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1998/hate-group-expert-daniel-levitas-discusses-posse-comitatus-christian-identity-movement-and). This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.
Over the years, these ideas took on a life of their own, even though few of the activists using these ideas today are ideological white supremacists. For example, they still try to recruit county sheriffs; the sheriff in Harney County (where Burns is located) was asked to provide sanctuary for the Hammonds (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html) from the federal government. He refused.
Activists such as Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy (who is leading the Malheur occupation), claim that what is happening to the Hammonds is unconstitutional. This view of the Constitution is based on a position promoted by Posse Comitatus. They held that the Constitution could be interpreted by individual right-wing activists in a way that allowed them to have more jurisdiction than federal courts do. The Sovereign Citizens are the best-known movement that promotes these crank legal theories today. For example, Pete Santilli, who livestreamed the Burns march (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBJe7FmRXI) and went to the Malheur takeover (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPdxsOT9228&app=desktop), promotes these ideas.
4. Federal government policies have allowed this situation to happen

Although there is no written federal rule that is publicly known, those who study the radical right largely believe that the federal government has a policy not to directly confront armed right-wing groups. The disastrous handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges in the early 1990s apparently convinced the feds to take a softer approach. This seemed to have paid off when the Sovereign Citizens at the “Justus Township” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen) surrendered peacefully in 1996. But after 9/11, even as the feds have cracked down hard on all kinds of radical political activity (for example, many eco-saboteurs (http://www.greenisthenewred.com) who never killed or injured anyone were sentenced under terrorism laws), the radical right has received almost a complete pass.

The April 2014 standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch—when Patriot movement activists came to the aid of a radical right-wing rancher who refused to pay his fees for grazing on public land and trained rifles on federal agents—was taken as a green light for similar actions. The federal government has not prosecuted Cliven Bundy or his allies for anything that happened there. This has apparently convinced the Bundy family (three of whom (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-of-cliven-bundys-sons-militia-seize-federal-building/article/2579459) reportedly are at Malheur) that the feds will acquiesce to armed takeovers.
5. There is widespread opposition to the Malheur takeover

The takeover attempt is not popular with many in Oregon. When a convoy of Patriot movement activists heading to Burns left from Bend, Oregon on Saturday, they were met with counter-protesters from the community. In Burns, many in the town have objected to the presence of the “Bundy militia.” (https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/683419923620605952)
The Patriot movement groups are aware of this. A number of Patriot movement activists denounced any support (https://www.facebook.com/100009963136766/videos/203961939945909/) of the Hammonds beforehand. The Oath Keepers, a national group, refused to come to the march, saying the Hammonds had not asked for help. Furthermore, the group said that Oregon members who helped organize the protest would be reprimanded (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=774946265942875). And, although details are not known, it appears that the vast majority of activists who are taking over Malheur are largely out-of-staters from Nevada and Arizona. While they hope to rally widespread support, that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Spencer Sunshine is an Associate Fellow at Political Research Associates (http://www.politicalresearch.org) and studies far right political movements, especially in Oregon. Visit his website: SpencerSunshine.com (http://spencersunshine.com)

[Ares]

You are probably going to force me to read some more.

If you were in a D. C. resident in Ohio and you robbed the bank in Clevland you would be tired in the state court having jurisdiction in Cleveland. You are still subject to all the state laws of Ohio while you are visiting there. If you robbed the Post Office or the mail while visiting in Ohio you will be prosecuted by the feds. Or commited some crime that violated the interstate laws such as kidnapping and transporting across state lines.

I think it would be difficult for the District of Columbia to prosecute you for committing an act that would violate one of their laws while you are visiting in Ohio. Remember, jurisdiction is territorial as in geographical. There is a lot of case law to support this.

You can be extradited from one state to another or to the District of Columbia if you flee to avoid prosecution.

Is it not fraud when the US deceives you into declaring under the penalty of perjury you are a citzen of the District of Columbia (U. S. Citizen) when in fact you are not?

Are fraudulent actions against you not null and void?

It wouldn't be difficult at all. Take the mattress tag as an example from earlier. The Federal Government decreed that their citizens are prohibited by law from removing it. Now if they remove it in DC, or Ohio, doesn't make a difference. They removed it, they are a citizen of DC and are subject to that law. Whether Ohio has a statue, law, or code is of no importance to the individual who broke federal law because of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. If DC wanted too, they could have Mr. John Q. Taxslave arrested and extradited from whatever state he is visiting to DC to face a criminal complaint for removing the mattress tag.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is fraud, but most people 95%+ believe that the Federal Government rules the states, and not the other way around.

[Ares]

"Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters in an icy parking lot before a campaign stop at a Christian bookstore." - Ted Cruz


No that would be the Declaration of Independence. If you were an actual citizen of a state in this country you would know that dipshit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[midnight rambler]

Gov.org sanctioned protesters, few, if any, will do jail time for their 'protesting', gov.org policy is 'hands off' -

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/riots.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03118/ferguson-police-ca_3118278k.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150427233401-16-baltimore-clashes-0427-super-169.jpg

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/files/2015/04/BaltimoreRiot.jpg&w=1484

UNsanctioned protesters occupy empty building, hue and cry for their demise, either imprisonment or summary execution -

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/ooarebtinjlqehrrxqva.jpg

[Santa]

I Studied Oregon’s Militia Movement. Here’s 5 Things You Need to Know

Spencer Sunshine | January 3, 2016

Spencer Sunshine...sounds like a jew...looks like a jew...I'm surprised he's not a super hero on a Marvel TV show. :)

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/7GW1O9oQ_zpsrruphhmx.jpg (http://s915.photobucket.com/user/jackconrad/media/junk/7GW1O9oQ_zpsrruphhmx.jpg.html)

[palani]

Where these guys have it wrong ... you don't take over any federal property (or anybody elses property either).

Instead you find abandoned property (no name) and you prove your claim to it until a more worthy owner can be found.

You might do as one tribe of warriors from Alexanders' army remnant did. You find a villager to sell you a bushel basket of soil for, say, a hundred dollars. Then you distribute that load of dirt as far and as wide as you can and assert your claim to every place your dirt lands.

[madfranks]

we don’t have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," Cruz told reporters

This from the man who wants to be commander-in-chief, who will then threaten force and violence on others. What a turd.

[monty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qonm2-rKKFg

[mick silver]

http://cdnx.tribalfusion.com/media/4517606/adc_wfp_ghostflames_300x250.jpg

[Cebu_4_2]

http://cdnx.tribalfusion.com/media/4517606/adc_wfp_ghostflames_300x250.jpg

Shootin blanks again Mic?

[mick silver]

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/mz41DrIgszRg22ZWh6lTCg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/56c8ca0bde092e6ac400c41659d25439

[madfranks]

Christianity yes, but White people no.

Especially once designer babies come to pass and transhumanism.

I'm not worried as much as I used to be.

Christians should be worried since their religion will go extinct in the next 100 years. When you have a religion where people think their savior is about to come any day or so for thousands of years, and shit gets worse and worse for them, their religion cannot survive.

We disagree on this point. The Christian church has seen persecution magnitudes of order worse than what happens in modern America. In the past during periods of persecution, many would renounce the faith, others would compromise. The church would be "thinned out." Then, strengthened by resistance to persecution, the church would experience growth during periods of relative toleration. I believe the same will happen again.

[cheka.]

Spencer Sunshine...sounds like a jew...looks like a jew...I'm surprised he's not a super hero on a Marvel TV show. :)

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/7GW1O9oQ_zpsrruphhmx.jpg (http://s915.photobucket.com/user/jackconrad/media/junk/7GW1O9oQ_zpsrruphhmx.jpg.html)

http://www.politicalresearch.org/author/s-sunshine/

Spencer Sunshine, Ph.D. (associate fellow) is a researcher and activist. His research interests include U.S. white nationalism, post-war fascism (particularly Third Position and European New Right politics), left/right crossover movements, and left-wing antisemitism. As an activist he has worked on issues regarding anti-fascism, police misconduct, prisoner rights, global trade agreements, environmental issues, and bisexual and queer politics. Follow him on Twitter at @transform6789.

[monty]

FBI blocking independent media

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

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

[midnight rambler]

Sheriff Shithead holds a presser (starts at 22:00), check the comments, nothing at all like twitter -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUUD4g96s8

[Ares]

Sheriff Shithead holds a presser (starts at 22:00), check the comments, nothing at all like twitter -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUUD4g96s8

That's because twitter is populated by a bunch of fucking moronic millennials.

[midnight rambler]

That's because twitter is populated by a bunch of fucking moronic millennials.

I get the impression there may also be bots on twitter to drive perception.

[Ares]

I get the impression there may also be bots on twitter to drive perception.

Most likely belonging to Government IP addresses.

I do however like this comment from the video: :)

Balance is Key 3 hours ago
The People are desperate and tired of the criminal regime known by all as the US government, whom roam this earth in cause of imperialism, leaving death and destruction behind in its wake of insatiable the need for more, and still.
You have betrayed the people of the United States by allowing filthy zionist to infiltrate into its well.

[midnight rambler]

Most likely belonging to Government IP addresses.

Or partners Joogle, FB, yawhoo, etc....like there's a difference.

[Shami-Amourae]

This video raises a lot of good points. Like how some of these protesters are staying at local motels without any issue. This does seem like a government led psy-op.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STL0hciFJf0

[Shami-Amourae]

RamZPaul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_s1CJMRA3E

[JohnQPublic]

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.


https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

[Jewboo]

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.



I watched her rousing video about the Constitution. Is SHE gonna take HER gun to Oregon and start shooting Federal oppressors?

Reminds me of loudmouth Josie Outlaw (https://www.youtube.com/user/JosieTheOutlaw1/videos) who stopped posting her videos a year ago.

[Shami-Amourae]

Technology has neutered most of us so in truth we pretty much only care about ourselves and won't really risk standing for anything too serious.

The only time I see Americans (Whitey) doing anything is if food prices become 40%+ of the average income of Whitey. People won't leave their comfort zones unless they absolutely have no choice.

If the government tried to do a hardcore gun grab that would set something off, but it would only be a few radicals doing it while everyone shitposts on comment sections about how they support the revolution.

[madfranks]

The only time I see Americans (Whitey) doing anything is if food prices become 40%+ of the average income of Whitey. People won't leave their comfort zones unless they absolutely have no choice.

Funny, the declaration of independence says the same thing.



all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

[monty]

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.


https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

the reason I posted it in the gun control thread was her comment about no "pen big enough" inmreference to executive orders. I was going to post it here in this thread also, but my internet connection wasn't co-operating.

[Bigjon]

Here is an email from Kirk MacKenzie:

HAMMOND RANCH

JURISDICTION IS THE STORY!


Wrong Focus


Coverage of the Hammond Ranch situation is an example of why we don’t win. Nearly all coverage is focused on the wrong thing—the situation and its specific concerns, rather than the global issue! We can do better than People Magazine! Ammon and the others are there to bring focus on the issue, not on themselves. If we don’t do that, we all lose.


JURISDICTION is the story!


The Constitution created a government of limited scope. It was fenced in. The name of that fence is “Jurisdiction”. The federal government only has legislative, judicial, and executive powers within its Jurisdiction. The fight to limit federal overreach is synonymous with the fight over Jurisdiction. It is fruitless to fight the first without supporting the second.


The Opportunity


If there ever was one, this is the time—the opportunity—to unite the movement and fight federal overreach by shouting JURISDICTION from the “rooftops”—in every email, Facebook posting, Tweet, blog, and website. I encourage every one and every organization to do just that!


If you don’t understand Jurisdiction, study the DRA Jurisdiction page (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html) and my Jurisdiction white paper (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf), or any other source you choose.


If you do understand Jurisdiction, now is the time to educate everyone else.


Quick Facts


The only legislative authority or ownership the federal government has over land is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, repeated below.


“The Congress shall have power 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.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause 17


The federal government is only permitted to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority over Washington D.C. and lands acquired from the states(called federal enclaves), in accordance with stated procedure, and only for enumerated defense purposes.


That’s it!


No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal government right to own or legislate over any other land. Where there is no legislative authority, there is no jurisdiction. The Constitution has never been amended to expand that authority.


In what I consider to be a corrupt decision, the Supreme Court decided the federal government could acquire lands outside the Constitution. Corrupt or not, it is crucial to understand that in so doing, the Court declared that in this circumstance the federal government acted in the capacity as any other buyer. It did not acquire any legislative authority or jurisdiction over the lands thus purchased. It obtained only a “proprietorial interest", i.e., the interest of a proprietor, an owner, not the authority of a government.


3. Jurisdiction remains with the states! By not exercising this jurisdiction or stepping in in defense of their citizens, “our" state and local governments are selling us out.



Our Objectives


Train and unite every one and every organization on Jurisdiction.


Get that story out.


Take control of local and state governments. Focus the majority of political efforts on this objective, especially in Rural America where we have the best chance of making a difference. The federal government is beyond hope.

[Ares]

Yep Jurisdiction is key. But what the Hammonds did was give the Federal Government Jurisdiction by responding to the Criminal Complaint and creating a joinder hence they volunteered themselves into Federal Jurisdiction and are unfortunately now paying the price for it..

[monty]

Yep Jurisdiction is key. But what the Hammonds did was give the Federal Government Jurisdiction by responding to the Criminal Complaint and creating a joinder hence they volunteered themselves into Federal Jurisdiction and are unfortunately now paying the price for it..

They did,,unknowingly but I did a little search on Supreme Court rulings, jurisdiction can be challenged any time, even on appeal. And there is no statute of limitations. Its late, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will search for some cases and post them.

[cheka.]

remember, militia hype = okc...which begat crackdown on unfriends of nyc/dc

after they hype this for a while......do it again?

[Cebu_4_2]

Meanwhile our good friends in th unarmed cuntry of the UK spreads this...


Oregon Group's List of Demands Largely Indecipherable Due to Spelling
BURNS, OREGON - Efforts to resolve a standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon were stymied when the armed group occupying the refuge delivered a list of demands that was largely indecipherable due to spelling errors."Every now and then we came across a word in the list we could kind of piece together,” Harland Dorrinson, the official leading the crisis task force, said. “For example, we’re pretty sure that by ‘guvvinmin’ they mean government. But much of the list remains, at this point, gibberish.” As progress in deciphering the list slowed to a crawl, authorities called in a team of master code-breakers from the N.S.A. to provide assistance. "The N.S.A. people say that this spelling is more effective than any encryption software on the market," Dorrinson said.

[Cebu_4_2]

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men
BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report))—A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.


The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.


“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”


But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.


Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas.
While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

[Bigjon]

Here is real word from the Oregon standoff

This is the real deal, so I figured I'd post it in full, especially since it says exactly what I said - that this was all set up by the government and false truthers.

From Christian Yingling:

Ok ...Everybody... please gather around and listen to what I am about to say..Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not..I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I'm about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial "leader" of the militias present at the Bundy ranch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, none of the militias listened to him at all. The ONLY ones who listened to him were the Bundy's, Blaine Cooper, who Payne claimed was a "professional security consultant', who turned out to be nothing more than an ex con, and buddah bear (nice name) who he also claimed was a "professional security consultant", but was later discovered to be nothing more than a tattoo artist thug. The militias ignoring these three, is precisely why that situation didnt turn into a blood bath. (strangely enough all three are present at the refuge)

I and Scott Woods were asked on one occasion, by Payne to go and destroy BLM equipment in the middle of the night. We refused, stating that that's not why we were there. We were there solely to defend the family. That very same night he rushed off in a car with a loaded AR to START a violent altercation with LEOs who supposedly had pulled over members of the Armenian Militia off exit 10 near the ranch. This report was never vetted nor was it looked into before he rushed off. It is also well documented that Payne had tried to incite other militia members to start violent altercations with the authorities who were present there. all of which were refused by militia members..all for the same reason...we were NOT there to start a fight...but to DEFEND the family. When people refused, Payne, Cooper, and Buddah ostracized them and ran them off the ranch. This is why most militias left the ranch when they did. One other point worth mentioning was there were militia members present with long range 50 cal sniper rifles... but instead of positioning them on the hilltops surrounding the ranch, Payne had them stationed down in a valley where they were effectively useless...does that sound like the makings of a solid leader to you? And also Payne was always sure to make certain that there was ONE completely UNDEFENDED access point to the ranch.. I brought this up to him asking why he would leave our back door completely open and undefended... and he completely blew me off... What he was doing in fact, was leaving an access point open for authorities to bum rush the ranch if that's what they felt needed to be done. And I have the witnesses to prove it.

Now throughout the situation Payne made repeated threats to law enforcement on NATIONAL media. There's VIDEO of him doing this..its not hard to find. Yet oddly enough with all that evidence he was never charged with anything during or after the standoff. Does that seem ODD to anyone but me? (not if you're a paid provocateur) Now in this situation at the refuge, he has publicly stated to a reporter that he has snipers set up to kill any federal official who approaches the refuge. Yet still.. no charges are being filed against him. making threats like that, you'd think they'd swoop in and scoop him up... but noooo.. because they're giving patriots time to get there... Don't think for one second that with a couple of phone calls to the proper alphabet agencies, those shmucks wont be SORELY outnumbered. Tell you what... if you think LEO's don't take threats against them seriously... go find the nearest cop and walk up to him and tell him you plan to kill police officers and see what happens to you.. See how long it takes for you to end up in prison.. yet Payne roams free..as does Cooper. Better yet go ask Schuyler Barbeau what happens when you threaten a public official... oh wait...you can't... hes in prison... because of a facebook post. Funny how that works huh? Also... has anyone else noticed that until this situation popped up

Payne was damned near SILENT on social media? Wonder why that is... Hell, Most of you don't even know who he is... He also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records... they said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school... whoda thunk it?

Myself and Scott begged the Bundys, after we left (via phone) to stop listening to Payne..that he was a plant. But they refused to listen. Payne wouldn't let ANYONE talk to the Bundy's with out him being present..or close by. The Bundy's are good God fearing Christians but they are TERRIBLY naive. They truly believe Payne is one of the good guys. Which is why they are at the refuge now. Do you honestly think for one second it was AMMON's idea to take that building? If you do... you're a fool. They're not that type of people. Ammon has been suckered into this standoff by Payne and Cooper. He truly went up there with the intention of helping the Hammonds, and when they were refused,

The Bundy's were made to believe that taking a stand against the BLM was the answer.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now Cliven is on his way there.. and the govt is finally going to get their revenge on the Bundy's and in doing so gain the access they need to their land. All the major players in the operation of that Ranch will soon be together at the wildlife refuge... thats no coincidence. I assure you.

Payne, Cooper, Pete Santili... All well trained provocateurs who are doing everything in their power to lure patriots to the ranch.. Case in point...Santili just released a video try to say that the FBI was TRYING to shut him down.. Dont you think if that were the case...with ALL of the resources the FBI has, they would just go ahead and do it...do you really think this shmuck is smart enough to outsmart the ENTIRE FBI? Think about it...

Let us continue on.. why the wild life refuge? how in the blue hell did they even know it existed if this wasn't PRE-PLANNED? And why were their trailers staged up there THURSDAY night if this was all "unplanned"? And if they wanted support so bad...why not let the Oregon 3%ers and militia in on this? I'll tell you why.. because they would have had no part in it and vehemently refused if they had known.... as was demonstrated by their response once they found out. SO..that being said.. why pick a place so remote.. I'll tell you why.. the same reason the Bundy ranch was picked.. it's remote... no civilian casualties. And if everyone out there is killed there's no witnesses allowing the govt to write the narrative of what happened afterwards..You can bet any reporters out there will be silenced should they actually get close enough to catch anything worth documenting unless of course they're willing to report what they're told to... the reason it failed at the Bundy ranch was because the community got so involved... NOT the case at the refuge.

Next.. why has a detachment of Delta Force been deployed to the area? (does anyone remember that Delta was ALSO at WACO?) 19 sets of orders were cut for operators to be at waco. Why in the Blue hell would they send Delta to squash a bunch of unorganized mostly unarmed protesters? I'll tell you why.. one of the things Delta specializes in is hostage rescue.. I.E. blow open a door rush in and shoot the bad guys but save the good guys.. I.E. embedded reporters from the national media who can later report the protesters fired first.

This is happening EXACTLY the same way WACO did... you know who else claimed, "We won't fire first but if attacked we'll fire back.."? David Koresh. Again well documented fact. This situation is going to turn out the exact same way. If these guys don't stand down now, while the sheriff is giving them an opportunity to, I promise you.. its going to turn out the exact same way. I'll bet my life on it.

Now lets look at poor John Ritzheimer. This guy is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD. It is my belief that he is not in on this plan but like the Bundy's... has been suckered into believing what he is doing is right. This poor bastard is still fighting the war in his head and Assholes like Payne and Cooper are feeding into his delusions that dying for this cause is what he needs to do. They are taking advantage of his big heart and his undying love for the country he fought for and twisting him into a suicidal maniac. Im sorry if that stings.. but I assure you its the cold hard truth. How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to "change the govt"? How ignorant do you have to be to think that fighting and dying out there is going to somehow make the BLM fold up shop and stop what they are doing. Sorry kids... the ONLY people who can stop the BLM are in DC.. and I assure you, as long as People like Harry Reid and the like are around... the BLM is not going anywhere.. no matter how much we fight them and run them off. We ran them off at the Bundy ranch...and how much did that slow them down..? we ran them off at the sugar pine mine... how much did that slow them down...? What makes anyone think this will be any different? Mind boggling I tell you.

Now to those of you who are buying into this whole "this will galvanize the movement line of crap".. What this is REALLY going to do is crush the patriot movement. They are going to hit these people with such force with such blinding speed and a level of violence of action that most patriots are going to turn and look at their own children and go there's no way in HELL I want that to happen to MY family... thus the reason there are women and Children being taken to the refuge. The govt has already shown at WACO and Ruby Ridge just how willing they are to kill American Children. Don't think for a second they wont do it here as well.

All the classic signs of a psyop. They plan to frighten the people into not even daring to ever take a stand against them again.

So what then of the militias? We'll still be here but will be forced into hiding.. those who aren't will be scooped up and charged as Domestic Terrorists. Do you for even ONE second really believe that this happening at the same time as Obama prepares to announce a whole new slew of gun restrictions is really a coincidence? Its not.. Not at all. What this is going to be used for is an EXCUSE to show why we need to disarm the American people for their own safety.. or put into place such SEVERE restrictions on owning firearms that we will NEVER be able to properly defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt. Hitler did it... Stalin did it... Mao did it... now Obama's doing it. History is repeating itself in front of our own eyes and we're too blinded by raw emotion to recognize it.

If everyone picked up and left that refuge tomorrow, what do you think Payne and Cooper would do? They're so die hard...think they'd stay and fight? I mean that's what they're saying... they're not leaving right? Prepared to die for the cause....right?.... My ASS ! Nope... they'll slink back into the shadows and wait for the next opportunity to bamboozle good patriots into signing their own death warrants. And of course... once again.. neither will be charged with anything. And good peoples lives will be risked for nothing.

We're being goaded into a fight here people...you NEED to see that. And every ONE of you who is advocating for this...Know this... if these people die... it will be YOUR fault. Not mine, nor will it be the fault of ANYONE in ANY unit I command. I simply wont allow it. THIS is the reason my troops follow me.. because I take the time to think these things through...to look at them from ALL directions... not based on sheer emotion as so many of you are doing now.

It was stated, dare I say, TAUGHT to me today by a close friend who is an ex special forces operator, that wars are not won by people taking rash actions such as the ones that have been taken here. Wars are won with proper planning. That shit hit me like a brick.. And I Will NEVER forget those words as that is the smartest thing I have heard throughout this entire ordeal.

1. Plan
2. Equip
3. Rehearse
4. Execute

THAT'S how you win a battle. THAT'S how you minimize casualties.. THAT'S how you win a war. None of that was done here. Therefore, these guys are all as good as dead.. Why do you think the local sheriff there just said these guys need to leave WHILE THEY STILL CAN... Because he KNOWS whats going to happen to them! He's OFFERING them a way out and DAMNIT THEY NEED TO TAKE IT! The first thing I teach my guys is when they make unexpected contact with the enemy is, the proper response is to fall back, reset and take back the initiative.

That's what we need to do here. Will it look like a loss in the eyes of the people? Absolutely. But hey, you all had better get used to the fact that we are not going to win every battle.. BUT... in the eyes of those who put this whole bullshit plan together... this will be a CRUSHING defeat...Even though it will never be made public knowledge. We have let the enemy pick the time and place of our fight...and that is about to prove to be a fatal mistake. Mark my words..

But we can still snatch victory out of this whole screwed up mess...if ONLY you will listen to me. How do we win then? Well I'll tell you...

We get those people out of there!!!!! Anyone and everyone who has contact with the people there needs to PLEAD with them to get the hell out of there... Then, we regroup, and WE pick the time and place of our fight...not the enemy. WE make THEM react.. WE pick ground that is most sensible for a proper defense, not a building in the middle of a field that has absolutely NO defensible positions as in the case of the refuge. Then we properly equip, plan, rehearse, and execute. If you want to win a war...that's how you have to do it. Most importantly.. we expose frauds like Cooper and Payne for who they truly are. and drum them out of the movement before they really get someone killed.

So that my take on this mess... listen to me if you want, ignore me at your own peril... either way it is of no consequence to me. I will not debate this issue, and NO ONE will change my mind about this... I have done too much research into this situation to allow ANY armchair commando to dictate my actions for me. This is the war you all wanted so badly... now either lead follow or get the fuck out of the way. End of story. (please note this post has been edited to provide more factual evidence to include mention of Delta at Waco.)
http://82.221.129.208/ifyouareinamericayouprobablycantseethisi3.html

[goldleaf]

I would like to know if a National Heritage Area designation has ever been proposed for this area of Oregon.

[mick silver]

1. Plan
2. Equip
3. Rehearse
4. Execute

[monty]

They did,,unknowingly but I did a little search on Supreme Court rulings, jurisdiction can be challenged any time, even on appeal. And there is no statute of limitations. Its late, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will search for some cases and post them.

Challenge Jurisdiction
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.


"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.


A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).


"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).


"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.


"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.


"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).


"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.


"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)


"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.


"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.


"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.


"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.


"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.


"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.


"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.



"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.



"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.


"The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void.


Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/ USA 's cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

http://www.abodia.com/court/files/Challenge%20Jurisdiction.htm

[Bigjon]

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

[midnight rambler]

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

[Ares]

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here."

Apparently there is remedy for that as well by filing a claim against the judge in his or her personal capacity. But before getting that far you should be going after the prosecutor in his or her personal capacity (There is no such thing as public immunity in common law).

My brother had challenged jurisdiction (He was using Marc Stevens methods) and the judge ignored all documentation and found him guilty when he couldn't even find the paperwork. He said he didn't want to pursue it anymore (it had gone on for over 6 months by this point) so he just paid his fine.

I would of kept going and charged the judge for violating his oath of presuming innocents and rendering judgement without jurisdiction.

[palani]

I would of kept going
Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

[Ares]

Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

They did not disband common law courts. I wouldn't even bother trying to get an Article III court to hear the case for the exact same reasons you stated so why bother even pursuing that avenue? Filing a claim against "John Smith" (The judge in this case) puts him into a position of being a defendant and you aren't going after his office, but him personally. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this, you would then be in the position of plaintiff and they in the position of defendant. The Judge is then regulated to the status of a referee and the jury has final say (when demanding a court of record) which is not subject to an appeal. The court building is nothing more than Public property it is you who creates the court. Use your 7th Amendment right using the claims process, filing complaints gets you no where.

[7th trump]

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

Thanks for providing the fact you don't research and instead listen to conspiracy.

[monty]

Represetative Walden's speech in Congress last night

Hot air


http://www.c-span.org/video/?402734-3/representative-walden-armed-standoff-oregon

[JohnQPublic]

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men


BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report))—A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.


The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.


“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”


But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.


Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas.
While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

Well, then I propose Oregon build a direct train line from all inner cities (Detroit, LA, Miami, Chicago, etc.) to Oregon to displace all the "angry white men".

[mick silver]

Why Ammon Bundy’s Oregon standoff is doomed to fail


Andrew Romano (http://andrewromanoyahoo.tumblr.com/)

January 5, 2016






Reblog

Share

Tweet

Pin it

Send





https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7HeVHqc.kRlUIJLcRgptxA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/f489ab8a680d397e4726df5c97304a2158737c5e.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7HeVHqc.kRlUIJLcRgptxA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/f489ab8a680d397e4726df5c97304a2158737c5e.jpg"/>
Ammon Bundy addresses the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., on January 5, 2016. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

If you want to understand why the armed men who seized the empty headquarters of Oregon’s remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday are doomed to fail — despite vowing to hunker down for “as long as it takes (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/armed-group-vows-to-hold-federal-wildlife-office-in-oregon-for-years.html?ref=topics)” to defeat the “tyranny” of Washington, D.C., and threatening “to kill or be killed (https://twitter.com/IanKullgren/status/683524884484390912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)” if necessary — then you have to understand a few other things first. Things like grazing fees, desert tortoises and the property clause of the United States Constitution.
In short, you have to understand the larger war for control of the American West.
On one side of the Oregon flare-up is the federal government, which owns surprisingly vast swaths of the western half of the country, ranging from 29.9 percent of Montana to 84.5 percent of Nevada, and just over half, 53.1 percent, of Oregon.
On the other side are a bunch of antigovernment types who think that Uncle Sam shouldn’t own this much land, and who, for both economic and ideological reasons, would rather the more laissez-faire states owned it instead.
“Once [the people] can use these lands as free men, then we will have accomplished what we came to accomplish,” Bundy told reporters over the weekend.
SLIDESHOW – Armed militia standoff in Oregon >>> (http://news.yahoo.com/photos/armed-militia-standoff-in-oregon-1451915564-slideshow/)
The basic battle lines here aren’t new. Westerners have always seen themselves as rugged individualists, and the current clash has its roots in a law that Congress passed during Civil War.
But what has changed in recent years is that these Westerners are now willing to use confrontational, even violent, tactics to get their point across — a decision that is almost certain to undermine the larger cause to which they profess their allegiance.
Most of the blame belongs to a single family: the Bundys.
Ammon Bundy, 40, is the ringleader of the posse now occupying the Malheur refuge center; his brother Ryan and another Bundy brother are also reportedly among the occupiers. Last week, Ammon Bundy traveled 1,000 miles north from his home in Phoenix to attend a rally in Burns, Ore., ostensibly in support of Dwight Hammond Jr., 74, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, a pair of local ranchers who were convicted three years ago of burning federal lands in a dispute with the government over grazing rights for their cattle, then ordered in October to return to prison after a federal judge ruled that their original sentences were too short.
As soon as the rally ended, however, the Bundys and at least dozen like-minded outsiders they had summoned to Burns — including Jon Ritzheimer, a former Marine from Phoenix whose anti-Muslim rhetoric and activities triggered an FBI manhunt in November 2015 (http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/12/2/jon-ritzheimer-anti-islamic-muslim-fbi-manhunt.html), and other gun-toting vigilantes who travel around the country latching onto various local fights against the federal government — split off and took over a couple of unstaffed Malheur administrative buildings.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJffbRjO2jEHA52icj7LnA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/513ded95266a05eb3462dd82b2529f176a5d224b.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJffbRjO2jEHA52icj7LnA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/513ded95266a05eb3462dd82b2529f176a5d224b.jpg"/>
Protesters gather at the Bureau of Land Management’s base camp near Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville, Nev., ranch on April 12, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

Such is the Bundy way. In April 2014, Ammon’s father, Cliven, 68, led an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., that involved more than 100 antigovernment militiamen and came very close to erupting into the next Waco or Ruby Ridge. “If a car had backfired,” one militiaman told Harper’s (http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land-heist/?single=1), “the shooting would have started.”
Read More

[mick silver]

Cliven Bundy’s beef with the BLM was longstanding — and specific to his own circumstances. You can read the whole two-decade timeline here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/). The short version is that in 1993 the BLM modified Bundy’s grazing permit to reduce the overgrazing of Nevada’s Gold Butte, citing the damage his cows were causing to the habitat of the threatened desert tortoise. (The federal government has owned the land where Bundy’s cows graze since before Nevada became a state.)
In response (http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land-heist/?single=1), Bundy “refused the permit modification, quit paying his fees, and, in an act of pique, turned out more than 900 animals onto the allotment — almost nine times the number stipulated by his permit,” according to Harper’s. Several times the BLM ordered Bundy to remove his cows; several times Bundy refused; several times the courts ruled in the feds’ favor. Eventually, after the defiant Bundy had racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fines and fees, insisting all along that the land rightfully belonged to “the sovereign state of Nevada,” the BLM began to impound his herd. Hence the standoff — which only ended when the BLM backed down and agreed to return Bundy’s cows.
“I abide by all of Nevada state laws,” Bundy said at the time. “But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.”
Bundy’s issues with Washington, D.C., may have been personal. But they were also symptomatic of a larger Western war that has waxed and waned throughout the 20th century.
In the mid-to-late 1800s, Congress sought to spur settlement on the Western territories it had acquired over the previous half-century by passing various Homestead Acts; in general, these laws decreed that if a U.S. citizen were willing to settle on and farm a particular patch of land for at least five years, he could claim it as his own. To earn a profit, ranchers in some regions needed more room than the 160 acres typically allotted by Congress. They eventually began to pay grazing fees for the right to lease federal land — if they agreed to federal oversight.
The relationship between these ranchers and the federal government wasn’t always a smooth one. In 1905, Western stockmen revolted against the Forest Service for implementing grazing fees and a permit system; in the 1940s and ’50s, an increase in livestock fees sparked a similar backlash.
And yet much of this (largely inhospitable) public land still hadn’t been claimed. In 1932, Pres. Herbert Hoover proposed to deed the surface rights to the unappropriated lands to the states, but the states complained that the lands had been overgrazed and would burden their budgets, which had been squeezed by the Great Depression. The BLM was soon created to administer the public lands that no one else wanted.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/atmaH9JJ83mhmXL8EryxbQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ed65c12dc62555faf971846c24801caee5d68654.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/atmaH9JJ83mhmXL8EryxbQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ed65c12dc62555faf971846c24801caee5d68654.jpg"/>
Rancher Cliven Bundy talks to protesters in Bunkerville, Nev., on April 11, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

Such was the state of affairs until 1976. That was the year Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which formally ended the policy of turning over federally owned land to citizens who wanted to farm or ranch there — essentially locking in federal control.
Realizing that Washington could now enact whatever conservation measures it liked, some Westerners balked — and Western politicians began to listen. The result was what came to be known as the Sagebrush Rebellion. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, at least six Western states passed legislation aimed at nullifying federal ownership of land within their boundaries; Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed a bill that would allow states to apply for control over selected parcels; and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, then running for president, told supporters in Salt Lake City, “Count me in as a rebel.”
Even so, the rebellion sputtered after Reagan took office — just like the similar rebellions before it. The reasons were complex: opposition from conservationists, Reagan’s push for privatization (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/04/even-sagebrush-rebel-ronald-reagan-couldnt-change-federal-land-use-in-the-west/), the fact that federal grazing fees are actually a great deal for ranchers like Cliven Bundy (http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html) — not to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the authority to manage public lands however it wants (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/01/ben-carsons-claim-that-the-federal-government-should-return-public-land-to-states/).
In the Obama Era, however, Republican lawmakers — with the backing of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that drives conservative policy and whose members include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil — have begun to reintroduce land-transfer bills in statehouses across the West. Last year alone, conservatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming put forward legislation that laid the groundwork for transfers of public land to the states.
Their goal is simple: to channel the anti-Washington passions of the tea party into laws that will open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn’t afford to manage so much land (https://www.revealnews.org/article/the-problems-with-the-state-movement-to-take-federal-land/).)
The problem for conservative lawmakers is that such passions, once unleashed, are very difficult to control. When Cliven Bundy and his acolytes first aimed their rifles at the BLM, many Republican politicians, eager to appeal to voters angry with Washington, stood by him.
Ted Cruz, for instance, described the situation in Bunkerville (http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-bundy-standoff-culmination-of-obamas-jackboot-of-authoritarianism/) as “the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.” Rand Paul told Fox News (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/18/after-domestic-terrorist-remark-rand-paul-urges-harry-reid-to-calm-the-rhetoric-on-cliven-bundy/) that “there is a legitimate constitutional question here” and later reportedly met with Bundy for 45 minutes (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-cliven-bundy-meeting-119576) to discuss federal land management and states’ rights.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30mvCobg.LjT6uQVk5Aakw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/896ceab933ae10b8f0f4c50e4606b73aa566f4ee.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30mvCobg.LjT6uQVk5Aakw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/896ceab933ae10b8f0f4c50e4606b73aa566f4ee.jpg"/>
A bumper sticker on a private truck parked in front of a residential building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Since the standoff, however, Cliven Bundy has wondered aloud (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=0) whether “Negroes” were “better off as slaves, picking cotton” and aligned himself with the most paranoid of right-wing extremists (http://www.webcitation.org/6Pdo7zv5i). In June 2014, two of his self-professed followers went on a shooting spree in Las Vegas (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/las-vegas-shooting-cliven-bundy_n_5473662.html), murdering a pair of police officers before killing themselves.
So now, as another Bundy defies the feds in Oregon, Paul and Cruz seem to be singing a different tune. On Monday, Cruz called on Ammon Bundy and his gang to “stand down peacefully (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-sides-with-law-enforcement-over-armed-protestors-in-oregon/)”; Paul made a plea for political action instead.
“I’m sympathetic to the idea that the large collection of federal lands ought to be turned back to the states and the people, but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics,” Paul told the Washington Post in an intervie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/24/rand-paul-and-other-republican-leaders-back-away-from-bundy)w. “That’s why I entered the electoral arena. I don’t support any violence or suggestion of violence toward changing policy.”
And that’s why the Bundys’ ongoing crusade may ultimately prove to be counterproductive. The more militant this latest incarnation of the Sagebrush Rebellion starts to seem, the less inclined mainstream politicians — not to mention the people of the American West — will be to support it.



#the-issues (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/the-issues)
#rand-paul (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/rand-paul)
#ted-cruz (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/ted-cruz)
#cliven-bundy (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/cliven-bundy)
#ammon-bundy (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/ammon-bundy)
#oregon (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tagged/oregon)

[monty]

Here is an email from Kirk MacKenzie:

HAMMOND RANCH

JURISDICTION IS THE STORY!


Wrong Focus


Coverage of the Hammond Ranch situation is an example of why we don’t win. Nearly all coverage is focused on the wrong thing—the situation and its specific concerns, rather than the global issue! We can do better than People Magazine! Ammon and the others are there to bring focus on the issue, not on themselves. If we don’t do that, we all lose.


JURISDICTION is the story!


The Comstitutioncreated a government of limited scope. It was fenced in. The name of that fence is “Jurisdiction”. The federal government only has legislative, judicial, and executive powers within its Jurisdiction. The fight to limit federal overreach is synonymous with the fight over Jurisdiction. It is fruitless to fight the first without supporting the second.


The Opportunity


If there ever was one, this is the time—the opportunity—to unite the movement and fight federal overreach by shouting JURISDICTION from the “rooftops”—in every email, Facebook posting, Tweet, blog, and website. I encourage every one and every organization to do just that!


If you don’t understand Jurisdiction, study the DRA Jurisdiction page (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html) and my Jurisdiction white paper (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf), or any other source you choose.


If you do understand Jurisdiction, now is the time to educate everyone else.


Quick Facts


The only legislative authority or ownership the federal government has over land is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, repeated below.


“The Congress shall have power 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.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause 17


The federal government is only permitted to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority over Washington D.C. and lands acquired from the states(called federal enclaves), in accordance with stated procedure, and only for enumerated defense purposes.


That’s it!


No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal government right to own or legislate over any other land. Where there is no legislative authority, there is no jurisdiction. The Constitution has never been amended to expand that authority.


In what I consider to be a corrupt decision, the Supreme Court decided the federal government could acquire lands outside the Constitution. Corrupt or not, it is crucial to understand that in so doing, the Court declared that in this circumstance the federal government acted in the capacity as any other buyer. It did not acquire any legislative authority or jurisdiction over the lands thus purchased. It obtained only a “proprietorial interest", i.e., the interest of a proprietor, an owner, not the authority of a government.


3. Jurisdiction remains with the states! By not exercising this jurisdiction or stepping in in defense of their citizens, “our" state and local governments are selling us out.



Our Objectives


Train and unite every one and every organization on Jurisdiction.


Get that story out.


Take control of local and state governments. Focus the majority of political efforts on this objective, especially in Rural America where we have the best chance of making a difference. The federal government is beyond hope.



Here is where the waters get muddy. These shysters use treaties to extend their municipal jurisdiction. It is too long to post here.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html

TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER
Within the last decade, many people have been utterly astonished at the phenomenal growth and influence of the so-called environmental movement. From its "salad days" of the early seventies, this movement has blossomed so quickly that it now has the visible support of giant corporations and powerful political figures. But, there appears to be a hidden agenda behind the environmental movement with its promotion of an environmental treaty.


Quite obviously, environmental legislation is inherently the proper subject of legislation for the State, and many States currently have such acts in effect within their jurisdictions. At the federal level, the jurisdiction of the United States is constrained by the operation of Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, and the multitude of decided cases regarding this part of the Constitution declares that the United States has territorial jurisdiction solely within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves inside the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The possession of territorial jurisdiction is essential under this constitutional provision for federal municipal law such as environmental legislation to apply. Within the territories and possessions of the United States, the federal government possesses power similar to that of a State legislature; see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 31, 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 (1954); and Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=301&page=308) 301 U.S. 308, 317, 57 S.Ct. 764, 768 (1937). Therefore, municipal environmental legislation enacted by Congress could readily apply in these areas within the jurisdiction of the United States. Logically, a consideration of solely this part of the Constitution would dictate a conclusion that this type of federal municipal law could apply only within those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and not within the jurisdiction of the States.

See more:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.htm

This could not have happened if the unratifed seventeenth amendent was not in the Constitution.

[Tumbleweed]

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXDGm6NOBI

[Cebu_4_2]

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.


Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

[Horn]

Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?

Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?

[Cebu_4_2]

I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?

Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?


Somehow this stinks of infiltration. Been following it and it seems there are 3 angles and only one seemed legit in the beginning. Bad white people with guns seems to be the main street news.

[Tumbleweed]

Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

I don't know what their strategy is. I wouldn't have taken control of that building. If they were to try to leave they'd probably end up in jail and if they stay they may get shot. The BLM and most of the people working for the government the Hammonds have dealt with have been corrupt, criminal and abusive in my opinion.

If they sit tight and aren't attacked by the Fed's they have time to educate people on how corrupt and abusive our government has become. If they do that they may win against the Fed's if enough people speak out against what the BLM and what their lackys have been up to.

If the Feds attack and kill them more people will probably wake up to how bad things have gotten in this country.

The Feds can kill them all and walk away and no one will go to jail for it.

This makes me think of the stories of the crazy dog indian warriors that would stake themselves out with a stake and thong then fight to the death all comers.

Looks to me like they've staked themselves out and sung their death song.

[cheka.]

those white tea party gun-loving terrists are about to do something that makes nyc/dc xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx to stem the threat

signed,

nyc blood thirsty money junkies

we MUST keep the printing press in our control......imagine if we had to pay those idiots in gold. it would cut the head off of our snake

end the fed

[midnight rambler]

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXDGm6NOBI



Will be interesting to see if the three instigators get busted.

[mick silver]

Oregon tribe: Armed group 'desecrating' their land



https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/jFJ4GVeXE6x5beCkkpRfbw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODQ7aD04NDtpbD1wbG FuZQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/04/21/image001-png_162613.png.cf.jpg (http://www.ap.org/)

TERRENCE PETTY and MANUEL VALDES

January 6, 2016




https://s1.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/M45j1sgbZzNm5RsLUi9dGw--/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9NjAwO2g9MzM4O3NtPTE7YXBwaW Q9eXRhY2h5b24-/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/video/video.associatedpressfree.com/46364d11a847b34e8a1d066da1977f58
Some Ranchers Worried About Federal Raid

Some of the armed ranchers occupying a federal facility in Oregon say they're concerned about a raid, and that they'll be arrested. Officials in the area say they're trying to resolve the situation peacefully. (Jan. 6)













BURNS, Ore. (AP) — The leader of an American Indian tribe that regards an Oregon nature preserve as sacred issued a rebuke Wednesday to the armed men who are occupying the property, saying they are not welcome at the snowy bird sanctuary and must leave.
The Burns Paiute tribe was the latest group to speak out against the men, who have taken several buildings at the preserve to protest policies governing the use of federal land in the West.
"The protesters have no right to this land. It belongs to the native people who live here," tribal leader Charlotte Rodrique said.
She spoke at a news conference at the tribe's cultural center, about a half-hour drive from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is being occupied by some 20 men led by Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven was at the center of a standoff in Nevada with federal officials in 2014 over use of public lands.
Ammon Bundy is demanding that the refuge be handed over to locals.
Rodrique said she "had to laugh" at the demand, because she knew Bundy was not talking about giving the land to the tribe.
The 13,700-acre Burns Paiute Reservation is north of the remote town of Burns in Oregon sagebrush country. The reservation is separate from the wildlife refuge, but tribal members consider it part of their ancestral land.
As with other tribes, the Burns Paiutes' link to the land is marked by a history of conflict with white settlers and the U.S. government. In the late 1800s, they were forced off a sprawling reservation created by an 1872 treaty that was never ratified. Some later returned and purchased property in the Burns area, where about 200 tribal members now live.
Bundy's group seized buildings Saturday at the nature preserve in eastern Oregon's high desert country. Authorities have made no attempt to remove them.
At a community meeting attended by hundreds of people in Burns on Wednesday evening, cheers erupted when Harney County Sheriff David Ward said it was time for the group at the refuge to "pick up and go home."
"We can work through it like adults, peacefully, with a united front," Ward said.
The standoff in rural Oregon is a continuation of a long-running dispute over federal policies covering the use of public lands, including grazing. The federal government controls about half of all land in the West. For example, it owns 53 percent of Oregon, 85 percent of Nevada and 66 percent of Utah, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The Bundy family is among many people in the West who contend local officials could do a better job of managing public lands than the federal government.
"It is our goal to get the logger back to logging, the rancher back to ranching," Ammon Bundy said Tuesday.
The argument is rejected by those who say the U.S. government is better equipped to manage public lands for all those who want to make use of them.
Among those groups are Native Americans.
The Burns Paiute tribe has guaranteed access to the refuge for activities that are important to their culture, including gathering a plant used for making traditional baskets and seeds that are used for making bread. The tribe also hunts and fishes there.
Rodrique said the armed occupiers are "desecrating one of our sacred sites" with their presence at refuge.
Jarvis Kennedy, a tribal council member, said: "We don't need these guys here. They need to go home and get out of here."
Randy Eardley, a Bureau of Land Management spokesman, said Bundy's call for control of the land to be transferred makes no sense.
"It is frustrating when I hear the demand that we return the land to the people, because it is in the people's hand — the people own it," Eardley said. "Everybody in the United States owns that land. ... We manage it the best we can for its owners, the people, and whether it's for recreating, for grazing, for energy and mineral development."
Bundy's group, calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, says it wants an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land after Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, reported back to prison Monday.
The Hammonds, who have distanced themselves from the group, were convicted of arson three years ago and served no more than a year. A judge later ruled that the terms fell short of minimum sentences requiring them to serve about four more years.

___
Petty reported from Portland, Oregon.

[mick silver]

­In Oregon, Myth Mixes With AngerBy NANCY LANGSTONJAN. 6, 2016
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1) Share This Page Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)


Share (javascript:;)
Tweet (javascript:;)
Email (javascript:;)
More (javascript:;)
Save (javascript:;)



Inside



494 Comments
Photo http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/06/opinion/06langston/06langston-master675.jpg

Credit Brian Stauffer Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)



Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1) Share This Page

Email (javascript:;)
Share (javascript:;)
Tweet (javascript:;)
Save (javascript:;)
more (javascript:;)

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)


TO outsiders, one of the puzzling aspects of the anti-government militia’s takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is its location. Twenty-five million birds a year visit the refuge in the high desert of southeastern Oregon, but few people have heard of it. Yet Malheur is a place of bitterly contested human histories that remain potent today.










Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-2) Related in Opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html)

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/06/opinion/06cashwellWeb/06cashwellWeb-thumbStandard.jpg

Op-Ed Contributor: Bird-Watching, Patriotism and the Oregon StandoffJAN. 6, 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/bird-watching-patriotism-and-the-oregon-standoff.html)


Years ago, when I first visited the refuge, I stumbled upon five dead coyotes tossed across a trail, their necks sliced open, blood clotted on their fur, paws hacked off, entrails draining into the river. Ranchers on the edge of failure feel threatened by predators snatching away their calves, and some lash out against that threat. But these five dead coyotes signaled more than just economic anxiety — they were emblematic of past hatreds that are still a powerful force in the Malheur basin. Anger at predators, environmentalists and federal managers who threaten the mythic past of cowboys on the range is as strong there as anywhere in the West.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s, many Western ranchers, miners and loggers felt increasingly threatened, partly by globalization, which created new competition, and partly by federal regulations that seemed to value wildlife more than people. What became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion gave locals a focus for their concern.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-3) Related Coverage

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/06/us/Oregon/Oregon-thumbStandard.jpg

Protesters in Oregon Seek to End Policy That Shaped WestJAN. 5, 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/us/protesters-seek-to-end-policy-that-shaped-west.html)


Environmentalists, they argued, were conspiring to destroy America, starting with rural communities. Many ranchers bitterly complained about the federal land management agencies. They felt powerless, hemmed in by policies they had little hand in shaping. They feared that economic gains were passing them by.
These complaints contain elements of truth: Rural communities in the West are poorer than urban communities, and environmental protections enacted since the 1980s have reduced grazing on federal lands. But locals told an interesting version of this history. Before the federal agencies came, they said, we lived in paradise. The grass was thick, the water was abundant and the towns were thriving. We were independent, working out our problems. When the feds came, they stole our resources, and our economies collapsed.
The implication was clear: If they got rid of the federal government, they’d have control over their land and lives again.
This version of history bears little resemblance to the actual past. Before the federal agencies came to eastern Oregon, large ranching operations from California had monopolized hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland. Irrigation developers controlled water, cattle barons controlled the grass, and settlers were essentially locked out. Tensions were high.
During the 1890s, a populist, anti-monopolist rhetoric emerged among settlers and news editors. The local newspaper deplored the fact that the great Western ranges were passing into “the hands of a few big cattle or sheep companies,” and predicted that soon “an aristocracy of range lords and cattle kings would rule our mountains and plains.” In 1897, Peter French, the cattle baron who controlled the largest ranching empire in America, along the Blitzen River, was murdered by an angry homesteader. Arson, violence and grinding poverty flourished.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-6)

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-6)

In the first decades of the 20th century, the conservationist William Finley paddled a little boat through the marshes of the basin and came upon a colony of egrets slaughtered by plume hunters, the young left to starve. Out of hundreds of thousands of egrets that had once nested in Malheur Lake, only 121 were left.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html?_r=0#story-continues-7) Recent Commentsbnc 8 hours ago Until I visited my cousin in Prineville in October last year, I was not aware that sections of Oregon like Prineville have one of the...
K. McCoy 8 hours ago Thank god for history professors. Yes kids, the humanities are important.
John Farrell 8 hours ago Pone of the best things about the area I live in - they are required to lock the asylum doors at all times.



See All Comments

Horrified, Mr. Finley did his best to publicize Malheur’s remaining bounty of waterfowl, shorebirds, egrets, herons, cranes and ibises. In 1908, he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to designate Malheur Lake a wildlife refuge. But Congress denied any funding for its management, water rights were not granted and, as droughts hit and lake levels dropped, settlers squatted on the lake bed. By the 1930s, after four decades of overgrazing, irrigation withdrawals, grain agriculture, dredging and channelization, followed by several years of drought, Malheur had become a dust bowl.
Ranches failed, livestock starved, homesteaders went bust and the primary occupation in the valley became suing one’s neighbor over water rights.
Continue reading the main story Write A Comment Conservationists won a major victory in 1934 when French’s former cattle empire was sold to the refuge, ensuring it had the water needed to flourish. John Scharff, the refuge manager from 1935 to 1971, worked closely with ranchers to establish grazing leases that funded the restoration of former wetlands and won public support for the effort. By 1968, cattle use was nearly as intense as during the days of the cattle barons. Ranchers still imagined themselves as the rugged individualists of their romantic past, though they had become heavily subsidized, grazing their herds on refuge meadows for fees that were often lower than those on private lands.
In the 1970s, government concern grew over the effects of grazing on waterfowl, trout and aquatic health. When Mr. Scharff retired, the new refuge manager had the difficult task of restoring wildlife habitat by reducing cattle numbers. By law, on federal wildlife refuges, the first priority is wildlife. Other uses are allowed when they enhance wildlife habitat, but not when they harm it. Nonetheless, when the new manager lowered the number of grazing permits, controversy erupted over cows versus birds — anger that continues to simmer in the basin.
When mythic histories supplant the complexities of the past, the results can be lethal. Equitable futures for Western public lands won’t be achieved when ideologues swagger in, brandishing guns and taking over federal buildings. Rather, they develop from the hard work of collaboration, like the 2013 effort that brought together the local community, tribes, conservation groups and the state and federal governments to develop a new management plan for Malheur. These are the efforts that best respect the region’s history while pointing the way to a sustainable future.

[mick silver]

Ammon Bundy Compares Oregon Standoff to Rosa Parks and Everyone Is Lividhttp://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Rj6tQch1dlzkAgAEZwVVyg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/https://media.zenfs.com/creatr-images/GLB/2015-11-03/ce2ef190-826c-11e5-aa20-11edc1bddb46_eaf30c75842567f61d25dd021e031144.png (http://mic.com/) By Liz Rowley 13 hours ago




 (https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fammo n-bundy-compares-oregon-standoff-141356540.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtu&caption=The%20situation%20in%20Oregon%20just%20got %20a%20lot%20uglier.&source=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2 F1.2%2FJDaPkyEYnenpz7BVYIrOIg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2Fd88f46b0b6e5982f033e1f6355 10b805.cf.png)
 (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=90376669494&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F_xhr%2F mediacontentsharebuttons%2Fpostshare%2F%3Fsrc%3Dfb&link=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fammon-bundy-compares-oregon-standoff-141356540.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dfb&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres% 2F1.2%2FJDaPkyEYnenpz7BVYIrOIg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2Fd88f46b0b6e5982f033e1f6355 10b805.cf.png&name=Ammon+Bundy+Compares+Oregon+Standoff+to+Rosa+ Parks+and+Everyone+Is+Livid&description=The+situation+in+Oregon+just+got+a+lot +uglier.&display=popup&show_error=yes)
 (https://twitter.com/share?text=Ammon+Bundy+Compares+Oregon+Standoff+to +Rosa+Parks+and+Everyone+Is+Livid&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fammon-bundy-compares-oregon-standoff-141356540.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtw&via=YahooNews)
 (http://news.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf_popup/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fammon-bundy-compares-oregon-standoff-141356540.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dma&site=news&region=US&lang=en-US&content_id=4e5fe28a-f79f-30a2-86a2-5b789ec2ef82&alias_id=story%3Dammon-bundy-compares-oregon-standoff-141356540)














Content preferences (https://settings.yahoo.com/interests)



Done



On Wednesday, Ammon Bundy (http://mic.com/articles/131655/ammon-bundy-armed-militiamen-seize-control-of-federal-wildlife-refuge-facility-in-oregon#.ZeVptDTqp), posted a tweet (https://twitter.com/Ammon_Bundy/status/684618461100818432) about the ongoing anti-government standoff led by a group of armed ranchers in Oregon, and Bundy's statement is drawing fire from all who read it.
"We are doing the same thing as Rosa Parks did," Bundy wrote. "We are standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom."

Read more:
°'No, White Militiamen, You're Not Treated Worse Than Black Lives Matter Activists (http://mic.com/articles/131836/no-white-militiamen-you-re-not-treated-worse-than-black-lives-matter-activists#.PUFkuGi85)'
°'Ammon Bundy, Armed Militiamen Seize Control of Federal Wildlife Refuge Facility in Oregon (http://mic.com/articles/131655/ammon-bundy-armed-militiamen-seize-control-of-federal-wildlife-refuge-facility-in-oregon#.PuRV57LZ3)'The group leader's name has swept through the news this week after being identified as a member of an anti-government group that, on Saturday (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/militia-takes-ore-fed-building-protest-article-1.2483723), stormed a federal building in Oregon. After hundreds marched through the city of Burns, Oregon, a number of supporters took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in an anti-government protest over land disputes. The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_big-photo) reported that up to 100 armed supporters were occupying the federal building, though its been contested (http://mic.com/articles/131655/ammon-bundy-armed-militiamen-seize-control-of-federal-wildlife-refuge-facility-in-oregon) that the real number of occupiers is closer to a dozen or less.

We are doing the same thing as Rosa Parks did. We are standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom.
Drawing a parallel between a civil rights crusader and the armed protest did not sit well with Twitter users.

@Ammon_Bundy you got it twisted you are nothing like Rosa Parks or MLK. Neither used guns or had racist companions! #burnsoregon

@Ammon_Bundy you terrorists are no Rosa Parks and it's an insult to her to compare yourselves to her.

@Ammon_Bundy What kind of gun did Rosa Parks use when she stood up by sitting down?

Nice try. Rosa Parks didn't hijack a bus with an assault rifle because she didn't want to pay the bus fare. @Ammon_Bundy

@Ammon_Bundy Never in my life have I meant this more: You. Have got. To be. SHITTING. Me.

@Ammon_Bundy Rosa Parks did not have a gun. Also, your white privilege is showing.

@Ammon_Bundy You are nothing more than an armed bully who's taking what he wants by force. Un-American. #burnsoregon #OregonUnderAttack

@Ammon_Bundy Rosa Parks was armed with courage. And when she was arrested, she complied with law enforcement. You sir, are NO Rosa Parks.

@Ammon_Bundy You do realize that Rosa Parks was arrested for not complying don't you? She surrendered peacefully.

@Ammon_Bundy Rosa Parks was fighting lynching, murder, segregation, racism, separate but unequal. You have nothing in common with us.
Yet for some Twitter users reacting to the statement, words simply weren't enough to express their outrage.

@Ammon_Bundy NO. pic.twitter.com/znFZEifvhW

@Ammon_Bundy pic.twitter.com/6UddIIzQiW
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYBC65HWMAAwWJx.jpg:large
@jjsnyder76 @StrangerOnFire @Ammon_Bundy pic.twitter.com/53BmHaH8rc

@Ammon_Bundy pic.twitter.com/0ucxw7c43s
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYBBDoZWYAA5YXt.jpg:large
@Ammon_Bundy did he say Rosa Parks? pic.twitter.com/ELr1379aWv
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYCNJBuWsAAhmkU.jpg:large
@Ammon_Bundy pic.twitter.com/FYtTlzKX9n

@Ammon_Bundy Bitch, please. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/E09S1GRUhO

@Ammon_Bundy pic.twitter.com/ogPryzTLWV
View gallery
.
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/xah3m3Rrdcw5nWEYieJRWQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/d88f46b0b6e5982f033e1f635510b805
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/)The dispute concerns ranchers' allegedly unlawful use of state land, including the supposed coverup of illegal deer hunting by setting fire to the pasture where the animals were hunted, in an attempt to conceal the remains.
The state has convicted two ranchers, a father and son named Dwight and Steven Hammond, of arson, according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/04/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/). The Hammonds say the fire was lit in an attempt to protect from wildfires on their property, and that the government is encroaching on their land rights. Yet according to CNN, Oregon U.S. attorney Billy J. Williams claims the poaching ruling was just.
"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Bundy said, according to the Oregonian. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
The fiasco comes at a time of heightened conversation about gun control in America. After a seemingly endless series of mass shootings and gun violence in the U.S. in recent months, President Barack Obama addressed the nation on Tuesday to announce landmark policy decisions about gun regulation (http://mic.com/articles/131809/a-tearful-obama-announces-new-executive-action-on-gun-control#.e38anSK6U) in America.
During his address, Obama evoked the Second Amendment more than once: He said (http://mic.com/articles/131839/obama-had-the-perfect-response-to-critics-who-say-he-doesn-t-understand-second-amendment#.M1D1f1WdF), "I believe in the second amendment, that guarantees a right to bear arms," and added, "I believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the second amendment."
Here's a series of photos of the ongoing conflict in Oregon:
View gallery
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/xnCt00wIr4auAkTE4sIWGQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/eb5d04c3af37ebf945bce1715da306cc
Source: Rebecca Boone/AP (http://ap.org/)View gallery
.
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/O7OCHzn7pxgc.FfHa6hK8g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/f336888f6e19024615b7c2d1d02a447f
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/)View gallery
.
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bu75IfFlUsJszFEq_lvbRw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/3b925beca112b588ba149bf2e828bea6
Source: Rick Bowmer/AP (http://ap.org/)View gallery
.
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DpUcIP1q4ayx_N2Z6ZKZMQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/e5dea49b0399aa4663faf89c9dfd7701
Source: Rick Bowmer/AP (http://ap.org/)View gallery
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ikntXUXH.EwHlDyylJBMdg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/264ed3ddba4cfee39b45fc3f2ae1c790
Source: Rick Bowmer/AP (http://ap.org/)View gallery
.
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ARjIn0ZD28Q8ebmtJRoNCw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/94abb833b9fc7803d86567b42f6977a3
Source: Rick Bowmer/AP (http://ap.org/)View gallery
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/_WGcf11QUQlfMiWxFYXNng--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/12610eb69b6b24eb7596378cc6d99c5d
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/)

[mick silver]

One Map Shows Who Really Deserves to Be Angry in Oregonhttp://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Rj6tQch1dlzkAgAEZwVVyg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/https://media.zenfs.com/creatr-images/GLB/2015-11-03/ce2ef190-826c-11e5-aa20-11edc1bddb46_eaf30c75842567f61d25dd021e031144.png (http://mic.com/) By Jamilah King 11 hours ago




 (https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fone-map-shows-really-deserves-161033282.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtu&caption=Let%26%2339%3Bs%20learn%20some%20history.&source=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2 F1.2%2FxlLUNCbutyrBxAjcQjtkvg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2F2eab009adc0c6ac12d70a5dc8f f78f48.cf.png)
 (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=90376669494&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F_xhr%2F mediacontentsharebuttons%2Fpostshare%2F%3Fsrc%3Dfb&link=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fone-map-shows-really-deserves-161033282.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dfb&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres% 2F1.2%2FxlLUNCbutyrBxAjcQjtkvg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2F2eab009adc0c6ac12d70a5dc8f f78f48.cf.png&name=One+Map+Shows+Who+Really+Deserves+to+Be+Angry +in+Oregon&description=Let%26%2339%3Bs+learn+some+history.&display=popup&show_error=yes)
 (https://twitter.com/share?text=One+Map+Shows+Who+Really+Deserves+to+Be +Angry+in+Oregon&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fone-map-shows-really-deserves-161033282.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtw&via=YahooNews)
 (http://news.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf_popup/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fone-map-shows-really-deserves-161033282.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dma&site=news&region=US&lang=en-US&content_id=f8a87957-46fc-3ca7-936e-1e24f9aedf9d&alias_id=story%3Done-map-shows-really-deserves-161033282)














Content preferences (https://settings.yahoo.com/interests)



Done



Ammon Bundy and the armed ranchers in Oregon have one overreaching goal in its ongoing standoff with federal officials. "Once [the people] can use these lands as free men, then we will have accomplished what we came to accomplish," Bundy said in a video posted to Facebook on Saturday, according to NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ammon-bundy-militia-members-occupy-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-oregon-n489311). In other words, they want the United States federal government to back off.
But if there's any group that has a legitimate gripe with the U.S. government over ownership of local land, it's not Bundy's white, anti-government group. It's the indigenous tribes native to the land now known as the state of Oregon.

View photo
.
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/4QJqQdJkGHRWPVbIncYx_g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/2eab009adc0c6ac12d70a5dc8ff78f48
Source: Native Lives Matter Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/artactivistanon/photos/a.853550374679902.1073741828.583974878304121/1118946134806990/?type=3) The above map was posted on Facebook by the group Native Lives Matter (https://www.facebook.com/artactivistanon/photos/a.853550374679902.1073741828.583974878304121/1118946134806990/?type=3) to drive home the point on land sovereignty. Leaders in Oregon's native community have also pointed out the irony of the Bundy occupation in recent days. "I'm, like, hold on a minute, if you want to get technical about it ... the land belongs to the Paiute here," Selena Sam, a member of the Burns Paiute Tribe (http://www.burnspaiute-nsn.gov/) council, told Reuters (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-native-tribe-bewildered-by-gun-toting-glory-hounds-that-land-belongs-to-the-paiute/).
But unlike Bundy's gang, the Paiute haven't decided to grab guns and provoke a standoff because it's precisely that type of violence that forced them off their land in the first place. "I feel like it's happening all over again but to a different set of people," Sam continued. "They're like, 'Let's grab some guns.' We have a different approach."
h/t Reuters (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-native-tribe-bewildered-by-gun-toting-glory-hounds-that-land-belongs-to-the-paiute/)

[mick silver]

Extremist Group Calls for Oregon Militants to Be “Willing to Die”http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Rj6tQch1dlzkAgAEZwVVyg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/https://media.zenfs.com/creatr-images/GLB/2015-11-03/ce2ef190-826c-11e5-aa20-11edc1bddb46_eaf30c75842567f61d25dd021e031144.png (http://mic.com/) By Jon Levine 5 hours ago




 (https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fextr emist-group-calls-oregon-militants-224224158.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtu&caption=%26quot%3BIf%20a%20dozen%20men%20die%20in% 20a%20shootout%2C%20that%20is%20one%20thing%2C%20b ut%20if%20children%20die%2C%20there%20will%20be%20 a%20civil%20war.%26quot%3B&source=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F 1.2%2FqItIxLB8Xs4Kcgd44Cw48Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2Fc1f6e11203d742002c1ff01efb 2f17cc.cf.png)
 (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=90376669494&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F_xhr%2F mediacontentsharebuttons%2Fpostshare%2F%3Fsrc%3Dfb&link=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fextremist-group-calls-oregon-militants-224224158.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dfb&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2 F1.2%2FqItIxLB8Xs4Kcgd44Cw48Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw%2Fhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen-US%2Fhomerun%2Fmic_26%2Fc1f6e11203d742002c1ff01efb 2f17cc.cf.png&name=Extremist+Group+Calls+for+Oregon+Militants+to +Be+%E2%80%9CWilling+to+Die%E2%80%9D&description=%26quot%3BIf+a+dozen+men+die+in+a+shoo tout%2C+that+is+one+thing%2C+but+if+children+die%2 C+there+will+be+a+civil+war.%26quot%3B&display=popup&show_error=yes)
 (https://twitter.com/share?text=Extremist+Group+Calls+for+Oregon+Milita nts+to+Be+%E2%80%9CWilling+to+Die%E2%80%9D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fextremist-group-calls-oregon-militants-224224158.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtw&via=YahooNews)
 (http://news.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf_popup/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fextremist-group-calls-oregon-militants-224224158.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dma&site=news&region=US&lang=en-US&content_id=2d4f7332-9141-3ec3-af3e-bd08a3a761f2&alias_id=story%3Dextremist-group-calls-oregon-militants-224224158)














Content preferences (https://settings.yahoo.com/interests)



Done



When armed occupants stormed a federal wildlife refuge in Harney County, Oregon, on Saturday (http://mic.com/articles/131660/what-s-happening-in-oregon-the-malheaur-refuge-militia-standoff-explained), protest leader Ryan Bundy told Oregonian politics reporter Ian Kullgren that he was willing to kill and be killed (https://twitter.com/iankullgren/status/683524884484390912) if necessary to sustain the occupation.
Now, he's receiving support in some influential circles. The Oath Keepers, which the Southern Poverty Law Center (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/elmer-stewart-rhodes-0)describes as "a fiercely antigovernment, militaristic group," has come out in support of the of the Bundys, with Oath Keepers founder and president Stewart Rhodes posting a passionate letter (https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-warning-on-or-standoff-military-special-op-assets-have-been-assigned-for-standoff-get-all-children-out-of-there-immediately/) to the group's website Tuesday.
"This is an armed occupation of a government building and the only people staying there should be the armed men who are willing to die there with Ammon Bundy and his brothers and a couple of embedded reporters," said (https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-warning-on-or-standoff-military-special-op-assets-have-been-assigned-for-standoff-get-all-children-out-of-there-immediately/) Rhodes (https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-warning-on-or-standoff-military-special-op-assets-have-been-assigned-for-standoff-get-all-children-out-of-there-immediately/), who stressed that women and children stay away from the scene. "If adults want to visit them and put themselves at risk, that is their choice, but don't bring children. If a dozen men die in a shootout, that is one thing, but if children die, there will be a civil war."

View gallery
.
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XjUzWvjPDqMUMzYIx1cWAg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/c1f6e11203d742002c1ff01efb2f17cc
Source: Mic/YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8n4cu-9Zc)In his open letter, Rhodes claimed that his sources within U.S. Special Operations indicated a "detachment" from the Joint Special Operations Command had been dispatched to the area to handle the occupation. In warning of a violent demise, Rhodes invoked the stories of Waco and Ruby Ridge, two similar standoffs ultimately broken up with deadly and controversial force by the federal government.
Rhodes' strident sentiment, however, was not universally shared on the ground. Dwight and Steven Hammond, the ranchers whose prison sentences for arson sparked the original protest, turned themselves in (http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-ranchers-expected-report-california-prison-amid-armed/story?id=36079385) to federal authorities on Monday afternoon. Through their lawyer the Hammonds publicly distanced (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/)themselves from the Bundy occupation, the lawyer writing to the local sheriff, "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family."
Local Oath Keepers and aligned organizations also said that they had reservations about the operation.
"The Oath Keepers [and] the Pacific Patriots Network (http://www.pacificpatriotsnetwork.com/) did not endorse nor do we support the way they took over or occupied the refuge." Joseph Rice, a coordinator for a local Oath Keepers branch and co-founder of the PPN, told Mic. "If there are media standing around watching everything, cooler heads should prevail. Nobody wants any type of armed standoff or conflict."

View gallery
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1f_qf2rNympxUxEsVLbPPw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/becca9db13f85128dd7d8e94a5e53496
Source: Mic/Getty Images (http://gettyimages.com/)With the occupation joined, Rice said that the Oath Keepers were providing logistical support including a call to action for individuals to go to the protest area and serve as a neutral buffer between government forces and the occupiers, and to donate what they could.
"I witnesses ranchers coming and donating supplies to the folks at the refuge," he said. "I witnessed one guy come in and give 50 pounds of elk meat."
White also said that his group was united with the grievances of the Bundys, the heart of which lay in a land dispute between the federal government and locals. In Oregon, the U.S. owns more than 50% (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html?_r=0) of all land, which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy and the Oath Keepers want that control delegated to local government.
Despite differences in tactics, Rice was overall praiseful about the renewed attention to the issue. "You are having a dialogue and conversation with me," he told Mic. "If those guys hadn't don't this, you'd never call me."
Fair enough.

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE

[JohnQPublic]

...
.
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XjUzWvjPDqMUMzYIx1cWAg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/c1f6e11203d742002c1ff01efb2f17cc
...
.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1f_qf2rNympxUxEsVLbPPw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/mic_26/becca9db13f85128dd7d8e94a5e53496
...


infiltrate
divide
conquer

[madfranks]

But if there's any group that has a legitimate gripe with the U.S. government over ownership of local land, it's not Bundy's white, anti-government group. It's the indigenous tribes native to the land now known as the state of Oregon.

Sure, but look what these "indigenous tribes" have to say:


The leader of an American Indian tribe that regards an Oregon nature preserve as sacred issued a rebuke Wednesday to the armed men who are occupying the property, saying they are not welcome at the snowy bird sanctuary and must leave.

Useful idiot native americans siding with the government that killed most of them rather than the people fighting this government.

[monty]

Militia leader Ammon Bundy discusses . . . . .


http://youtu.be/HW4MltI7cV0

[Ares]

Oregon standoff: Idaho group arrives to 'secure perimeter, prevent Waco-style situation'

BURNS — Members of a group from outside Oregon arrived on Friday at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to "secure a perimeter" around the compound and prevent "a Waco-style situation."

The arrival of the "3% of Idaho" was the latest development in the situation outside Burns, where an armed occupation of the refuge by an Ammon Bundy-led militant group entered its seventh day.

"They just keep an eye on everything that is going on" to make sure "nothing stupid happens," Bundy said Friday afternoon outside refuge headquarters.

"If they weren't here," Bundy said, referring to the Idaho group, "I'd worry" about a Waco-style siege by federal officials.

The group's website says it stands for "freedom, liberty and the Constitution. We will combat all those who are corrupt." The website displays the motto, "When Tyranny Becomes Law, Rebellion Becomes Duty!"

Brandon Curtiss, the president of the 3% of Idaho, would not reveal in a phone interview how many people his group was sending, although a handful of them had already arrived at the bird sanctuary. Some had what appeared to be handguns on their hips. Curtiss said he was on his way to the refuge.

He also declined to reveal specifically whether the group would circle the refuge headquarters or form some other sort of perimeter.

Curtiss and Chris McIntire, another group spokesman, called the situation a "double-edged sword" – the perimeter is meant to protect the occupiers from an outside attack but also to protect the Harney County community from those who arrive in solidarity with Bundy's cause but may be prone to violence, they said. The Idaho group is here to keep the situation "peaceful" and reassure the community that it isn't in danger, they said.

McIntire said the majority of the group's members would be heading for Eastern Oregon on Friday.

Curtiss and McIntire both emphasized that the perimeter would not be military or paramilitary in nature.

The group's arrival came a few hours after Bundy informed reporters that the militants would not immediately accept Sheriff Dave Ward's offer to peacefully escort the occupiers out of town.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_standoff_idaho_militia.html#incart_big-photo

[midnight rambler]

the militants

Yeah, they're not concerned Americans, they're militants.

[Ares]

Yeah, they're not concerned Americans, they're militants.

Nope these are "concerned Americans."

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2015/117/2015-04-28T005951Z_1_LYNXMPEB3R00J_RTROPTP_3_USA-POLICE-BALTIMORE.JPG

[Cebu_4_2]

Is this officially a federal base or is it bought per Oregon? Or whatever else. This is very confusing because they are using the laws both ways, I am no comfortable with anything I read now.

[monty]

Is this officially a federal base or is it bought per Oregon? Or whatever else. This is very confusing because they are using the laws both ways, I am no comfortable with anything I read now.


From what I have read President Theodore Roosevelt originally made it an Indian reservation. Then he booted them out, marching them shackled 2 abreast on foot in the winter snow to a reservation in Washington. Later the same President Roosevelt created this federal bird sanctuary. I know not on what authority. I don't know if the Oregon legislature was involved, or if it was purchased.

My father pounded into our heads from a very young age, believe none of what you read and half of what you see. Now with photoshop, youtube, propaganda paid for by the government to the corporate controlled media maybe you can believe 15% of what you see.

[Cebu_4_2]

Thanks as far as Roosevelt goes he was a piece of shit and it continues down the line.

If this rope was cut you thing there is any chance?

[PatColo]

Live at this posting; otherwise link will lead to archive links for playing or download:


The Realist Report: Oregon Militia Standoff (1-8-16) (http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/the-realist-report-oregon-militia-standoff-1-8-16/)
The Realist Report – #OregonStandoff
January 9, 2016 (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/)[/URL] [URL="http://therealistreport.com/author/realist/"]Realist Report (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/) Leave a comment

(http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#respond)http://therealistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Oregon-Standoff-e1452235862367.jpg

On this premier edition of The Realist Report broadcast live on Renegade Broadcasting (http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/), we’re joined by my good friend Sean Daly. Sean and I recently drove out to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Malheur+National+Wildlife+Refuge/@43.2644955,-118.8467455,17.38z/data=%214m2%213m1%211s0x54b0cc82b05d2dff:0x3bad40b d36367dfd) just south of Burns, Oregon (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Burns,+OR/@43.3299978,-119.0206575,13.09z/data=%214m2%213m1%211s0x54b0a6dbb6608a23:0xbd99756 4bab34a4d). A group of American patriots (http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/) are occupying various buildings in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest and rectify the unjust and tyrannical policies various agencies of the United States federal government have and continue to perpetrate against law abiding ranchers, farmers, and private property owners in the surrounding region. This is one program you don’t want to miss!

Download (http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-128766/TS-1043714.mp3)



w/comments @ http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/

[PatColo]

fetzer on rense last night, main topic "gun control outrage",
https://ia801500.us.archive.org/9/items/rense_thursday/rense_thursday_hr2.mp3

[mick silver]

SAGEBRUSH REBELLIONSHow the federal government went from realtor to landlord in the American WestWritten byRandall Wilson (http://qz.com/589255/how-the-federal-government-went-from-realtor-to-landlord-in-the-american-west/#)
January 08, 2016


https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ap_867052330264.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3000The Oregon standoff reflects broader tensions between ranchers and the federal government. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
Share
Written byRandall Wilson (http://qz.com/589255/how-the-federal-government-went-from-realtor-to-landlord-in-the-american-west/#)
January 08, 2016


Disputes over public land rights have a long history in the United States. But the past 18 months have seen a growing (http://www.hcn.org/articles/sagebrush-rebellion) number (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=0)of (http://www.hcn.org/articles/is-san-juan-countys-phil-lyman-the-new-calvin-black) confrontations (http://www.hcn.org/articles/oath-keepers-show-up-for-another-public-lands-squabble-this-time-for-gold-miners-in-oregon) over Western federal lands, culminating in the current standoff (http://qz.com/586605/the-oregon-militia-standoff-is-a-mess-of-americas-own-making/) at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

Why have federal lands so consistently served as a flashpoint for anti-government sentiments? The answer lies in the complex history of public lands in the West.

The overwhelming majority of federal lands are located in the American West (http://qz.com/586605/the-oregon-militia-standoff-is-a-mess-of-americas-own-making/). Comprising over 600 million acres, they constitute over half of the territory in the Western states, compared to only 4% of the land east of the Mississippi.

During the first 100 years of US history, our national policy was to sell off or give away as much land as possible. The reason for this uneven distribution of federal land can be attributed to America’s history of land dispossession. During the first 100 years of US history, our national policy was to sell off or give away as much land as possible. Military bounties were handed out as pay for Revolutionary War veterans. Land grants to railroad companies helped finance transcontinental rail lines. And millions more acres of land were privatized through a series of Homestead Acts, with the goal of encouraging settlement in the interior West. The original 1862 rule gave 160 acres to settlers as long as they resided on and worked the land for five years and paid a $26 fee.



This approach worked well in the East and Midwest, where land was fertile enough to sustain 160-acre farms. But much of the West was too mountainous or arid to be easily settled, or was already being used for livestock grazing—albeit without claims or money changing hands.

Ranching was viable in such environments, but required much larger tracts of land than were typically available. So a common practice in the late 19th century was for ranchers to make limited homestead claims close to scarce bodies of water. Then, by default, they could control vast amounts of otherwise dry public land without holding titles.

By the 1880s, this had led to a classic tragedy of the commons. Overstocked ranges led to massive soil erosion, culminating in the “Big Die Up” of thousands of cattle in 1886.

Once-massive bison herds on the Great Plains were reduced to a few hundred animals. These problems were mirrored in other industries that made use of the land’s resources. Unregulated logging decimated the Great Lakes region and threatened to do the same out west. Once-massive bison herds on the Great Plains were reduced to a few hundred animals.



Events such as these helped spawn the early conservation movement and moved the federal government to begin setting portions of the public domain aside. No longer would these lands be available for sale or settlement. Rather, they would remain under government ownership. National parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas would be managed on behalf of the American people for protection and recreation. National forests and Bureau of Land Management-owned areas would be available for supervised logging, mining, grazing and other activities that made use of natural resources.

The federal government shifted its role from realtor to landlord. Then, in the early 20th century, the over-tilled and overgrazed landscapes out West led to the Dust Bowl. This moved Congress to place the remaining unclaimed public rangelands in the West under federal management as well. To prevent overstocking, the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act set up a permit and fee system for grazing on lands managed by what would become the BLM. In this way, federal managers could control the number of livestock and time allowed for grazing on any permitted area based on the conditions of the pasture.

And that’s the rub. Ever since the federal government shifted its role from realtor to landlord, it has faced tensions with the people and businesses who use resources located on public lands.

The first “sagebrush rebellion” took place in 1946. A coalition of Western politicians and representatives of the livestock and mining industries demanded that the government transfer public lands to the states to be redistributed to private landowners.



The effort failed. But the sentiment was reborn with the second “sagebrush rebellion” in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This time, the movement arose in response to the passage of the major environmental laws such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Act Amendments and Endangered Species Act, which indicated that public lands would come under increased regulatory scrutiny. The economic recession and the promise of support from the rising Reagan Administration also propelled the movement. The Nevada state legislature went so far as to pass a law claiming authority over all BLM land within state boundaries. But the law was declared unconstitutional, and the land stayed in the federal government’s hands.

The next attempt to take over federal land came in the late 1980s and 1990s. In the aftermath of the famous protests over old-growth forests and the Northern Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest, the County-Supremacy and Wise Use Movements took hold.

These protests reflect the oscillations of the boom-and-bust economies associated with Western industries like mining, ranching and logging. These efforts to claim local sovereignty over federal lands were also deemed unconstitutional. But the broader sentiments of dissatisfaction with federal management have persisted. The current events in Oregon are the latest chapter in this much longer narrative.

To a large degree, these protests reflect the oscillations of the boom-and-bust economies associated with Western industries like mining, ranching and logging. The periodic rise of sagebrush movements tend to correlate with a post-war transition away from such industries toward a service- and information-based economy.



It should be noted that the people behind the Oregon standoff and other recent protests are extremists. But it’s also true that there are many rural Westerners whose livelihoods are tied to federal lands who feel disenfranchised from society’s changing values.

The government is charged with managing federal lands on behalf of all American people. Over the decades, the general public has placed more importance on protecting biodiversity, sustaining environmental health, and access to recreational opportunities on public lands. Federal agencies have had to struggle to balance these interests with the interests of people who use the same land for their livelihoods.

This is not to say that ranchers are unsupportive of environmental priorities. Many have grazed livestock on the same permits for generations and developed a rich knowledge of local ecologies. In recent decades, there have been a number of instances whereby innovative and collaborative management approaches have resulted in “win-win” scenarios for ranchers, rural communities, and the goal of environmental sustainability. (The Malpai Borderlands Group (http://www.malpaiborderlandsgroup.org/?section=home), an environmental nonprofit founded and led by ranchers, is one example.)

Yet the fundamental conflict is substantial. In this context, it makes sense that federal lands have become a focal point for broader conversations about land rights and the role of government in environmental regulation. The Oregon standoff clearly represents a fringe perspective. But the much larger underlying tensions between resource use and conservation in Western public lands will be the subjects of continued debate for decades to come.

We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com (ideas@qz.com).
Most Popularhttps://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/woman-865021.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=320 (http://qz.com/584874/you-probably-know-to-ask-yourself-what-do-i-want-heres-a-way-better-question/)You probably know to ask yourself, “What do I want?” Here’s a way better question (http://qz.com/584874/you-probably-know-to-ask-yourself-what-do-i-want-heres-a-way-better-question/)Sponsor Contentby QualcommThe Internet of Everything will come to life with these intelligent technologies (http://qz.com/493662/the-internet-of-everything-will-come-to-life-with-these-intelligent-technologies/)

[monty]

Live streamed from Burns Oregon town hall meeting.

3 hrs 10 minutes lost video near the end.


http://youtu.be/ELXMyTjMmXk

[monty]

SAGEBRUSH REBELLIONSHow the federal government went from realtor to landlord in the American West

Written by

Randall Wilson (http://qz.com/589255/how-the-federal-government-went-from-realtor-to-landlord-in-the-american-west/#)
January 08, 2016


https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ap_867052330264.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3000The Oregon standoff reflects broader tensions between ranchers and the federal government. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
Share


Written by

Randall Wilson (http://qz.com/589255/how-the-federal-government-went-from-realtor-to-landlord-in-the-american-west/#)
January 08,




[quote]The federal government shifted its role from realtor to landlord. Then, in the early 20th century, the over-tilled and overgrazed landscapes out West led to the Dust Bowl. This moved Congress to place the remaining unclaimed public rangelands in the West under federal management as well. To prevent overstocking, the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act set up a permit and fee system for grazing on lands managed by what would become the BLM. In this way, federal managers could control the number of livestock and time allowed for grazing on any permitted area based on the conditions of the pasture.

This paragraph is pure bullshit. MThe dustbowl was in the midwest and led to the migration of many out to California on Route 66. Grapes of Wrath

[PatColo]

sorry if repost; haven't read the whole thread-- notice the date, 4 years ago:


Malheur County targeted for gold, uranium mines (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/01/malheur_county_targeted_for_go.html)

Print Email
Richard Cockle, The Oregonian (http://connect.oregonlive.com/user/dcockle/index.html) By Richard Cockle, The Oregonian (http://connect.oregonlive.com/user/dcockle/posts.html)
on January 08, 2012 at 9:50 PM, updated January 08, 2012 at 10:09 PM






http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/photo/10421449-large.jpg

View full size (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/photo/goldminejpg-cb998f5ee6679e45.jpg)Richard Cockle/The OregonianAndrew Bentz and Andy Gaudielle of Calico Resources USA stand atop an estimated 425,000 ounces of gold in the bowels of Grassy Mountain south of Vale. The company hopes to win over environmentalists and get permission to sink mine shafts into the mountain to claim the rich lode, which geologists say could include an additional 500,000 ounces of gold.



ONTARIO -- Sprawling Malheur County (http://www.malheurco.org/) could soon be in the spotlight as a mining hub -- or a battleground of uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States) and gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining) mining interests vs. environmentalists trying to protect its lonesome sagebrush landscape.

Australian-owned Oregon Energy LLC hopes to mine 18 million pounds of yellowcake uranium from the southeastern Oregon high desert 10 miles west of McDermitt near the Oregon-Nevada boundary. The go-ahead to mine the so-called Aurora uranium deposit could bring up to 250 construction jobs to the county, followed by 150 mining jobs.


Meanwhile, Calico Resources USA Corp., a subsidiary of a Vancouver, B.C., company, may seek permits this month to chemically extract microscopic gold from a high desert butte south of Vale called Grassy Mountain, a project likely to create another 100 jobs.



Mining history
Gold: Mining once was a major part of Oregon's economy and the most sought-after mineral was gold. Since its discovery in Oregon in the mid-1800s, miners have wrested an estimated 5.5 million ounces of gold from the state's streams and underground "hardrock" mines. At today's prices, that gold would bring about $1,616 per ounce. Half to two-thirds was found in northeastern Oregon. Baker County and Josephine County have had the most active claims.
Uranium: Uranium was first discovered in Oregon in the 1930s and a small amount was mined on Bear Creek Butte, 40 miles southeast of Bend, in 1960. The White King and Lucky Lass mines near Lakeview came later and there are known deposits of uranium in Baker, Clackamas, Crook, Curry, Harney, Jackson, Lake, Malheur, Polk and Union counties.

The proposals will be the first real test of the 1991 chemical processing mining law passed by the Legislature in response to a debate over mining's future in Oregon, said environmentalist Larry Tuttle. The law ushered in tough new bonding requirements to weed out marginal operators and guarantee environmental cleanup.

Approval of the Grassy Mountain project could trigger a deluge of new chemical mining in Malheur County. Up to a dozen gold deposits similar to Grassy Mountain dot the high desert between the Snake River town of Huntington and Jordan Valley.


The county, sparsely populated with only 31,313 people, could use new jobs, said County Commissioner Dan Joyce. Its unemployment rate in November was 10.3 percent, compared with 9.1 percent for Oregon and 8.6 percent for the nation.


Mining companies have passed up the county in the past because of Oregon's environmentally conscious reputation, Joyce said. But this time, the sluggish local and state economies, higher mineral prices and technological advances in mining and cleanup could open a door to mining, he said.


"I'm thinking people are a lot hungrier now than they were," Joyce said.


Uranium mine plan



Oregon Energy's proposal calls for extracting ore from a mile-long, 600-foot wide, 250-foot deep open pit 10 miles west of McDermitt and 3 miles north of the Oregon-Nevada border. The mine, adjoining the former Bretz Mercury Mine, a contaminated open-pit site from the 1960s, would cost $200 million to develop and uranium extraction could continue for up to 20 years, said Oregon Energy President Lachlan Reynolds.


Plans call for the ore to be crushed and mixed with an acid solution in enclosed vats to leach out the uranium, he said. The acid would bond with the uranium and when dry become a sand-like powder called uranium oxide concentrate, or yellowcake.

Yellowcake would bring $52 per pound and could fuel nuclear reactors or be processed into weapons.


Tuttle, spokesman for the Portland-based Center for Environmental Equity (http://www.nevermined.org/), foresees environmental problems.


The likelihood of sulfuric acid being used in processing the ore means it could remain in the mine tailings after milling, he said.

The snag is that sulfuric acid tends to continuously leach out heavy metals that occur naturally in waste rock and tailings, contaminating ground water.

"Just because you are through with the processing, years later you still have the issue with that interaction," he said.


But probably the biggest environmental hurdle for the Aurora mine would be the release of mercury, Tuttle said. "The whole Owyhee Reservoir has been affected by naturally occurring background mercury," and uranium mining could release more, he said.


Gold mine proposal



Environmental considerations first thrust Grassy Mountain into the consciousness of Oregonians in the late 1980s and early '90s when Newmont Gold Co. proposed introducing Nevada-style open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mining there.


Low gold prices ultimately prompted Newmont to write off its $33.8 million investment and abandon plans to mine Grassy Mountain in 1995, but only after the site came to symbolize the conflict between economic development and environmental activism in eastern Oregon.


Calico Resources would take a dramatically different approach, said Andrew Bentz of Ontario, spokesman for Calico. The company proposes to sink an 850-foot underground shaft or tunnel to remove 1,000 tons of ore per day from Grassy Mountain, he said.


The operation expects to remove at least 425,000 ounces of gold from the mountain. The company's investment and exploration costs probably will total $100 million before mining begins, said Calico project manager Andy Gaudielle.


Mineral-bearing rock would be milled for microscopic gold in a closed chemical process that wouldn't include the bird-attracting open settling ponds of diluted cyanide that worried Newmont's opponents, said Bentz, a retired Malheur County sheriff.


Mining and reclamation of Grassy Mountain would take about 12 years, unless new gold discoveries are made, he said.


Bentz believes Calico won't face the level of environmental opposition that attended Newmont's proposal.


http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/photo/10421462-large.jpg
View full size (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/photo/ax165-3d56-9jpg-972658d8b588f9c9.jpg)OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES

An open-pit uranium mine is proposed on this high desert site in southeastern Oregon's Malheur County -- the same ground where the old Bretz Mercury Mine (shown here) once stood. Uranium, mercury, silver, gold and other heavy metals often are found in the same areas, geologists say. Mercury was discovered here in 1931, and state mining records show that 152,000 tons of ore were mined in 1937. More mining took place during the 1940s and '50s, and at one point the Bretz was one of the largest high-grade mercury mines in the nation.



Reynolds, the Oregon Energy chief, said mining companies no longer can operate in ways that caused the environmental problems of the past. Improvements in mining technology result in more efficient and environmentally responsible operations, he said.

"We will have to post substantial financial bonds to ensure that there is full reclamation of the site to an approved plan when mining ends," Reynolds said.


Only 5 percent of the nation's domestic-use uranium is produced within U.S. borders, although the United States takes more than 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, Reynolds said.


The most likely buyer of Aurora uranium would be a U.S. electricity utility, he said. He estimated the mine could become the source of up to 30 percent of uranium produced in the U.S.


What's next



Public hearings will be held after the companies apply for permits to begin mining, said state geologist Vicki McConnell of Portland.


Sixty-one acres of Grassy Mountain is patented, private mining land, but substantial portions of both sites are on federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Both sites are remnant volcanic regions where geothermal and hydrothermal activity has pulled heavy metals and other substances close to the surface, McConnell said.


Calico hopes to begin taking gold from Grassy Mountain in five years, but the regulatory pathway is likely to be longer for the Aurora mine because uranium is involved.


In addition to the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/default.htm), the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, the U.S. Department of Energy and the federal Environmental Protection Agency must review the uranium mine.


BLM permits will be required for tailing piles and the use of desert roads for both the uranium and gold mining.


Oregon has a process in place to allow mining to proceed if resources can be extracted profitably and in a way that's environmentally safe, McConnell said.


Whether that's the case here has yet to be determined, she said. "Geologically, we know there is gold in Grassy Mountain and we know there is uranium in the McDermitt area," she said.


-- Richard Cockle (dcockle@oregonian.com)

[Tumbleweed]

Live streamed from Burns Oregon town hall meeting.

3 hrs 10 minutes lost video near the end.


http://youtu.be/ELXMyTjMmXk

This was a damn good video and I listened to the whole thing. The Bundys have more local support than I thought they did.

[PatColo]

RedSilverJ don't trust the OR event:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uwjr-024rQ8/mqdefault.jpg
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwjr-024rQ8)3:56
Oregon Standoff Set Up To Demonize The 2nd Amendment Locals React (TeamWakeEmUP) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwjr-024rQ8)

6,957 views
1 day ago





https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qL3lSLarJs8/mqdefault.jpg
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL3lSLarJs8) 11:31
Dear Militia Members DON'T Go to Oregon! You Are Being SET UP! (TeamWakeEmUP) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL3lSLarJs8)

22,998 views
4 days ago





^ That's UNlike JFriend who just returned from a trip to OR to investigate; and JF felt in his gut it's authentic, not a fed setup... and that's UNlike his 2 radio guests who cited lots of reason to question whether it's authentic:


http://therealistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Oregon-Standoff-e1452235862367-420x300.jpg

The Realist Report – #OregonStandoff (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/)


January 9, 2016


[/URL]

[URL="http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comments"]One comment (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/)
On this premier edition of The Realist Report broadcast live by Renegade Broadcasting, we’re joined by my good friend Sean Daly. Sean and I recently drove out to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge just south of Burns, Oregon. A group of American patriots are occupying various buildings in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest and rectify the unjust and tyrannical policies various agencies of the United States federal government have and continue to perpetrate against law abiding ranchers, farmers, and private property owners in the surrounding region.

[Cebu_4_2]

This was a damn good video and I listened to the whole thing. The Bundys have more local support than I thought they did.

ople dont know then people dont know. god damn this shit formatting. done.
But if pe

[Tumbleweed]

Looked like real people getting up and stating their opinions and a lot of it was positive for the Bundys getting the conversations started to make changes. There's a faction that don't want the Bundys to leave because if they do everything will return to what it was before and nothing will change or be resolved. Local people are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation by the BLM. They are also afraid of the Feds who have taken over the school house, courthouse and post office.

[monty]

Looked like real people getting up and stating their opinions and a lot of it was positive for the Bundys getting the conversations started to make changes. There's a faction that don't want the Bundys to leave because if they do everything will return to what it was before and nothing will change or be resolved. Local people are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation by the BLM. They are also afraid of the Feds who have taken over the school house, courthouse and post office.

Quoted for truth

[monty]

This was a damn good video and I listened to the whole thing. The Bundys have more local support than I thought they did.

I watched it live while he was filming it. People can post all the negatives about this they want, but when you see it filmed live the lies in the main stream media are all exposed.

[Shami-Amourae]

Idaho 3% has arrived.

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

[monty]

I don't agree with the way Ammond Bundy went about this, but now he is in this deep I hope he can accomplish what he intends to. He can't back down. I hope through his efforts the people in Oregon wake up. The city people won't because their lives are not directly affected. A percentage of the rural population will. Can they unite enough to be effective against a tyrannical government?

A local rancher said in one of the live interviews 2 or 3 days ago by Pete Santilli that the Obama administration plans another national monument on Steens Mountain that will displace another 400 families. I read somewhere else there was a national monument planned, but don't remember the source. Several of the local ranchers talked about the abuse by the BLM, cutting permits, forcing them to move cattle, etc.. One said the BLM stated a fire in the mouth af a canyon while he and his buckaroos were in there gathering cattle. The BLM crew were aware the ranchers were in the canyon.

I would like to see the people of Harney County get educated to the point they understand the Article IV District courts are legislative courts authorized by Congress having jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, in a Territory or an insular possession. If that were to be accomplished the people would understand the Hammonds convictions are illegal, null and void. They could form a common law grand jury to investigate the matter, issue presentments, make enough noise the entire state of Oregon wakes up to the fact the feds have overreached their authority and expose the fraud of the District court jurisdiction. If this could be accomplished the FBI, BLM and US Forest Service powers would rapidly crumble.

If it can be exposed the federal district courts are operating without jurisdiction the federal government will suffer a huge loss of power and control over the states and the people of the states.

I can dream, can't I?

[Horn]

If it can be exposed the federal district courts are operating without jurisdiction the federal government will suffer a huge loss of power and control over the states and the people of the states.

I can dream, can't I?

When you looked into or lived in the communist state of Oregon, the dream might turn into a nightmare...

The directive of a broke state would be to firesale any land to the highest bidder. more often that will come from outside of the entire U.S.

[7th trump]

Like I said ...not going to end well because these guys have no idea what they are doing and what they are doing is going about it the wrong way.
They are subjects and have no standing to complain or do anything about it.

[PatColo]

^ That's UNlike JFriend who just returned from a trip to OR to investigate; and JF felt in his gut it's authentic, not a fed setup... and that's UNlike his 2 radio guests who cited lots of reason to question whether it's authentic:


The Realist Report – #OregonStandoff (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/)


^ anyone who listened to this knows that in part, they talked about their meeting & chat with Pete Santilli in Oregon, and they acknowledged (in the above show podcast - not in person w/Santilli) that they'd heard the rumors of his being an agent. They left it at that. So I commented (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1985) at JF's blog:



zeetip January 9, 2016 1:25 pm

(http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1985)
V.Eastwood & Susanne Posel as guests on J.Fetzer’s show on 8 Nov 2013 to discuss Santilli as possible FBI/Hal Turner fraud. Description:


“[…] The topic of today’s show is internet radio host Peter Santilli, leaked documents have revealed that he is working for the FBI and it is fairly certain that he is an agent provocateur put in place to help the US Government destroy liberty movements, demonize patriots and generally poison the well. If you are a Santilli listener please we implore you listen to this and study up with further content, don’t just take our word for it!”
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/2013.html
(http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/2013.html)
^ scroll down to 8 Nov, 2013 for listening options. Also scroll further for the 22 Oct 2013 show, and the 16 Oct 2013 show.


I listened at the time, & recall VE & SP were pretty convincing. Oddly, Fetzer still associates with Santilli; JF was guest on his show in just the past few weeks discussing this “Rebecca Roth” (alias) character, among other things. Fetzer just learned his youtube channel is suspended, apparently the work of Roth, who JF just spent several shows “exposing as a fraud.”


4.5 mins, JF tells of his YT channel being suspended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAbbLcVmezM
2 hrs, JF on Santilli’s 17 Dec 2015 show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfCoqMkrtg




So I just rolled by Eastwood's site again, prompting me to comment further (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1998) at JFriends:



zeetip January 10, 2016 9:55 am (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1998)

Holy Shite! After a podcast dry spell of... a couple months maybe? VEastwood has just posted these 2 fresh ones; find audio links at the show pages:

Jan 8, 110 mins; I haven't listened so you'll need to skip through the audio to find where the PS/Oregon discussion begins:
"The Inside Scoop On The Oregon Armed Standoff Against The BLM!"
The Oregon standoff with the BLM is getting serious attention and this issue is very much misunderstood by the general public due in part to disinformation and misinformation coming from both mainstream and alternative media.
For those familiar with the BLM standoff at the Bundy Ranch, you can consider this new protest as "Bundy Ranch 2" with a similar cast of characters, armed protesters and a known FBI informant Pete Santilli as the media spokesperson for the protest group.

http://www.TheVinnyEastwoodShow.com/14/post/2016/01/has-religion-killed-more-people-than-anything-else-in-history-the-inside-scoop-on-the-oregon-armed-standoff-against-the-blm.html

Jan 10, 45 mins:
"HOW TO SPOT AN FBI INFORMANT. Glenn Canady, Stew Webb & Vinny Eastwood Expose Pete Santilli"
Called up in the middle of breakfast, Vinny Eastwood lays out in detail the direct evidence linking internet Talk Radio Show host Peter Santilli to the FBI and his long track record of crimes he never seems to be punished for including carrying a concealed handgun in Ohio without a permit, under Ohio state law the offenses he was charged with came with a mandatory minimum sentence of up to 5 years, he was release the very next day, on $0 bail and all charges were dropped!

Now Pete Santilli is in Oregon and has been appointed the lead press agent for the protesters who've taken over a federal building, these people must be warned about this wolf in sheeps clothing in order to prevent any loss of life among veterans, militia and the American people at the hands of the government and the provocateurs in their employ.

http://www.TheVinnyEastwoodShow.com/14/post/2016/01/how-to-spot-an-fbi-informant-glenn-canady-stew-webb-vinny-eastwood-expose-pete-santilli.html

PSantilli was recently on a Rense hour as guest, and the issue of PS' being accused of being an agent came up. PS denied everything, said it's all been disproven and put to bed. Since grizzom.blogspot stopped posting Rense shows a couple months ago, I have no MP3 link to this recent Rense hour with PS as guest.

[collector]

under Ohio state law the offenses he was charged with came with a mandatory minimum sentence of up to 5 years, he was release the very next day, on $0 bail and all charges were dropped!


That's pretty conclusive - he cut a deal or had one in place before he was arrested. It's normally a federal agency that has the muscle to contact the state prosecutor and convince him to dismiss the charges.

[JohnQPublic]

Update! Historic: Heavily Armed Idaho 3 Percenters Roll Up on FBI Compound (Pacific Patriot Network) (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/historic-heavily-armed-idaho-3-percenters-roll-up-on-fbi-compound-pacific-patriot-network-3274272.html)

[monty]

^ anyone who listened to this knows that in part, they talked about their meeting & chat with Pete Santilli in Oregon, and they acknowledged (in the above show podcast - not in person w/Santilli) that they'd heard the rumors of his being an agent. They left it at that. So I commented (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1985) at JF's blog:





So I just rolled by Eastwood's site again, prompting me to comment further at JFriends:


Regardless of whether Santilli is or is not an FBI informant, it is immaterial, he has put out hours and hours of on the scene video which would not be available otherwise. His video has exposed the spin in the mainstream media.

The FBI has surveilance equipment set up that can hear a fly walking across the ceiling.

Here is a 45 minute interview with Brandon Curtiss, founder of Idaho III% militia whomare in Burns, Oregon.


http://youtu.be/km1I8mmmhQU

[Bigjon]

The Federal Government has no legislative power over Malhuer Wildlife Refuge.

They have a property interest, but I doubt if they paid for most of it. Some land has been bought from ranchers, at fire sale prices, they burned them out.


Taken from the Eisenhower Report—which can be found in the right margin of the DRA Jurisdiction page (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html)—the attached pages from the Report show exclusive legislative authority over Harney County lies with the state, not the federal government. The federal government only has an ownership interest—called a “proprietorial interest”—which means no legislative, judicial, or executive authority!

Jurisdiction Is The Solution.



Begin forwarded message:

From: Loma
Subject: Jurisdictional Codes of property controlled by the Fed in Harney County Oregon
Date: January 9, 2016

Read the documents, Malheur Fish and Wildlife Refuge is a Status of “4” Proprietorial Jurisdiction Only……..Post Office “1” Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction…………………

[monty]

Like I said ...not going to end well because these guys have no idea what they are doing and what they are doing is going about it the wrong way.
They are subjects and have no standing to complain or do anything about it.

And that is why you should he out on the front lines advising them. Oh, it has no affect on you? The hell it doesn't this is Agenda 21 in full force. First they move the rurals off the land or kill them if they don't co-operate. When they have accomplish that they will move into the suburbs and the cities, breaking down doors pre-dawn and begin the confiscation your weapons or if you resist killing you.

This is serious. It is gaining momentum. If it isn't stopped now . . . . . . One World Government

[monty]

The Federal Government has no legislative power over Malhuer Wildlife Refuge.

They have a property interest, but I doubt if they paid for most of it. Some land has been bought from ranchers, at fire sale prices, they burned them out.


Taken from the Eisenhower Report—which can be found in the right margin of the DRA Jurisdiction page (http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html)—the attached pages from the Report show exclusive legislative authority over Harney County lies with the state, not the federal government. The federal government only has an ownership interest—called a “proprietorial interest”—which means no legislative, judicial, or executive authority!

Jurisdiction Is The Solution.



Begin forwarded message:

From: Loma
Subject: Jurisdictional Codes of property controlled by the Fed in Harney County Oregon
Date: January 9, 2016

Read the documents, Malheur Fish and Wildlife Refuge is a Status of “4” Proprietorial Jurisdiction Only……..Post Office “1” Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction…………………




Thanks for posting!

Question is did the legislature approve them buying the burned out ranches at firesale prices per the Constitution?

[Bigjon]

Like I said ...not going to end well because these guys have no idea what they are doing and what they are doing is going about it the wrong way.
They are subjects and have no standing to complain or do anything about it.

Bullshit, the f'n Federal Government has no standing everything they have done for the last 150 years is unconstitutional bullshit.

[Bigjon]

Update! Historic: Heavily Armed Idaho 3 Percenters Roll Up on FBI Compound (Pacific Patriot Network) (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/historic-heavily-armed-idaho-3-percenters-roll-up-on-fbi-compound-pacific-patriot-network-3274272.html)



Here is the text that goes with Kirk's email:

This is historic and everyone should watch.

The FBI agents, at least those nearest the camera, appear to be very reasonable. However, pay attention to the unmarked federal agent in black, the one wearing very dark sun glasses. He is different, very serious, constantly scanning the area, and says nothing. Like KGB officers, I suspect he is in the chain of command directly to the administration.

This situation reminds me of the Christmas Truce during WWI. Germans initiated a truce, which the allied soldiers accepted. Everyone came out of their trenches and shared their common Christian heritage to celebrate Christmas together. It lasted for days.

The Allied command was furious. It wanted war, not peace.

Understand, the globalists cannot get their wars, conquests, and bonds when people realize their common interests and humanity. That is why they made it a crime, punishable by death, to "fraternize with the enemy”.

The truce ended when an allied officer, on orders from command, fired upon and murdered a German soldier. Everyone ran back to their trenches. Men who had no stake in the fight; who shared common history, values, cultures; who in other circumstances could be good friends; resumed killing and maiming each other.

And so it continues. War after war. Another false enemy to bomb, invade, occupy, overthrow, “stabilize”, and overtake its resources.

Let us hope this does not happen in this situation, and perhaps reminding everyone of the Christmas Truce beforehand can help be a preventative measure. But pay attention to the man in black. I do not think the globalists want to back down a second time.

For the sake of our patriots, watch, then pass this one to everyone you can.




Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark
Subject: You got to love it. Heavily armed Idaho 3%ers roll up on Burns Oregon FBI compound
Date: January 9, 2016

Historic: Heavily Armed Idaho 3 Percenters Roll Up On FBI Compound (Pacific Patriot Network) | Alternative (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/01/historic-heavily-armed-idaho-3-percenters-roll-up-on-fbi-compound-pacific-patriot-network-3274272.html)


Perhaps a total failure of the federal model is unfolding? Sage Brush Rebellion #2 is in full swing.

[monty]

The land the the Hammonds burned falls under the same classification as the Malheur Refuge. The US is just another property owner, with equal footing to the othermproperty owners. They have no jurisdiction to hear a criminal or a civil case. The jurisdiction lies with the state. The state declined to prosecute after the District Attorney reviewed the charges.

The Hammonds conviction is illegal, null and void.

The federal actors are guilty of numerous crimes, not limited to impersonating a public servant.

[PatColo]

Regardless of whether Santilli is or is not an FBI informant, it is immaterial, he has put out hours and hours of on the scene video which would not be available otherwise. His video has exposed the spin in the mainstream media.

another comment (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1994)at the JFriend blog; a reply to my first comment; echos your sentiment. I don't listen to PS' shows at all, never have. One isolated exception, was when it came to my attention that PS interviewed Delphi-Deanna Sunstein-Spingola, and she said some self incriminating things; check #215 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?75243-Spingola-Jumps-Shark-Supports-Zion-gov-s-Official-Sandy-Hook-Story&p=781843&viewfull=1#post781843).

if you listen to http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/14/post/2016/01/how-to-spot-an-fbi-informant-glenn-canady-stew-webb-vinny-eastwood-expose-pete-santilli.html (45 mins), Vinny paints a pic a 'pattern' of PS endearing himself to protest groups, becomes a central point of contact, then screws the group over in some way.

[monty]

another comment (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1994)at the JFriend blog; a reply to my first comment; echos your sentiment. I don't listen to PS' shows at all, never have. One isolated exception, was when it came to my attention that PS interviewed Delphi-Deanna Sunstein-Spingola, and she said some self incriminating things; check #215 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?75243-Spingola-Jumps-Shark-Supports-Zion-gov-s-Official-Sandy-Hook-Story&p=781843&viewfull=1#post781843).

if you listen to http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/14/post/2016/01/how-to-spot-an-fbi-informant-glenn-canady-stew-webb-vinny-eastwood-expose-pete-santilli.html (45 mins), Vinny paints a pic a 'pattern' of PS endearing himself to protest groups, becomes a central point of contact, then screws the group over in some way.

I had never heard of Pete Santilli until this thing flared up in Oregon. I saw one of his videos and discovered he is the only one on site who is recording the events as they unfold. I have no opinion one way or the other about his personal motives.

[midnight rambler]

Now called the Harney County Resource Center. Awesome.

[PatColo]

JFriend:


http://therealistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Oregon-Standoff-2-420x300.jpg
(http://therealistreport.com/raw-video-interviews-at-oregonstandoff/) Raw Video Interviews at #OregonStandoff (http://therealistreport.com/raw-video-interviews-at-oregonstandoff/) January 10, 2016 (http://therealistreport.com/raw-video-interviews-at-oregonstandoff/) Leave a comment (http://therealistreport.com/raw-video-interviews-at-oregonstandoff/#respond)
Here are some raw video interviews I conducted at the #OregonStandoff currently taking place at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

[midnight rambler]

Oh shit!!1! We can't have our state actors parleying with the insurgents/militants!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aUuE3yEBVo8/UJgNonap-CI/AAAAAAAAFQ4/X_XEAsiOnJ0/s1600/barack_obama_frown.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5w99LTKEA0

[midnight rambler]

Appears to be positive developments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km1I8mmmhQU

[monty]

I think so, a good interview. Santilli needs to turn his cell phone off when doing interviews and to have his subject closer to the microphone.

[Jewboo]

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — The occupation of national wildlife area by a small, armed group upset over federal land policies stretched into its second week as the mother of the group's leader asked supporters to send supplies - everything from warm blankets to coffee creamer.

On Saturday, Ammon Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, sent an email to supporters asking them to send her son's group supplies from a list of more than 80 items, including sleeping bags, wool socks, cigarettes, toiletries, food, coffee and "French Vanilla Creamer."

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/science/article/Call-for-supplies-as-Oregon-standoff-enters-6749383.php



http://www.gopetfriendlyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Dog-and-Boys-Camping.jpg
We're outta smokes and creamer already Mommy!




:rolleyes: pussies

[Tumbleweed]

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — The occupation of national wildlife area by a small, armed group upset over federal land policies stretched into its second week as the mother of the group's leader asked supporters to send supplies - everything from warm blankets to coffee creamer.

On Saturday, Ammon Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, sent an email to supporters asking them to send her son's group supplies from a list of more than 80 items, including sleeping bags, wool socks, cigarettes, toiletries, food, coffee and "French Vanilla Creamer."

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/science/article/Call-for-supplies-as-Oregon-standoff-enters-6749383.php



http://www.gopetfriendlyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Dog-and-Boys-Camping.jpg
We're outta smokes and creamer already Mommy!




:rolleyes: pussies



Here's a story to go with your photo Jewboo from Ryan Bundy when he was in the third grade.




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

[monty]

Russia Today Press Just ended moments ago


http://youtu.be/C7QgJjCPFiA

[Jewboo]

Here's a story to go with your photo Jewboo from Ryan Bundy when he was in the third grade.





http://issuehawk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Screenshot-2014-08-29-at-12-530x299.png

I watched the video Tumbleweed. Most everyone already supports and agrees with the Bundy's NEVADA position back in 2014.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RywFrXs2_Zc/maxresdefault.jpg

Two years later here he is squatting on FEDERAL PARK LAND IN OREGON while his mom asks for donations of supplies from a list of more than 80 items, including sleeping bags, wool socks, cigarettes, toiletries, food, coffee and "French Vanilla Creamer."

:(?? FBI blockades the cigarettes and creamer and Bundy will fold in a week













https://elyriact.smugmug.com/Journalism/FBI-raids/i-bPk2P4j/0/M/FBI%20Raids_005-M.jpg


Sorry. No Marlboros or French Vanilla Creamer beyond this point.

[monty]

Live stream

http://youtu.be/6qlAOtWtqHE

[PatColo]

Here's a story to go with your photo Jewboo from Ryan Bundy when he was in the third grade.




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



I watched a few minutes of that; seems like a nice boy. But admittedly, I watched mostly coz I wanted to see if his face (deformity) is like that for real, or if he had a half can of chewin' tobacco in his left gum.

I got tired of waiting for him to spit, so I went to joogle images, https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=631&q=ryan+bundy&oq=ryan+bundy

It's so devastating to the psyche when real life cowboys don't look all pretty like the hollywood ones, or marlboro man, or even that big subliminal dick & balls face, Joe Camel! :(


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hG1mTz1mKKM/SdEck92k6wI/AAAAAAAAAAc/nQ1hdNGG8jU/s320/joe-camel-is-a-penis-says-edward-bernays.jpg

^ didn't see any "Cowboy Hat Joe Dickface Camel" images; https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=631&q=%22Joe+Camel%22+cowboy - guessing they wanted to stay away from any "Marlboro Man" image coz that was already taken; so they sought to keep dickface more a smooth urban smoothy. :)

[Tumbleweed]

I watched a few minutes of that; seems like a nice boy. But admittedly, I watched mostly coz I wanted to see if his face (deformity) is like that for real, or if he had a half can of chewin' tobacco in his left gum.

I got tired of waiting for him to spit, so I went to joogle images, https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=631&q=ryan+bundy&oq=ryan+bundy

It's so devastating to the psyche when real life cowboys don't look all pretty like the hollywood ones, or marlboro man, or even that big subliminal dick & balls face, Joe Camel! :(


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hG1mTz1mKKM/SdEck92k6wI/AAAAAAAAAAc/nQ1hdNGG8jU/s320/joe-camel-is-a-penis-says-edward-bernays.jpg

^ didn't see any "Cowboy Hat Joe Dickface Camel" images; https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=631&q=%22Joe+Camel%22+cowboy - guessing they wanted to stay away from any "Marlboro Man" image coz that was already taken; so they sought to keep dickface more a smooth urban smoothy. :)


He got run over by a car when he was seven years old. The wheel stopped on his head and the driver spun the tire when he took off again. He says he was conscious the whole time. There was some nerve damage and that's why his face droops on one side.

[Cebu_4_2]

Yep a ford LTD. Driver didn't know he ran him over.

[PatColo]

Russia Today Press Just ended moments ago


http://youtu.be/C7QgJjCPFiA


@ 2:15, "And, just to remind you, in this county, there is 11% unemployment, so that's about twice the level of that across the nation, ..."


11%, WOW!! lol. :D

Try ~23% unemployment across the nation, which if Makhuer were double, they'd be 46%... NOT 11% !! :(

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1452269812


^ Red U3 line says to grey U6 line: "So NICE to have those folks unemployed more than 6 months no longer being counted, and dropped from our fake jooz.gov score, eh?!" Grey line replies: "Yep, tossed off the backside of the slave-treadmill, they were! WE ARE, 'The Kosher-Recovery'... ROFL! :D "

Everyone trapped between the fake jooz.gov red line and the more accurate Shadowstats blue line, incl the truly 'underemployed', cry out: "More smokes & french vanilla creamer, plz!" :(

[PatColo]

He got run over by a car when he was seven years old. The wheel stopped on his head and the driver spun the tire when he took off again. He says he was conscious the whole time. There was some nerve damage and that's why his face droops on one side.


damn, sounds horrendous; hard to believe he survived!

also begs the question, given the nature of the "we don't take" values message he conveyed with his story in that interview; what if any 'reparation monies' did they settle up with at the end, above & beyond the out-of-pocket medical expenses? Pain & suffering? Lifetime facial deformity?

I'd wonder if Ryan's wearing a beard like his brother Ammon, would do anything to 'obscure' or 'camoflage' his deformity? Eh, prolly look worse, like a bad comb-over!


http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_01/1362396/160104-ammon-ryan-bundy-jsw-717a_fdf46b5b9c0cbb504ccc25520dad928d.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy speak with the press outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon.


Meet Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the Activists Leading the Oregon Standoff (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-ammon-ryan-bundy-activists-leading-oregon-standoff-n489766)

by Corky Siemaszko


Like father, like sons.

Ammon and Ryan Bundy, leaders of the gun-toting protesters who have occupied a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, learned defiance against the U.S. government from their dad, Cliven

Like their father, a Nevada rancher who became infamous in 2014 when he staged an armed standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cattle-battle-armed-protesters-join-fight-over-nevada-ranch-n79206), the Bundy brothers believe Washington is bent on gobbling up their land and that of other ranchers.

more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-ammon-ryan-bundy-activists-leading-oregon-standoff-n489766

[PatColo]

The banter over the Santilli question goes on @ JFriend's blog. "Patrick" posts (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-2010):



Patrick January 10, 2016 6:46 pm (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-2010)

http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9ae85daa3db748664a39f325039e253d?s=72&d=mm&r=g
Coincidently, Pete Santilli posted an update on Burns, OR this afternoon and at 5:30 mark he addresses not only the accusations against him, but the techniques used the spooks and kooks ((confirmed by the information released by Edward Snowden)) to divide and disrupt Internet groups, comments, and social media via FUD — Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. My words. I only know tech terms.


I am sure there is more, but I stopped the video so I could post this.


Check it out. It is only 20-minutes, so you might want to watch the entire clip.


Live Update Burns Oregon With Pete Santilli

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qlAOtWtqHE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qlAOtWtqHE

[Tumbleweed]

damn, sounds horrendous; hard to believe he survived!

also begs the question, given the nature of the "we don't take" values message he conveyed with his story in that interview; what if any 'reparation monies' did they settle up with at the end, above & beyond the out-of-pocket medical expenses? Pain & suffering? Lifetime facial deformity?



I would doubt that there were "reparation monies". I've lived and worked around people like the Bunds my whole life that are good, hard working honest people that wouldn't think of suing someone over an accident. They get on with their lives and don't feel sorry for themselves. No one makes fun of them either. When those things happen the communities they live in will have fund raisers organized by their friends and neighbors to pay bills. There have been many in the community where I live.

[mick silver]

Hammonds’ range fire prosecution: a deeper lookNews


Aug 7, 2015


by Theodora Johnson, WLJ Correspondent (https://wlj.net/by-author-208-1.html)





















https://wlj.net/images/BattleMountainBurn.1395.jpgGrazing supporters hail the return of cattle to the North Buffalo allotment in the Battle Mountain region, saying it will reduce potentially dangerous fuel loads in the area. Wild fires are a serious threat in the normally dry and currently drought-stricken.
Nevada BLM

Most citizens hope for a good government that will do the right thing. Perhaps this is why the story of the Hammond family and their fight against the U.S. government is catching the attention of a growing number of American citizens. In the July 13 issue, WLJ reported that the Hammonds—a long-time ranching family in eastern Oregon—were prosecuted by the federal government for having started two range fires on their property that spread onto Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.
Two men from the Hammond family have already spent time in federal prison for the fires. Now the federal government is demanding that they go back to prison. Given the questions raised by the story, a more in-depth investigation is warranted.
Review of the facts
BLM filed charges against the Hammonds back in 2012. The federal prosecutor chose to prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Anti-terrorism Act).
The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.
The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.
The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.
They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.
In the criminal case, the Hammond pair face a re-sentencing on Oct. 7. Chief Judge Ann Aiken of the District Court of Oregon will decide whether, and for how long, the men may go back to prison.
How is this possible, after the trial court made its decision and the men served their sentence? The answer is two-pronged. First, the federal government chose to prosecute Hammonds under the Antiterrorism Act, which bears a five-year “mandatory minimum” prison sentence for offenders. Second: the federal government was unsatisfied with the less-than-five-year sentence handed down by the trial court, and decided to appeal.
In the first instance, why did the federal government choose to prosecute under an anti-terrorism statute? A reading of the court documents does not provide a clear answer. The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted following the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in the 1990s. Legislative history shows the law’s purpose is to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” More specific pur poses
include authorizing federal courts to hear claims against “terrorist governments for acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens...” and revising criminal laws regarding “unlawful possession, use, transfer, and trafficking in nuclear materials and biological and chemical weapons.”
The government originally attempted to prosecute the father and son for nine violations of the Anti-terrorism Act. The trial court found Hammonds guilty on only two counts: for having started the 2001 prescribed burn and the 2006 back-burn. The guilty charges came under section 844(f) of the Act, which calls for a minimum of five years in prison for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property [of] the United States…” However, the judge andjury appeared to be conflicted over applying the Anti-terrorism Act’s full force. As noted by Judge Michael Hogan of the District Court, Hammonds’ fires likely rejuvenated and improved the federal range. Indeed, it would defy logic to expect Hammonds to purposefully and “maliciously” damage their own BLM allotments.
Of importance, too, was the trial court’s finding that no lives were endangered or harmed by the fires—which, under the Anti-terrorism Act, would have meant a minimum prison sentence of seven years.
Government’s appeal points
When then-U.S. Attorney for Oregon S. Amanda Marshall submitted her appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the stated goal was to get a “re-sentencing”—not to reopen the case or challenge the trial court’s findings of guilt. Below are the main arguments in the government’s appeal:
• Lack of constitutional authority – Marshall first challenged the district court judge’s authority under the Constitution to give Hammonds a sentence shorter than the five-year term required by the Anti-terrorism Act. Judge Hogan had said that a five-year sentence would have violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution by inflicting “a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here...”
• Offenders need not be terrorists – The government’s appeal stated, “the fact that they are ranchers who set fire to rangeland and not terrorists adds nothing to the analysis.” The government’s admittance, here, that Hammonds “are ranchers” and “not terrorists” may give question as to why the government chose to prosecute them under an anti-terrorism statute. Judge Hogan had called Hammonds “pillars” of their community. Marshall recognized this in her appeal, but argued it wasn’t enough to “disregard” the arson charges.

• Malicious intent and “endangerment” argument –The U.S. Attorney’s appeal stated that Hammonds had “maliciously damaged federal property by fire” and that “lives…were adversely affected by fire.” But the trial court had found that the fires had endangered no one. Instead of simply asking for a re-sentencing, it appears the federal government may be seeking to reopen the facts of the case by bringing up the already-decided “endangerment” question.
• Similar sentences for theft and drug possession – The government’s appeal cited two examples where the Supreme Court “affirmed much lengthier sentences” for “far more innocuous crimes.” One such crime was theft of golf clubs under California’s “Three-Strikes” law. Another crime was a conviction of cocaine possession. The U.S. Attorney’s appeal seems to argue that, like thieves and drug offenders, the Hammonds should serve the full mandatory term.
Fallout
Hammonds’ case has caused alarm among other ranchers. Dustin Van Liew of the Public Lands Council (PLC), a national organization representing ranchers with public land grazing rights, said that PLC intends to work with Congress to fix the Anti-terrorism Act “so that it’s not applied to such cases in the future.”
But it seems a growing number of Americans are beginning to recognize an over-criminalization problem that stretches far beyond the ranching community. In fact, Congress has been moved to act. Just last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6) announced a criminal justice reform initiative. The initiative has bipartisan support, including the support of the Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH8).
Chairman Goodlatte has gone on record criticizing the “ever-increasing labyrinth of federal statutes and regulations, many of which impose criminal penalties without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt.”
“We need to make sure,” Goodlatte continued, “our laws and regulations protect freedom [and] work as efficiently and fairly as possible...”
Is the Hammond case an example of a government that protects freedom and operates fairly? That’s for the citizens to decide. — Theodora Johnson, WLJ Correspondent







Comments https://wlj.net/article-permalink-11862.html

[mick silver]

On April 24, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1 996) into law. This act was introduced by Senator Bob Dole, and it had bi-partisan support. It passed the Senate with a vote of 91 to 8 and passed in the House of Representatives with a vote of 293 to 133. Not unlike the Patriot Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act), this act was introduced and passed in response to terror attacks, both the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred Murrah building in 1995. The stated purposes of the act (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/pdf/PLAW-104publ132.pdf) are to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.”
In the years between the two bombings, the panic-inducing rhetoric was in full swing over home-grown, right-wing extremist, anti-government terrorism (not unlike today). Of course, Timothy McVeigh played into that perfectly with a Ryder truck with home-made fertilizer bombs in the back. It is easy to see, after that bombing, how law makers on all sides would want to be viewed as doing their part to fight terrorism.
Since 1996, the existence of this law, and its use, seems to have been largely under-reported. I have not been able to find out just how often it has been used in prosecution to date. David Cole (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/cole-david-d.cfm#), lawyer and Georgetown University Law Professor, in an interview on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/1/supreme_court_to_take_up_patriot) discussing possible revisions to the Patriot Act in 2009 said:

This law was passed, as you indicated, in 1996, but it really was left unenforced until September 11th. Since September 11th, however, it’s been a favorite tool of the government. There have been over a hundred prosecutions. And the reason it’s the favorite tool is precisely because it doesn’t require the government to prove up that an individual actually is connected to any kind of terrorist activity. It allows them to paint with a broad brush.
It is a very broad brush indeed.
In 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) filed charges against Dwight and Steven Hammond, a father and son and long time residents and ranchers in Harney County, Oregon. The Hammonds were prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. What was this act of terror committed by the Hammonds? Well, Dwight and Steven Hammond were charged with, and they admitted to, setting two fires on their land which subsequently spread to federal land. Admittedly, there is a lot of background to this case, including questions surrounding the two fires and a long history of protests and threats, and I am working on another post that will go into greater detail on those. But, for now, lets look at the two fires in question, and consider how these acts qualified the Hammonds for prosecution under this broad law.
The first fire was lit in 2001. According to the Western Livestock Journal (https://wlj.net/article-permalink-11862.html), it was a prescribed burn that spread to 139 acres of BLM land. From court documents (https://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf):

At trial, historical data and testimony established a long-standing plan between the Hammonds and their BLM range conservationist to burn off invasive species on the “School Section” of the Hammonds’ property. ER-316-18. Fire is a tool regularly used by the BLM to rehabilitate grazing lands.
Defendants had acknowledged intentionally setting a fire on September 30, 2001 to burn off invasive species on the School Section, which then spread to approximately 139 acres of adjacent public land (the “Hardie-Hammond Allotment”). ER-287, 243.
At trial, the government presented evidence that the fire was set in
a manner designed to spread on to the public land, and had endangered members of the Hammonds’ party.
The “endangered members” part is referencing testimony during the trial of Dwight and Steven Hammond by Dusty Hammond, Dwight Hammond’s grandson. This OPB article (http://www.opb.org/news/article/hammond_witness_describes_setting_fire_in_2001/) says:


Nearly 11 years after the fact, Dusty Hammond recalled for a jury Wednesday in a U.S. District Court how he stumbled through juniper and sagebrush to escape a fire bearing down on him, a fire he helped set.
Hammond, 24, softspoken and clean cut, explained how his first-ever deer hunt near Frenchglen turned to arson after his uncle Steve Hammond passed out boxes of strike-anywhere matches to the four-man hunting party.
“Light the whole countryside on fire,” Dusty said his uncle told him. “I started lighting matches.”
Afterwards, he said, over lunch his grandfather and uncle instructed him to “keep my mouth shut; nobody needed to know anything about the fire.”

It has been reported that this fire was started to cover up evidence of poaching on federal land by the Hammonds.
The second fire that plays a role in the Hammonds’ case was lit in 2006. This fire is said to have been started as a back burn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn) to protect the Hammond’s winter feed from fires that were ignited by lightning. Court documents say:

The facts of this fire are straight forward. The Ninth Circuit stated:
In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.


So there you have it. Poaching deer and destroying the evidence with fire, lighting fires without the proper notification in an attempt to save property in what may well have been an emergency response, burning a total of 140 acres of federally held land. Regardless of the Hammond’s history (http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582) of conflict with the BLM and the federal government (I’ll get into that in my upcoming post), it seems like a stretch to say that these are crimes that should be prosecuted under the anti-terrorism act. Also, as I will get into here, the Hammonds were not prosecuted for the charges related to their previous threats and actions against federal employees, which could arguably be considered terrorism under the legal definition (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331):





(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.


According to this (http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20100622/NEWS02/6220310) report in 2010, the Hammonds were originally indicted on 19 counts, “charges that include conspiracy, arson, depredation of federal property, threatening federal officers, and tampering with a witness.”

Two years later, according to this (http://www.capitalpress.com/content/P2-EastOreg--harney-county-ranc) article, they were brought to trial, now facing nine counts.

A federal indictment charges the pair with nine counts, including conspiracy and setting illegal fires on federal grazing land, fires that coincided or contributed to the Hardie Hammond, Lower Bridge Creek and Krumbo Butte fires.
One count alleges witness tampering, a charge Papagni [prosecutor in the Hammonds’ case] said stems from a confrontation in Frenchglen between Steve Hammond and Joe Glascock, a rangeland conservation manager who suspected the Hammonds of setting rangeland fires. Hammond in 2006 told Glascock: ‘This could get ugly, and this could be a sticky situation,’ the prosecutor told jurors. ‘You set those fires, not me.’


This (http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html) July 2015 article states:

BLM pressed charges for the above-mentioned fires, citing endangerment of human lives and damage to federal property. However, the district court found that no one had been endangered by the fires, and that the fires had caused minimal damage. In fact, the court found, the fire had arguably increased the value of the land for grazing.

The jury deliberated, and agreed that the Hammonds were guilty on two of the nine counts, for the 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire and the 2006 Krumbo Butte fire, but could not agree on the remaining seven charges. A plea agreement was made, the Hammonds would not contest the two charges if the remaining charges were dropped. Again from the July 2015 article (http://www.tsln.com/news/17302049-113/story.html):


In determining the Hammonds’ sentences, Judge Hogan had decided that applying the “mandatory minimum” of five years cited in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act would ‘shock the conscience…’ He referenced the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, ‘Excessive bail shall not be required…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.’
To call for five years’ imprisonment, he said, ‘would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here…’ He said that Hammonds’ actions ‘could not have been conduct intended under [the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]…’ Judge Hogan used his discretion under the Eighth Amendment to sentence Dwight (now 74) to three months in prison, followed by three years’ “supervised release.” Dwight’s son Steven (45), father of three, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison—also to be followed by three years’ “supervised release.”

The Hammonds were ordered to surrender their firearms, and Dwight Hammond’s pilot’s license was revoked. In a separate settlement (http://www.pahvantpost.com/what-do-you-know-about-the-hammond-ranching-case-in-oregon/), they were fined $400,000.00 by the BLM for damages and they had their grazing permits withheld. However, for the US Department of Justice, this wasn’t enough.
Judge Hogan’s decision to sentence the Hammonds to prison time of less than five years challenged the federal government’s mandatory minimum sentencing structure. It challenged the use of the anti-terrorism act to prosecute the ranchers. The prosecutor in the case, Assistant US Attorney Frank Papagni, said this (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/10/federal-district-judge-refuses-to-apply-arson-mandatory-minimum-on-constitutional-grounds.html):

“Congress decided that this particular offense should carry a mandatory, statutory minimum term of five years,” Papagni wrote in the government’s sentencing memo. “The evidence of defendants’ guilt was substantial. The jury’s verdict of guilt for this particular offense mandates imposition of the required statutory minimum term, as the statute constrains this court’s discretion.”
In the comment section of the same article, I found the following two comments to be especially interesting.

Has an appellate court ever decided that a particular sentence under the USSG [United States Sentencing Guide] is grossly disproportionate to the crime? I don’t think so. It would open a huge can of worms and possibly undermine the entire federal sentencing scheme. I think that it being the judges last day and that these were decent white ranchers had more to do with this decision than anything else.
and:
From the government’s point of view, assuring that judges obey MM’s [mandatory minimum] is a paramount interest. That’s why it will appeal this. To do otherwise is to virtually send the other district judges a gold-plated invitation to deviate from the MM when they want to.
The US Department of Justice appealed the ruling, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Oregon US District Court. In the appeal, according to this article (https://wlj.net/article-permalink-11862.html), the government admits it doesn’t have to prove that someone is committing acts of terror when they state:

“the fact that they are ranchers who set fire to rangeland and not terrorists adds nothing to the analysis.”
Also in the appeal (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/07/12-30337.pdf), the government uses the following disturbing examples of mandatory minimum sentences as justification: 25 years for the theft of three golf clubs; 50 years to life for stealing nine videotapes; 40 years for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute; life sentence for obtaining $120.75 under false pretenses (what?!); 430 months for using arson in commission of a felony; and so on. Because let’s see, one, two, three…many wrongs make a right, right?
Chief Judge Ann Aiken over-ruled Hogan’s sentence, and declared the Hammonds would have to return to prison and serve what remained of the mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
Dwight and Steven Hammond have returned to prison, but the re-sentencing sparked a protest rally in Burns, Oregon on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The peaceful protest was subsequently over-shadowed by a takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters by non-local militia members who claim to have done so to demand that the Hammonds be released and the refuge lands be returned to the area ranchers. You can read my thoughts on this take-over and stand off here (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/01/05/has-a-peaceful-protest-over-government-over-reach-been-corrupted-by-outside-influence-in-burns-oregon/), as well as a similar perspective here (http://stopimperialism.org/is-the-oregon-occupation-being-stage-managed/).
In the vast majority of the reporting and social media noise about this situation, very few are talking about the use of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty law in the prosecution of the Hammonds. In my opinion, this case has demonstrated the government’s willingness to expand the use of this law in its efforts to shut down dissent of federal policies. Ranchers angry over the increasing restrictions on their livelihood, pushed to the point of what has sometimes been destructive and threatening protest, can effectively be sentenced as terrorists. And, as we know, terrorists are very, very scary.
The take-over of the Malheur refuge has created a distracting and extremely divisive debate here in America. In public opinion it seems that protests over police killings, which have also involved arson in the past, are acceptable because it involves racism and is a matter of authorities violating the rights of African Americans (and I 100% agree that rights are not just being violated, but entirely obliterated, racism is a problem, and I do support those protest movements) while the protests of frustrated ranchers over perceived violations of their land use rights by Federal authorities is unacceptable and labeled as terrorism. In fact, both are about the violations of the rights and freedoms of Americans. Consider a comparison different than the one the media is currently pushing with this quote from a 2001 article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/shovel-rebellion):

“They [rural land owners] are neglected by the state and by the federal government, and they’re mad,” says Eric Herzik, a political scientist at the University of Nevada. “They’re out of the loop; decisions get made for them. It’s not unlike inner cities, whose needs don’t get heard until there’s violence.”
While we argue and call names loudly over this stand off and those involved in it, the government has quietly set a precedence of using its very broad anti-terrorism law and its ability and willingness to set and enforce mandatory minimum sentences under that law. Regardless of who is sentenced, and for what.

Consider the following from an ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/freedom-under-fire-dissent-post-911-america) report as you think about that.

There is a pall over our country. In separate but related attempts to squelch dissent, the government has attacked the patriotism of its critics, police have barricaded and jailed protesters, and the New York Stock Exchange has revoked the press credentials of the most widely watched television network in the Arab world. A chilling message has gone out across America: Dissent if you must, but proceed at your own risk.
Government-sanctioned intolerance has even trickled into our private lives. People brandishing anti-war signs or slogans have been turned away from commuter trains in Seattle and suburban shopping malls in upstate New York. Cafeterias are serving “freedom fries.” Country music stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs, and the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled an event featuring “Bull Durham” stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, after they spoke out against the war on Iraq.
Compounding the offense is the silence from many lawmakers. There is palpable fear even in the halls of Congress of expressing an unpopular view.
No matter how you feel about the presence of those scary guns at the Malheur Refuge, and no matter how you feel about environmental stewardship, and no matter how you feel about inner city people or rural people or race or racism, it is time to look beyond all that and look at the underlying problems we are all facing. It is past time to admit we have allowed our government to step way out of its boundaries. Each time we ignore cases like the Hammonds’, every time we give up rights of our own or others, we slide a little closer to fascism.

[mick silver]

http://seekingredress.com/

[monty]

The map shows most of the land west of the Rocky Mountains is controled by the feds.

Notice in Nevada most privately owned land is along Interstate 80. That is land that was granted to the railroad to complete the Central Pacific Railroad which became the first cross country railroad. The government granted alternate sections of land in a checkerboard pattern along the route. They also granted land to the University of Nevada at Reno. I believe they granted land for schools also. Nevada, Unlike the other states was coerced into agreeing to give up its public land to the feds prior to statehood in order to become a state with less than the 60,000 population required. This was written in the enabling act.



The Nevada Constitution includes an “Ordinance” section that adopts the requirements of the congressional Enabling Act. A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own “unappropriated land” within the state, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757#ixzz3wxPChG3K


http://s27.postimg.org/667i05fk3/image.jpg

[mick silver]

Federal control of western land: two perspectivesShare Th




Tags
Nevada (http://nsnbc.me/tag/nevada/)Oregon (http://nsnbc.me/tag/oregon/)USA (http://nsnbc.me/tag/usa/)Utah (http://nsnbc.me/tag/utah/)Washington D.C. (http://nsnbc.me/tag/washington-d-c/)


Keiter & Nelson (TC) : Why are many people – including the militiamen occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon – angry that the federal government owns almost half of the land in the American West? We consulted two experts on public lands and natural resources about the longstanding controversies over federal control of public lands.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Grand-Staircase-Escalante-National-Monument-Utah.-Achill-Family_Flickr-CC-BY_TC-300x225.jpg (http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Grand-Staircase-Escalante-National-Monument-Utah.-Achill-Family_Flickr-CC-BY_TC.jpg)Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah. Achill Family/Flickr, CC BY

Robert Keiter, Professor of Law at the University of Utah: The fact that public lands cover much of the West is a recipe for conflict over national and local values. Many rural western communities earn major revenues from public lands, so federal efforts to manage these lands more actively have historically provoked negative responses. The 1970s Sagebrush Rebellion (https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/series/development-of-western-resources/978-0-7006-0613-9.html) and the 1990s County Supremacy Movement (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/16/us/court-puts-down-rebellion-over-control-of-federal-land.html) are examples.Changes at the national and international levels in recent decades have altered federal land management policies and reduced activities such as logging, mining and livestock grazing that provide revenues to western communities. Demographically, the West is the nation’s fastest-growing (http://wrdc.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/pub__5817878.pdf) and most urban (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html) region. Newcomers with strong environmental values are moving in and diversifying western state economies. In many ranching communities, wealthy outsiders who don’t share local residents’ values or concerns are buying up ranches. And when the federal government designates land for new national parks and wilderness areas, it puts those acres off-limits for traditional activities.Laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act have increased regulation of public lands over the past several decades. And the courts have become more involved in public land controversies. These changes fuel local anger toward the federal government because critics see them as threats to rural western communities and lifestyles.Robert Nelson, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Maryland: The West has historically been more ambivalent about federal ownership of western land than current rhetoric might suggest. Perhaps the truest statement ever made about the West and its attitude to the large federal presence there is, “Go away and give us more money.”Today westerners of all political stripes resolutely oppose proposals to privatize public lands. At the same time, they are increasingly willing to consider transferring federal lands to the states or other steps that would radically decentralize management authority while keeping land in public ownership. I have recently proposed, for example, the creation of “charter forests (http://www.perc.org/articles/charter-forests-new-management-approach-national-forests),” modeled after urban charter schools.From the western point of view, however, rather than going away, federal control has been steadily tightening, especially under the Obama administration. Most public land decisions involve deep conflicts over competing values, such as economic development versus protecting and restoring nature in its historic natural condition. An example would be choosing whether to build a ski resort or establish a mountain wilderness. This means that nationally based values, most forcefully advocated by the environmental movement, often are coercively imposed on rural westerners who have very different values. In some cases these conflicts can even take on a quasi-religious character (http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03581-9.html).Elsewhere in the United States, where there is far less federal land, similarly deep value conflicts are much more frequently resolved among state and local governments and private land-owners. This discrepancy is a major reason why rural westerners believe that they are being treated unequally and unjustly. Moreover, federal land management in the West has become increasingly dysfunctional, reflecting wider trends at the federal level. And in recent years the federal government has had less money to send to the West. The federal-state mutual accord has been federally and unilaterally abrogated.What does the Constitution say about federal land ownership? Where have courts come down on this question?Robert Keiter: Article Four of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the “Power to … make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the … Property belonging to the United States.” Most of the West’s lands were originally acquired by the national government by purchase or treaties from foreign nations that originally claimed them from Native Americans.Congress enacted laws such as the Homestead Acts that created mechanisms for transferring these lands into private ownership. But in the 1890s Congress started keeping forest lands in federal ownership in order to conserve watersheds and timber resources. When this decision was challenged, the Supreme Court upheld (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/220/523) Congress’ power to create forest reservations and rejected the argument that continued federal ownership of these lands intruded on state sovereignty. More recently, the Supreme Court affirmed (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5533598699102508441&q=kleppe+v.+New+Mexico+426+U.S.+529&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006&as_vis=1) in 1976 that “the power over the public land entrusted to Congress is without limitations.”Robert Nelson: Over the past several decades, some leading American scholars have increasingly questioned the current system. For example, Roger Sedjo, director of the forest economics and policy program at Resources for the Future (http://www.rff.org/home), questioned in 2000 (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/sedjo.pdf) whether the U.S. Forest Service still had a clear mission. The longtime dean of American political scientists studying the public lands, Sally Fairfax at the University of California at Berkeley, has raised similar questions. These are inherently political, but that has not stopped the Supreme Court before from interjecting itself into issues such as the proper role of the federal government in the West under the American federal system.Robert Keiter: It is worth noting that except for some national parks, the states share legal authority with the federal government over national forests and other federal lands under the concept of concurrent jurisdiction. So state laws and policies generally govern wildlife and water management on the federal lands. Western congressional delegations closely supervise federal land management agencies, including the agencies’ budgets. Many of the problems that Robert Nelson alludes to regarding the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management can be traced to congressional budget cuts and Congress’ reluctance to provide the agencies with a separate budget for fighting wildfires on public lands, which has become extremely costly in recent years.Are there examples of peaceful land transfers from federal ownership back to state or local control?Robert Keiter: President Herbert Hoover sought to transfer public lands to the western states during the early 1930s, but western governors rejected those efforts because the federal offer did not include mineral deposits underneath the land. But it is hard to imagine that Congress would agree to transfer federally owned minerals to the states or local governments. Coal, oil and gas development provide billions of dollars in revenue for the national treasury, and these energy sources also are important to national security.However, the federal government has carried out major land exchanges with individual states, most notably Arizona in the 1980s and Utah in the 1990s. These exchanges eliminated checkerboard ownership patterns that made it hard to manage federal resources efficiently.The real solution is to engage westerners in resource management decisions through collaborative initiatives that let people voice their interests and concerns as part of an inclusive decision-making process. These types of initiatives have successfully addressed numerous conflicts across the West and ensured that local concerns are reflected in resource management decisions.Congress also should stabilize the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes system, so that western states receive funds that have been promised them to compensate for federal lands not subject to local property taxes. And federal land agencies should consider keeping managers in the same location for longer periods of time so they can build relationships with local residents.Robert Nelson: I agree that land exchanges are a useful incremental step, but they also illustrate federal land management dysfunction. It typically takes many years to work out an agreement, and sometimes Congress has to intervene to complete exchanges that may not involve more than a few hundred acres.I also agree that the historic relationship between western states and the federal government is more complicated than it might seem. When I worked in the Interior Department in the early 1980s, I learned that the Sagebrush Rebellion was mostly western political rhetoric that sought to reverse four years of actions by President Jimmy Carter’s administration and reestablish the old system, where the federal government followed western wishes and sent the states more money.But times may have changed. Utah recently produced a detailed study (http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1.%20Land%20Transfer%20Analysis%20Final%20Report.p df) of the practical implications of transferring “ordinary” public lands (not including national parks or wilderness areas) within Utah to state control. Using the state’s data, I estimate that if federal surface lands and mineral rights in Utah had been transferred to the state in 2012, the federal government would have saved about [about] million annually starting in 2013, and Utah would have incurred an added fiscal burden of about US$100 million. Contrary to Robert Keiter’s suggestion, the federal government could give away all of its mineral rights, and still benefit fiscally from a large-scale transfer of federal lands to the state of Utah.If I lived in Utah, I would call $100 million a year a cheap price for my “freedom.” Moreover, with better land management and less cumbersome federal regulation, it would probably not take long for Utah to start earning a good profit on those lands.Robert Keiter: As for a possible transfer of federal lands to the state of Utah, it is not at all clear how the state would manage the lands. To pay the basic management costs, however, the state would have to promote extensive mineral development at the expense of other resource values. And even then the state would face a significant revenue shortfall at current oil and natural gas prices, and even if these prices went up well beyond current levels. Further, there are no mechanisms under state law for the public to participate in land planning and project decisions. I recently coauthored a paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2555922) on this issue which concluded that management of previously public lands would change dramatically because states would struggle to offset millions of dollars in new management costs, and thus would prioritize commodity production over resource protection. ​Robert B. Keiter & Robert H. Nelson, The Conversation (http://theconversation.com/federal-control-of-western-land-two-perspectives-52793) – Robert B. Keiter is Wallace Stegner Professor of Law, University Distinguished Professor, University of Utah. Robert H. Nelson is Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland.Disclosure statement
Robert B. Keiter serves on several non-profit boards, including the National Parks Conservation Association, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition. – Robert Nelson is affiliated with the Property and Environmental Research Center (PERC) where he has attended past conferences and for whom he has written policy papers relating to federal lands. .Related article:Oregon Standoff, Public Land, Federal Land and Demonizing Militia (http://nsnbc.me/2016/01/10/oregon-standoff-public-land-federal-land-and-demonizing-militia/)
Share:

Share (http://nsnbc.me/2016/01/11/federal-control-of-western-land-two-perspectives/#)

[Jewboo]

http://i2.wp.com/johngaltfla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SOCALLED_OREGON_PREPPERS.jpg?resize=540%2C720












http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nelson-Muntz-haha.jpeg
Pussies

[monty]

Jan 11, 2 hours


http://youtu.be/sC_EO5eBG94

[monty]

Santilli booted out of Burns, Oregon town meeting @ 41 minutes



http://youtu.be/mwnNF6W4wHs

[mick silver]

Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Says Throw the Book at Bundy and the Oregon OccupiersQueen of corruption declares civil disobedience and exercising Second Amendment dangerous Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - January 11, 2016 324 Comments (http://www.infowars.com/hypocrite-hillary-clinton-says-throw-the-book-at-bundy-and-the-oregon-occupiers/#disqus_thread)

http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/clinton-bootie.jpg (http://www.infowars.com/hypocrite-hillary-clinton-says-throw-the-book-at-bundy-and-the-oregon-occupiers/)


1.4K

40
4






Hillary Clinton told the Las Vegas Sun (http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/07/qa-hillary-clinton-nevada-solar-fight-yucca-bundy/) last week Ammond Bundy and the occupiers in Oregon should be arrested and prosecuted.“They should leave—leave peacefully—but they should be charged for the illegal action they have undertaken, trespassing, breaking and entering and the like,” Clinton said.
She also said the occupiers are “potentially posing a threat to law enforcement and civilians” despite the fact they have not used violence and have stated repeatedly they do not plan on using violence unless attacked by the government.
The newspaper should have asked Clinton how Bundy and crew might be prosecuted for trespassing when the federal government has no legal right to own land beyond what is specified in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.



Of course, we should not expect a newspaper published by a man who was a college roommate of Hillary’s husband and who was a house guest during a Clinton fundraising trip to southern Nevada to ask those sort of questions.
Clinton’s condemnation of a handful of ranchers engaging in civil disobedience should be compared with her own penchant for lawlessness, corruption and ineptitude.
Naturally all of the following—with the exception of the email scandal—are off-limits.

Clinton’s email scandal may ultimately derail her presidential bid. The FBI is looking into whether classified and top secret material found its way onto her private email server. “The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova (http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-says-former-us-attorney/), formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told Laura Ingraham last week. Bob Woodward (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429526/hillarys-e-mail-scandal-grows-latest-batch-shows-she-broke-rules-again) says the scandal is on par with Watergate.
Clinton sold seats on a trade mission to China (http://www.independentsentinel.com/lest-we-forget-hillarys-china-gate-scandal/) when her husband was president. The funds were allegedly used in 1996 for the Clinton-Gore campaign. Due to arm twisting by Democrats, joint congressional hearings on the matter were canceled.
Clinton wrecked the career of Billy Dale (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/how-hillary-clinton-sicced-the-fbi-on-the-white-house-travel-office/), the head of the travel office. Clinton had the FBI investigate and the IRS audit Dale so the Clintons could replace Dale and his staff with cronies from Arkansas.
Hillary and Bill were involved in a shady real estate deal with Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960602.htm). Accusations surfaced about improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Partners James and Susan McDougal went to jail for fraud. Clinton’s successor in Arkansas, Governor Jim Tucker, was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh who worked with James McDougal.
Questions remain unresolved in the alleged suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster, the “man who knew too much (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508210/The-man-knew-The-truth-death-Hillary-Clintons-close-friend-Vince-Foster.html).”
Clinton realized a bonanza in a commodity trade (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barbara-olson-on-hillarys-cattle-futures) with financial services company REFCO. Robert L. “Red” Bone had to pay a large fine for allowing the trade and was suspended for three years. It was the largest fine at the time in the exchanges history. Asked about the trade Clinton said she made out on the deal because she read The Wall Street Journal.
In 2008 Norman Yung Yuen Hsu (https://stophernow.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/hillary-clinton-the-paw-family-and-norman-hsu/) contributed to Hillary’s campaign. Hsu was convicted and sentenced to more than 24 years in prison the following year for his role in an investment Ponzi scheme.
Jorge Cabrera (http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=390), a convicted drug dealer, made a large donation to the Clinton campaign and was invited to the White House.
Clinton’s role in Benghazi (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426289/hillary-clinton-obama-benghazi-lie) alone should make her ineligible to run for president. As an interesting aside, a movie about Benghazi does not mention Clinton (http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/hillary-clinton-not-mentioned-in-new-film-about-benghazi-attack/) despite her role at the center of the scandal.


Clinton’s hypocrisy and criminal dealings are not and will not be brought up during the campaign. As a favored minion of the elite, her crimes are off-limits with one exception—Donald Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-fbi-hillary-clinton-email-217571).If elected, Clinton’s scandals and dirty dealings combined will over shadow the Credit Mobilier scandal of 1868, the Whiskey Ring scandal during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, and the Teapot Dome scandal during the tenure of Warren G. Harding (like Clinton, Harding was notorious for multiple scandals) and Watergate and Iran-Contra as well.

[monty]

Tear down this fence

http://youtu.be/1E3DXGO6D6E


http://youtu.be/eVM5ck1k3nM

[monty]

Jan 12 update 2, 3 hours


http://youtu.be/1VwNOD6VyYw

[monty]

Ammon Bundy daily update


http://youtu.be/Q-XiRb_o58E

[monty]

Ammon Bundy breaks his silence.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/12/ammon-bundy-breaks-his-silence-with-dave-hodges-hear-his-side-of-the-story/

Ammon Bundy Breaks His Silence with Dave Hodges, Hear His Side of the Story

12Jan, 2016by Dave Hodges (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/author/admindave/)
Print this article (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/12/ammon-bundy-breaks-his-silence-with-dave-hodges-hear-his-side-of-the-story/print)Font size - (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/12/ammon-bundy-breaks-his-silence-with-dave-hodges-hear-his-side-of-the-story/#font-size-down)16+ (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/12/ammon-bundy-breaks-his-silence-with-dave-hodges-hear-his-side-of-the-story/#font-size-up)





http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2016/01/a-bundy.jpg (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2016/01/a-bundy.jpg)
Ammon Bundy, leading the way for the restoration of property rights for ranchers and Native Americans in the West.burn


On January 10, 2016, Ammon Bundy was to have been a guest on The Common Sense Show.


The Common Sense Show interviewed Ammon Bundy and this time, the feds were not able to interfere. This interview came the day after the feds took down the communications of The Common Sense Show as well as the Patriots led by Ammon Bundy.

Both the established contact with the Bundy camp and the facilitation of the interviewed was secured by the health reporter of The Common Sense Show, Katy Whelan.

The show, itself, began as an interview with Sheila Ziliniski and we discussed some of the content of her recent book, The Green Gospel (http://www.weekendvigilante.com/). After a great deal of difficulty, and two days of chasing this rare interview opportunity, Katy was able secure the interview and I was forced to terminate the interview with Sheila. However, Sheila graciously stayed on board and assisted with the interview.


Mainstream Media Deception


To date, Fox and CNN have been the primary outlets carrying Patriots ordeal 30 miles outside of Burns, Oregon. As one would have expected, the mainstream media (MSM) has characterized the Patriots, led by Ammon Bundy, as a bunch of radicalized domestic terrorists, when in fact, the opposite is true. And whenever, the MSM has interviewed Bundy, they have controlled the narrative (i.e. domestic terrorists looking for a fight with the federal government). The MSM has the substantiative issues connected to the Hammond imprisonment. First, the Hammonds had federal permission to conduct a controlled burn on their property. The burn did get out of control and drifted onto vacant federal land. Nobody was hurt, no structures were damaged. Yet, the federal prosecutors, in a case of prosecutorial abuse, tried the father-son duo for arson, but under the domestic terrorist statutes. How can someone be identified as a terrorist when they are carrying out a controlled burn with the permission of the federal government? This ignored, yet, undeniable fact, is why

NOBODY SHOULD EVER WATCH ONE MINUTE OF THE MSM NEWS!

American Patriots to the Rescue


The MSM has portrayed Bundy camp as crazed men, hunkered down looking through the slits in sandbags just itching for a fight with the FBI. In actuality, Bundy described the workings of an office full of workers who are carrying out the work community activists, similar to the only job that President Obama held prior to getting into politics.


During the course of the interview, Ammon made the case that the federal prosecutors violated Double Jeopardy when dealing with the Hammonds. He also made the case that the role of his men was to correct the abuses against ranchers and farmers by the departments of the federal government (e.g. BLM). They are reviewing land titles, mineral rights documents and seeing that these agreements are carried out. For example, he told the audience of how they freed the unjustly encumbered land of a rancher by removing a fence placed on the private land of a rancher by Fish and Wildlife. The fence was illegally interfering with the rancher’s right to conduct economic activity on their land. In fact, it can be said, the Bundy led patriots are the only lawful group in the area as these kinds of property rights abuses are being carried by the federal government against thousands of ranchers and farmers in the West.



http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2014/08/agenda-21-map-300x217.jpg (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2014/08/agenda-21-map.jpg)Put this map into your GPS, it will tell where you soon cannot go. The UN’s manifestation of forcing people into stack and pack cities. This map spells the demise of American ranchers and farmer as well as Native Americans.

The goal of these illegal land grab federal activities is to enforce Agenda 21 dictates from the United Nations and vacate all rural land of private ownership in the West. These cases are so numerous, that there is no denying this claim.


Mr. Bundy made the point that they are not trying to provoke a fight with the Federal government. In fact they are trying to prevent a fight. Bundy said in my interview with him, that the tensions are running so high that there will be a confrontation with federal authorities. In fact, he said that his presence has had a calming effect on the potential for violence between the federal government and the ranchers throughout the West.


During the course of the interview, Ammon asked for people who have experience with interpreting land documents to come to Burns, Oregon and assist them with their efforts. He did not ask for 10,000 heavily armed men to come to the area. It was clear from the interview that the intention of the patriots is very different than what is being portrayed by Faux News and the Communist News Network.


A Potential Landmark Development


I have covered for a over a decade how Native American tribes are having their land rights and their mineral rights violated by the federal government on behalf of the Fortune 500 corporations who come onto Indian land and defraud the various tribes. During the interview, I presented the analogy to Ammon and he said that some of the Native tribes have reached out to him and want to be a part of this movement. Stop for a second and consider how dramatic of a development that this would be. Can you imagine, Patriots, Native American tribes, and American ranchers joining forces to fight against this federal tyranny. My friends, you could be potentially be reading about history in the making. To our fellow victims who manage tribal lands, this is the cause to stake your fortune. Nor more should corporations, or the Chinese government, be able to plunder the resources of ranchers and Native Americans.


Pray for Ammon Bundy and his group’s safety. This is the best chance the people have to combat the evil forces of the United Nations Agenda 21.


The Bundy interview begins about 25 minutes in the recording. This is history in the making!


Finally Ammon Bundy Breaks His Silence with Dave Hodges, Hear His Side of the Story by clicking here (http://mediaarchives.gsradio.net/commonsenseshow/011116.mp3).


DONATE TO THE COMMON SENSE SHOW (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/about/donate/)



http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2015/05/ad-sqmetals.jpg (http://www.sqmetals.com/)Don’t wait for the collapse of the dollar because it will be too late. Tell Steve that Dave Hodges sent you (http://www.sqmetals.com/).

http://gold-silver.us/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=86967 (http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/author/admindave/)
Dave Hodges

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/12/ammon-bundy-breaks-his-silence-with-dave-hodges-hear-his-side-of-the-story/

[monty]

After Oregon . . . . . . Iowa?

http://s27.postimg.org/9sui1po37/image.jpgc

[mick silver]

G. Edward Griffin Warns Against Oregon Standoff: "If continued on this course, a bloodbath is assured. http://libertyfight.com/2016/G-Edward-Griffin-Oregeon-not-nevada.html

[monty]

Jan 13, 2016 Update 1 from Harney County Resource Area, formerly Malheur Reserve.

Wind noise in the microphone is terrible.


http://youtu.be/OKA8SoCLrRU

[mick silver]

Oregon Rancher Says He Didn't Let Armed Group Remove Fence

By The Associated Press


BURNS, Ore. — Jan 13, 2016, 4:38 PM ET



106 Shares
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwi reStory%2Foregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434)
(http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Arm ed+Group+Remove+Fence+-+ABC+News+-+http%3A%2F%2Fabcn.ws%2F1RN11Xh&via=ABC)
(whatsapp://send/?text=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Armed+Gr oup+Remove+Fence website:http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2FwireSto ry%2Foregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434)
Email (http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/email/offer?url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434&title=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Armed+Gr oup+Remove+Fence)

Star


http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/GMA/160105_gma_karlinsky_33x16_1600.jpgPlayABCNews.com
WATCH Could the Oregon Militia Standoff Turn Violent?

106 Shares
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwi reStory%2Foregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434)
(http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Arm ed+Group+Remove+Fence+-+ABC+News+-+http%3A%2F%2Fabcn.ws%2F1RN11Xh&via=ABC)
(whatsapp://send/?text=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Armed+Gr oup+Remove+Fence website:http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2FwireSto ry%2Foregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434)
Email (http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/email/offer?url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oregon-rancher-armed-group-remove-fence-36271434&title=Oregon+Rancher+Says+He+Didn%27t+Let+Armed+Gr oup+Remove+Fence)

An Oregon (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/oregon.htm) rancher whose cattle graze next to the national wildlife refuge that an armed group is occupying says he didn't give them permission to enter his property and remove part of a fence.
The group protesting federal land policy tore down a stretch of government-erected fence Monday near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group says the goal was to give rancher Tim Puckett access to land that had been blocked for years.
But Puckett told The Oregonian ( http://bit.ly/200Lqq0 ) on Tuesday that he wasn't aware of the group's plans and "they didn't have my permission to do anything."
Puckett says one of his representatives allowed the group onto the property but didn't let them remove the fence. He says he works with federal officials on land management and his employees have repaired the fence.
The small group lead by Ammon Bundy is under pressure from many locals to end the occupation that began Jan. 2.
The group plans a meeting Friday night with the local community to explain their actions, Bundy has said.
Bundy has previously said the group would not leave until a plan was in place to turn over federal lands to local authorities. They also want the release of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father-and-son ranchers convicted of arson who returned to prison last week to serve longer sentences.
Though their case set off the occupation, the Hammonds have distanced themselves from the Bundy's group.
Federal, state and local law enforcement are monitoring the occupation but have not taken action.

[monty]

The local firechief resigns after he catches FBI agents sneaking around the armory


http://youtu.be/SB6m7x3QDAg

[monty]

KrisAnne Hall, the constitutional attorney/author wiil speak in Burns, Oregon
40 minutes talk. @30 minutes talks about being in Oregon Jan. 18 & 19


http://youtu.be/pGxGjztqY50

http://youtu.be/pGxGjztqY50

[mick silver]

http://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/732423333-230x140.jpg (http://journal-neo.org/2016/01/14/sanctions-economic-aggression-revisited/)

[monty]

Update 3 Jan. 13 from Santilli. 2 hours
Voices his opinions on the Pucket fence and the leftist Oregonian

Much wind noise, interruptions

http://youtu.be/epSIbqgrTH0

http://youtu.be/epSIbqgrTH0

[JohnQPublic]

Jan. 14 Update 1


http://youtu.be/75bJlvQ7qM0

http://youtu.be/75bJlvQ7qM0

Video not working (error: "streamer stopped streaming"). Interesting or coincidence? Tried multiple times here and at Youtube. Maybe they are now under attack?

8015

[monty]

Video not working (error: "streamer stopped streaming"). Interesting or coincidence? Tried multiple times here and at Youtube. Maybe they are now under attack?

8015


I think what happened is I have uploaded his live stream. He probably hasn't uploaded the recorded video to youtube.

Edit: I just tried at youtube. Rewind it to the start 0 minutes, it looks like it is going to play

https://youtu.be/75bJlvQ7qM0 Rewind the video to the beginning it will play

[monty]

^ anyone who listened to this knows that in part, they talked about their meeting & chat with Pete Santilli in Oregon, and they acknowledged (in the above show podcast - not in person w/Santilli) that they'd heard the rumors of his being an agent. They left it at that. So I commented (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1985) at JF's blog:





So I just rolled by Eastwood's site again, prompting me to comment further (http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-oregonstandoff/#comment-1998) at JFriends:


http://youtu.be/AvoCGy8MHE4

[monty]

Update from Malheur Reserve 10 minutes


http://youtu.be/lcvuidr3Jdc

[collector]

My first thought is that they should just use this guy to go fetch hamburgers but then again, he probably can't be trusted NOT to put stuff in the food

[monty]

Jan. 14 update 3+ hours. Advance to 15 minutes.


http://youtu.be/75bJlvQ7qM0

http://youtu.be/75bJlvQ7qM0

[mick silver]

Oregon Standoff, Public Land, Federal Land and Demonizing MilitiaOregon (http://nsnbc.me/tag/oregon/)USA (http://nsnbc.me/tag/usa/)


Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : The standoff between ranchers and authorities at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge continues to escalate as armed unorganized militia members have come to support the protesting ranchers. The initiative to occupy a public building in the wildlife refuge on January 2 was led by Ammon Bundy, known from the standoff between the Bundy family and law-enforcement over the use of public land in 2014. The situation is, not surprisingly, grossly misrepresented in US media. The initiative was launched after two ranchers who burned off grasslands used for ranching to prevent wildfires and yield better grass for cattle were sentenced for arson. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Amon-Bundy_Malheur-Wildlife-Refuge_Oregon_USA-300x155.jpg (http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Amon-Bundy_Malheur-Wildlife-Refuge_Oregon_USA.jpg)Back to the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff. In 2014 US and Nevada authorities violently seized cattle from Cliven Bundy, a private rancher who, as many other ranchers, used public land for grazing cattle. The seizure of Bundy’s cattle had direct links to Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration. The seizure of the cattle and what local ranchers describes as “land-grab” was according to several analysts directly linked to projects under the umbrella of Agenda 21 initiatives.The situation that led to the standoff also involved factors such as (http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/13/the-real-truth-behind-bundy-ranch-land-grab-in-nevada/) the fact that Reid applied “pressure [to] Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as [ENN Energy Group’s] first customer.” This deal with ENN and Reid is worth $5 billion for a “solar farm and panel manufacturing plant [to be constructed] in the southern Nevada desert.” In conjunction with this accord, Reid’s son Rory Reid, who is a “prominent Las Vegas [lawyer] that is representing ENN”, and focused on making clean energy projects a specialty at their firm, is assisting the Chinese solar energy corporation in acquiring “a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site . . . well below appraised value from Clark County.”http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bundy-Ranch_Nevada_USA_SP_OC-300x168.jpg (http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Bundy-Ranch_Nevada_USA_SP_OC.jpg)Bundy Ranch Courtesy Occupy Corporatism)

In her article entitled “The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada” (http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/13/the-real-truth-behind-bundy-ranch-land-grab-in-nevada/), Susanne Posel would notice other facts. For instance that Neil Kornze, “former senior adviser” to Reid was named the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The article details the background of the standoff between the family that had used the disputed land for two decades and authorities. The article explains why Ammon Bundy would lead the initiative at the current standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.Bundy, other ranchers as well as supportive militia members stress that “What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land”, while they consider de facto land grabs from ranchers and the sentencing of ranchers who burn off grass to avoid wildfires and to yield better grass for cattle grazing as arbitrary and as an infringement on rights by the federal government.The Malheur Wildlife Refuge is a 187,757-acre wildlife refuge. It is among others a refuge for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds in eastern Oregon. Critics of the ranchers would denounce the grazing of cattle on public lands and the occupation of the public building in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge as “an attempt to destroy the national system of public lands, forests, parks and refuges”. Underhanded deals with corporations to develop solar industry on the land that was previously used by the Bundy family does, however, cast serious doubts on the integrity and honesty of such accusations.Native Americans in Legal Limbo.One factor that is largely being omitted is that these land disputes tend to leave first nations Americans in a legal limbo. The first people to live on the land that now is designated as Malheur Wildlife Refuge were the Paiute. The tribe lived of the land as hunter-gatherers and fishers, maintaining an ecological balance between themselves and the land that sustained them. Colonizing “settlers” considered the Paiute as uncivilized savages without fixed habitation, culture, etc.. They were largely considered as “sub-human” and forced into signing a treaty in 1887. A brief uprising was violently crushed. The Paiute were forcibly marched through winter-weather and snow to the Yakama reservation. in southeastern Washington State. Countless died during the ethnic cleansing operation. Ironically, their relocation would later put them at risk from radioactive contamination from the Hanford (http://nsnbc.me/?s=hanford) Nuclear Reservation. Understandably, first nations tribes don’t necessarily sympathize of feel solidarity with ranchers who feel oppressed by the federal government, the Bureau of Land management and environmental agencies. They do, however, have one issue that could bridge the gap between these communities.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2nd-Amendment_USA_Gun-Control_NEO-300x199.jpeg (http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2nd-Amendment_USA_Gun-Control_NEO.jpeg)The Right to Organize the Unorganized Militia and to Resist Tyranny.The standoff between the disgruntled ranchers, militia and the government brings to mind the heavy-handed, violent crackdowns against natives who organized armed resistance against infringements on their rights. Many of them who were not shot and killed ended up in federal prisons. This as well as the current standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge bring to mind the words of two of the so-called Founding Fathers; James Madison and John Adams.
James Madison:“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, a right which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”.John Adams:“Arms in the hands of the citizen may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, and for self-defense”.While almost all US media as well as most Democrats and Republicans alike misrepresent the militia members that have arrived at the Malheur Wildlife refuge as everything from “radical right-wingers” over “fundamentalist Christians” to “criminals and terrorists”, it is worth to have a close look at how the right to form militia is regulated.In the United States “the militia” consists of all able-bodied men with personal firearms. That is, it does not consist of conscripts or professional soldiers. The militia has the purpose to guarantee a free State by repelling foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and Federal Government Tyranny. The US Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – 15-16 stipulates:
The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union (not to be confused with the Federal Administration in the District of Colombia) to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. It is the duty of the militia to execute the laws of the Union. … To provide for organizing army and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States of America, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.It is important to notice that the “National Guard” is not “The Militia” but that the militia is the people. More specifically, the militia is regulated in Section 57 in the Officer’s Guide of the National Defense Act. The Act stipulates that:
The Militia of the United States consists of all male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are more than 18 years of age and not more than 45 years of age, and the Militia shall be divided into three classes. The National Guard which our forefathers described as the Select Militia, separate from the term “The Militia”, the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia.The Unorganized Militia – Not Unregulated or Irregular.It is especially the latter, the “Unorganized Militia (http://nsnbc.me/?s=%22Unorganized+Militia%22)” that Madison, Adams and others were referring to when they stressed that “the people” have the right and ability to resist against tyranny. The Constitutions of the constituent States of the USA vary with regard to the age and gender, some specify military age between 17 – 45 years of age, others specify the military age up to 64 years, others again do not implicitly exclude women.Citizens in all States of the United States have the constitutional right to form registered units of the Unorganized Militia, to possess and bear military-grade weapons provided that these militia units are well-regulated.This implies that members of militia units are well-trained and well-educated. This includes military training as well as it does education about the rights, obligations and duties of the Unorganized Militia. Of special importance is that militia units have to be educated about and adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that it trains and operates overtly instead of covertly. Regardless what position one has with regard to wildlife conservation, the debate about the standoff must be brought on the right track unless the United States and its citizens want to risk descending further into tyranny, imposed on them by their federal government.CH/L – nsnbc – 10.01.2015

[monty]

Harney County, the secret they don't want you to know.

Uranium 1 a Russian company
http://www.uranium1.com/index.php/en/about-uranium-one/board-of-directors



http://youtu.be/rp3kf_USFZA

http://youtu.be/rp3kf_USFZA

[monty]

Jan.15 Update 1


http://youtu.be/elCpLmocrBE