150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[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/13464...deos/107582691

http://livestream.com/accounts/13464...10169/archives

[Shami-Amourae]

[Horn]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...egon-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 January 3, 2016



http://assets.rollingstone.com/asset...-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/asset...erguson_17.jpg
The Oath Keeper Who Wants to Arm Black Lives Matter » Q: Where is this?

A: The building seized by the militants is at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge — 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.)

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. 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, 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 posted to Facebook, 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.pnghow 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/...egon-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 | January 3, 2016

---

‘Patriot’ groups are a spinoff cult of white supremacists.
5800
SHARES
FacebookTwitter


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. Some elected officials are working through mainstream channels to get lands transferred to state 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 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. 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. 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 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 and went to the Malheur takeover, 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” 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 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 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.”
The Patriot movement groups are aware of this. A number of Patriot movement activists denounced any support 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. 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 and studies far right political movements, especially in Oregon. Visit his website: 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-c...4/11/riots.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...a_3118278k.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam...-super-169.jpg

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...iot.jpg&w=1484

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

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/...lqehrrxqva.jpg