150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

http://www.thedailybell.com/images/l...dnightride.jpg

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.

What would Putin do?

some good comments ... http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...t-news_article

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

I have to join ... not ...

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madfranks

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

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.

Facts & Event - Hammond Family
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/-F9WOe5UHSL...h%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/-wl4utfSLgY...ve-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_I...%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/...ey-county.html

Facts & Events : http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/...mond-case.html

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


Conclusion: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/...onds-case.html


Letter to Government Official and Aware Citizens: http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/...terrorist.html
Posted 1 week ago by Ammon Bundy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/showthre...l=1#post809063

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

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.

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. 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/2016-0...might-be-stuck

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

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.

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.

Breaks down what's going on from more of a neutral perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jr9NWBrWnw

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


Breaking News: Obama Orders Hammond Ranch Destroyed!

https://youtu.be/jBBJe7FmRXI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7th trump

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

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/...upport-NWV.gif

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

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!

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

V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ponce

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?

349.8 miles........


v

Definitely a bit of a drive then.. lol

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...-control-push/

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

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/...upport-NWV.gif

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...-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.