# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

## tod evans

*Bigger Than Bundy Ranch: Militia put on Level 2 Alert to Defend Oregon Ranchers against Tyrannical Feds Who Label Them Terrorists*

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/bi...em-terrorists/

This story has been brewing for some time, but not gotten national attention, unlike the Bundy Ranch incident in 2014. The family of Dwight Hammond have come under the tyrannical eye of the federal government and now it appears that both Hammond and his son Steve are being railroaded for something that is a non-criminal act is being played out before their eyes. Word went out to citizen militias this week that the issue is a level 2 alert, meaning that militia members across the country need to be ready to deploy to Oregon to stand against federal tyrants who are seeking to wrongfully imprison two American citizens.
According to an October 7, 2015 press release from the Obama Department of Justice, Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands. 
The men were charged nearly a decade after the first fire and five years after the second.
Oregon Live reports on the fires:
The Hammonds' run-ins with the government began in 1999, when Steven Hammond started a fire that escaped onto U.S. Bureau of Land Management territory. The intent of the fire was to burn off juniper and sagebrush that hindered the growth of grass for their cattle.

BLM employees reminded Steven Hammond that although his family leased public land for grazing, he couldn't burn it without a permit. But in September 2001, the Hammonds started another fire. This one ran off their property on Steens Mountain, consumed 139 acres of public land and took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons, according to court papers.

Then in August 2006, lightning sparked several fires near the spot where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven Hammond set a back-burn to thwart the advancing flames, and it burned across about an acre of public land, according to federal court records.
The jury in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. They were found guilty of arson on lands which they had grazing rights under Hammond Ranches, Inc., but which the unconstitutional Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is supposed to manage. The land is claimed as federal land, in clear violation of the Constitution.
The problem is multifaceted.
First, both men were sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, following the trial. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, even though he sentenced them to jail for the time he did.
The men agreed to a plea deal that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence in order to bring the case to a close.
Both men served their sentences and were released. Now, the feds have appealed those sentences and want the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed on the men, and so they appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed with the feds that the judge ruled illegally. However, now they are wanting to label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail.
"I find it incredible that the government would want to try these ranchers as terrorists," said Barry Bushue, the longtime president of the Oregon Farm Bureau. "Now is where the rubber meets the road. Right now is when the public should absolutely be incensed. And the public, I think, should be fearful."
The DOJ's acting US Attorney Billy Williams said, "We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires.  Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze."
"Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States' property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison," he added. "These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy."
However, what was not communicated in all of this is that the BLM starts these kinds of fires quite often and it actually benefits the land, though many times the BLM's fires get completely out of control. Second, the fires that were started were not arson.
According to the definition of arson, the term means, "At Common Law, the malicious burning or exploding of the dwelling house of another, or the burning of a building within the curtilage, the immediate surrounding space, of the dwelling of another."
Notice the term "malicious." The definition of malicious is "Involving malice; characterized by wicked or mischievous motives or intentions."
There were no malicious, wicked or mischievous motives or intentions behind what the Hammonds were doing. In fact, as stated above, the BLM often engages in this activity and so do other ranchers.
Dwight's wife, Susan, said, "They called and got permission to light the fire We usually called the interagency fire outfit  a main dispatch  to be sure someone wasn't in the way or that weather wouldn't be a problem."
According to the Bundy Family, they point out that the Hammonds were simply engaging in what is commonly known as prescribed fires.
"The Hammonds are a simple ranching family that for generations has cared for the land they live upon," the family wrote on its website. "Prescribed burns are a vital process in keeping the land healthy and productive in the area.  The BLM also performs prescribed burns and have let it get out of control many times, but never has it cost any federal agent hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and years of life in prison. The Hammonds prescribed a fire that moved to public land, they extinguished the fire themselves.  The courts found that the burn increased vegetation for the following years, and had a positive impact on the land.  With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions."
Note that the courts found that there was a positive impact on the land!
Tri-State Livestock News reports on that testimony, "In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes an admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist, that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on the BLM property."
And why was that? According to Erin Maupin, a former BLM range technician and watershed specialist and rancher in the area who had been the neighbor of the Hammonds for years, said it was because researchers had determined that managing the invasive junipers, which steal water from grass and other cover was something necessary to increase the conditions on the land.
"Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale," said Maupin.
So, we know there was no malicious intent, but rather normal ranch operations. Therefore, how could this be considered arson? It's a part of ranching! If this is arson, then every person who has served on BLM and conducted the same kinds of fires should be immediately arrested, tried and if convicted treated as terrorists. But they won't be.
The root problem in all of this is the federal government assuming it can own open land like this.
They cannot lawfully. Under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (The Property Clause), we read:
The 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.
Seems clear enough. Congress can regulate territory or other property that belongs to the United States. However, what land is rightfully under the federal government's control to regulate under the Constitution? Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 states:
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 (Emphasis added).
As Michael Lotfi rightly points out, "The clause gives federal control over the "Seat of Government" (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more."
Cliven Bundy's family issued a warning:
We warn federal agencies, federal judges and all government officials that follow federal oppressive examples that the people are in unrest because of these types of actions.  The purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, not to take them away.  It is the duty of the people to defend their God given rights if government fails to do so or turns to devour them.  Good, civil citizens wish only to live in tranquility and peace, but demand freedom while doing so.  We call upon you and all civil servants to effectuate the true purpose of government and change your actions as needed by fulfilling your sworn duty to the Constitution and ultimately to the People.
We further warn that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest.  We advocate that all charges be dropped and that the Hammond family be allowed to return to the home and life that was so rudely interrupted.  The Hammond family has paid enough for this mistake, if any mistake at all. Further punishments to the Hammonds will require restitution upon those who inflict the injustices. 
We call upon aware citizens and government officials to promote the protection and freedom of the Hammond family, and by so doing, maintaining the spirit of liberty that this beloved nation is built upon.
Indeed, Captain Joe Oshaugnessy of the Arizona militia put out the word on Facebook to inform citizen militias of a level 2 alert with information on who needs to be contacted to avoid a confrontation that will likely not end as well as the Bundy Ranch siege did.
Oshaugnessy has encouraged everyone to contact as many of these people in a "respectful manner" to "air your grievances," something the First Amendment protects, and call upon these people to follow the law of the Constitution that binds them, not the American citizen.
Sheriff David M. Ward
485 N Court Ave #6
Burns, Oregon 97720
541-573-6156
Dave.ward@co.harney.us
Frank Papagni, ESQ. US Attorney (Prosecutor)
405 East Eighth Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-465-6771
Frank.pagani@usdoj.gov
Lawrence Matasar, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
521 SW Morrison St, Ste 1025
Portland, OR 97205
503-222-9830
larry@pdxlaw.com
Marc Blackman, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
1001 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 1400
Portland, OR 97204
503-228-0487
marc@ransomblackman.com
Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Mgr, BLM
BLM, Burns District Office
28910 Hwy 20
Hines, OR 97738
541-573-4400
Chad Karges, Refuge Mgr for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (Husband of Rhonda)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept of Interior
36391 Sodhouse Ln
Princeton, OR 97721
541-493-2612
Governor Kate Brown
State Capital Bldg
900 Court St NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301
503-378-4582
Billy J. Williams, U.S. District Attorney (Eugene office)
405 E 8th Ave. Suite 2400 
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-6771
Neil Evans
Portland, OR
503-727-1053
Gerri Badden
U.S Attorney's Office  District of Oregon
PIO
503-727-1033
503-706-3910
Gerri.badden@usdoj.gov
Judge Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the District of Oregon
541-431-4100
info@ord.uscourts.gov
Chuck Cushman
Public Advocate, American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-687-3087
Former Judge Michael Hogan
PO Box 1375
Eugene, OR 97440
541-465-6773


*Two members of Oregon's Hammond family to serve time in prison after burning 140 acres of BLM land*

http://www.thefencepost.com/news/188...amily-to-serve



The story could set the stage for a western-style soap opera.

I call it as the sagebrush burns, said Erin Maupin of the long and storied history involving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), special interest groups and the cattle ranchers on the Steens Mountain of Oregon.

The latest scene involved two ranchers being sentenced to five years in federal prison for inadvertantly burning about 140 acres of BLM rangeland in two separate fires, years ago. That is an area big enough to feed about three cow-calf pairs for a year in that neck of the woods.

Dwight, 73 and son Steven, 46, admitted in a 2012 court case, to lighting two different fires. Both fires started on Hammonds private property.

The Harney County ranchers are paying the BLM $400,000 in a separate settlement.

The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, said the Department of Justice news release.

The Jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightening storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several back fires in an attempt to save the ranchs winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by the BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons, continued the DOJ release.

The two men were sentenced to prison in 2012. Steve served eleven months and Dwight three.

The men were charged with nine counts, including conspiracy, using aerial surveillance of sites they burned, attempting to destroy vehicles and other property with fire, and more. Dwight and Steve were found guilty of two counts  the two fires they readily admitted to starting on their own property.

In order to draw the original court case to a close, the two men, in a plea deal, agreed that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence.

The Department of Justice news release said arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. Judge Michael Hogan, however, did not give the two men the minimum sentence called for under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, saying it would have been grossly disproportionate to the crime. He added that a longer sentence would not meet any idea he has of justice and that he didnt even believe congress intended that act to be applied in cases like the Hammond one. A longer sentence than the few months he gave them would shock his conscience he said.

The Department of Justice appealed for a full sentence.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a review of the case and District Chief Judge Ann Aiken went ahead with a full sentence  five years in federal prison for both men, minus time already spent.

The fires

The first, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

Dwights wife Susan shared some crucial details in an exclusive interview with TSLN.

They called and got permission to light the fire, she said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns  a common practice in the area.

We usually called the interagency fire outfit  a main dispatch  to be sure someone wasnt in the way or that weather would be a problem. Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM.

Maupin, a former range technician and watershed specialist who resigned from the BLM in 1999, said that collaborative burns between private ranchers and the BLM had become popular in the late 1990s because local university extension researchers were recommending it as a means to manage invasive juniper that steal water from grass and other cover.

Juniper encroachment had become an issue on the forefront and was starting to come to a head. We were trying to figure out how to deal with it on a large scale, said the woman whose family also neighbored the Hammonds for a couple of years.

In 1999, the BLM started to try to do large scale burn projects. We started to be successful on the Steens Mountain especially when we started to do it on a large watershed scale as opposed to trying to follow property lines.

Because private and federal land is intermingled, collaborative burns were much more effective than individual burns that would cover a smaller area, Maupin said.

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening fires.

There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning, she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is a joke because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. Lightening strikes were everywhere, fires were going off, she said.

Maupin said prescribed burns to manage juniper were common in the late 1990s and early 2000s, best done late in the fall when the days are cooler.

Prescribed burns on federal land in their area have all but stopped due to pressure from special interest groups, Maupin said. As a result, wildfires now burn much hotter due to a ladder of material on the ground  grass, brush and trees.

The fires now burn really hot and they sterilize the ground. Then you have a weed patch that comes back.

Maupin said planned burning in cooler weather like the Hammonds chose to do improves the quality of the forage, and makes for better sage grouse habitat by removing juniper trees that suck up water and house raptors  a sage grouse predator.

After 34 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Rusty Inglis resigned from his position with the federal government and now ranches about 40 miles from the Hammonds and is unique in the area  he has no federal land permits and operates strictly on private land.

The Hammond family is not arsonists. They are number one, top notch. They know their land management.

Inglis, president of his county Farm Bureau organization and a member of the Oregon Cattlemens Association said both groups are working to help gain media attention for the Hammond case. The state Farm Bureau group gathered signatures online for a petition to show widespread support for the family. Enough is enough. We are not in Nazi Germany. We are in the United States of America.

Charges

The Hammonds were charged with 9 counts in the original court case.

The BLM accused the Hammonds of several 2006 fires, including a large one known as the Granddad, which blazed about 46,000 acres.

According to the 2012 sentencing document, the jury found the men innocent or were deadlocked on all but two counts  the two fires the men admitted to starting  burning a total of about 140 acres.

Judge Hogen dismissed testimony from a disgruntled grandson who testified that the 2001 fire endangered his life and that of local hunters, saying the boy was very young and referencing a feud that may have influenced the testimony.

Well, the damage was juniper trees and sagebrush, and there might have been a hundred dollars. He added.

More to the story?

During her tenure with as a full time BLM employee from 1997-1999, Maupin recalls other fires accidentally spilling over onto BLM land, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced, she said. Ranchers might be burning invasive species or maybe weeds in the ditch. They would call and the BLM would go and help put it out and it was not big deal.

On the flip side, Maupin remembers numerous times that BLM-lit fires jumped to private land. Neighbors lost significant numbers of cattle in more than one BLM fire that escaped intended containment lines and quickly swallowed up large amounts of private land. To her knowledge, no ranchers have been compensated for lost livestock or other loss of property such as fences.

Gary Miller, who ranches near Frenchglen, about 35 miles from the Hammonds hometown, said that in 2012, the BLM lit numerous backfires that ended up burning his private land, BLM permit and killed about 65 cows.

A youtube.com video named BLM Working at Burning Frenchglen-July 10, 2012 shows back burn fires allegedly lit by BLM personnel that are upwind of the main fire, including around Gary Millers corrals. The fire that appeared ready to die down several times, eventually burned around 160,000 acres, Miller said.

Bill Wilber, a Harney County rancher, said five lightening strikes on July 13, 2014, merged to create a fire on Bartlett Mountain. The fire flew through his private ground, burned a BLM allotment and killed 39 cows and calves.

While the fire could have been contained and stopped, BLM restrictions prevent local firefighting efforts like building a fireline, so only after taking in 397,000 acres did the fire finally stop when it came up against a series of roads.

Two South Dakota prescribed burns, ignited by the U.S. Forest Service, blew out of control, burning thousands of acres of federal and private land in 2013. Ranchers that suffered extensive property damage from the Perkins County, South Dakota, Pautre fire, filed tort claims in accordance with federal requirements, but will receive no compensation because USDA found the U.S. Forest Service not responsible for that fire.

Why the Hammonds?

The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers, Maupin said.

In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest environmental groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000 foot breathtaking peak.

A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing the anti-grazing groups to create a 170,000 acre wilderness, with almost 100,000 acres being cow-free.

The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness were the Hammonds, explained Maupin. And because the Hammonds have large chunks of private property in the heart of the cooperative management area, they carried a target on their backs.

Its become more and more obvious over the years that that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have, said Inglis.

The Hammonds also lost their ability to water cattle on one BLM permit when refuge personnel drained a watering hole that the Hammonds had always used.

Maupin said the government scientists and resource managers working on the ground supported the Hammonds use of the water but that the high level bureaucrats backed special interest anti-grazing groups. There is a huge disconnect between employees on the ground and the decision-makers, she said, building tension between ranchers and federal agencies.

In the Hammonds plea agreement in the 2012 trial, the BLM obtained the first right of refusal should the family have to sell their land and BLM leases, Maupin added.

The Maupins themselves had a small lease that also bordered the cow-free wilderness and the Oregon Natural Desert Association was relentless in their pursuit to have us off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness, Maupin said. The group would criticize the ranchers water usage, causing them to pipe water to their cattle, which in turn instigated more complaints from the group.

Eventually the Maupins sold their permit and moved.

But the Hammonds remained.

Steve and Dwight Hammond will turn themselves in to for their prison sentences in early January, Susan said.

The family has sold cattle. Their BLM permit has not been renewed for two years, leaving them unable to use even a large amount of intermingled private land.

The family is in the last challenge to re-obtain their grazing permit. I dont know what happens after that, Susan said. We have done everything according to their rules and regulations and there is no reason that they should not give us back our permit.

The five-year prison sentence sets a worrisome precedent for area ranchers, Maupin said.

Now the sky is the limit. It doesnt have to be fire, it can be trespass with cattle.

Another precedent  one for fire that burns beyond expectations  should apply to everyone, including federal employees, though, Maupin points out.

Susan Hammond isnt sure where to go from here.

Weve been fighting it for five years. We dont want to destroy people as we are fighting it even if it is a BLM employee, she said, They live in our community and they have families. We respect that. The situation could get even more ugly but that its not going to be our fault, she said.

Maupin talked about the Hammonds helping her and her husband with ranch work, like hauling cattle, lending portable panels and never expecting anything in return. Wilber recalled them hauling 4-H calves to the fair for neighbors and Inglis said Dwight once offered to lend him money because he thought he needed help. Heres a guy with $400,000 in fines and legal bills I cant imagine, worrying about my welfare, said Inglis.

I think thats the biggest point of all of this  how can you prosecute people as terrorists when they arent a terrorist?

Property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen from Cheyenne, Wyoming, agrees. What totally amazes me is what these guys did  they burned 140 acres. If you compare that to the EPA spill in Colorado, it amazes me that nothing will happen to those EPA employees. You have cities down there with no drinking water. The Hammonds didnt do anything like that, Budd-Falen said.

Its going to get worse before it gets better, said Maupin.

The BLM deferred all questions to the Department of Justice who shared their official news release but did not respond to e-mailed questions as of print time.

----------


## Dr.3D

The government just needs to sell that land to the ranchers and give the money back to those they stole it from for Social Security.

----------


## klamath

Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/E...ed-2918200.php

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

----------


## Uriel999

> Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/E...ed-2918200.php
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire


Not to mention controlled burns have been used in North America since before the first European expeditions into the continent. 

I'm no farmer and in fact couldn't keep a cactus alive (yes I killed a cactus...don't judge me...) but even I know that controlled burns are good for the land.

They also make the land safer as they strategically remove all the deadfall.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Not to mention controlled burns have been used in North America since before the first European expeditions into the continent. 
> 
> I'm no farmer and in fact couldn't keep a cactus alive (yes I killed a cactus...don't judge me...) but even I know that controlled burns are good for the land.
> 
> They also make the land safer as they strategically remove all the deadfall.


There's probably a lot of people working for the BLM who don't know the first thing about agriculture.

----------


## puppetmaster

Yeah the BLM  let's fires get away from them all the time around here.

----------


## libertyjam

Feds Burning Cows ALIVE, Torching Homes, Imprisoning Ranchers

----------


## rg17

I thought the BLM was Black Lives Matter not Bureau of Land Management.

----------


## tod evans

> I thought the BLM was Black Lives Matter not Bureau of Land Management.


Either one gets the same amount of respect out of me.....................None

----------


## Thor

Seems like it is escalating....





> *CALL TO ACTION: All able body men and women come to Burns, Oregon on  or before January 2nd.  Come prepared and be willing to  stand.*
> 
> Dear Friends, 
>  
> **Some significant correspondence about the sentiment of making a  strong stand in Harney County**
> 
>  Ammon Bundy - Dec. 23, 2015
>  The Hammonds have been put in prison as terrorists for prescribed burns on  their ranch. They did their time as unjust as it was. Now the federal government  is putting them back in prison for the same thing, for 5 years. The federal  government forced the Hammond's to sign the sale of their ranch to the BLM, and  have fined them $400,000. The Feds are also making the Hammond's get permission  from them if they buy or sale anything over $500. Pure tyranny and the people  are going to make a stand against it on Saturday, Jan 2nd.
> 
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

Hitting MSM now....




> PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The father and son of a prominent Oregon ranching family plan to surrender at a California prison next week after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.
> 
> Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. Cole
> 
> The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
> 
> The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state where the Hammonds are well-known for their generosity and community contributions. It's also playing into a long-simmering conflict between ranchers and the U.S. government over the use of federal land for cattle grazing.
> 
> In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority. The son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, is organizing opposition.
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-ranchin...6550.html?nf=1

----------


## Origanalist

TalkNetwork.com's Pete Santilli streaming LIVE from the Hammond family constitutional crisis event in Oregon

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052492_Ha...#ixzz3w7jVXscl

----------


## angelatc

Seeing this on multiple sites:  https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-...egon-ranchers/

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...ith_quiet.html

----------


## Chester Copperpot

The liberation of America is underway

----------


## Dianne

Oh my !!   May God be with them.

----------


## TheTexan

They should just vote like really hard instead, everyone knows that's how u make change

----------


## Dianne

> They should just vote like really hard instead, everyone knows that's how u make change


lol at you Texan.  Now that I know everything you say is tongue-and-cheek, I always get a good chuckle.   I think it is simply time for a revolution.   Blacks/Whites should unite and take our country back.    I want to see the day where Obama/Pelosi/Ryan/McConnell and the like, are getting three hots and a cot which is far more then they deserve.

----------


## goldenequity

This, from a week ago calling out Jan. 2 as a rally date.

----------


## angelatc

This is a local paper: http://www.wweek.com/2016/01/02/mili...s-not-pleased/


And here's a militia member saying goodbye to his family:

----------


## Athan

There's an update from the Chans. Whatever is going on has begun. 
https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-...egon-ranchers/

----------


## Dianne

I have a bad feeling about this.   The Government has so many diversions going on at the moment.   May God be with these guys.

----------


## Uriel999

I'm worried another Waco is about to go down.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Domestic Terrorists!

----------


## Uriel999

> Domestic Terrorists!


Honestly, I'm not so sure. Do they qualify as peaceful protestors?

Taking a building over is not without precident by protestors. 

Do they _intend_ to get into a firefight with the government or are they armed for defense?

Too much grey right now. I won't make a judgement either way right now, but 2016 is definetely starting off interesting!

----------


## Miss Annie

*ARMED MILITIA TAKES OVER FEDERAL BUILDING After Oregon Ranchers Sentenced to Prison for Starting Preventative Fires*

----------


## dillo

So they are taking over the building why?  Arent the people already out of prison?  Or are they on their way back?

----------


## puppetmaster

> So they are taking over the building why?  Arent the people already out of prison?  Or are they on their way back?


 The $#@!ing judge said they should serve more time....think it will not end peaceful 
Armed militia, incl. Bundy bros, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-...egon-ranchers/

----------


## dillo

> The $#@!ing judge said they should serve more time....think it will not end peaceful 
> Armed militia, incl. Bundy bros, occupy forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-...egon-ranchers/


How many people do they have there?  $#@! I dont want another waco

----------


## Miss Annie

I am kinda thinking out loud here, but does anyone else see provocation here?   I keep hearing that Obama is doing up some executive action on gun control.   Wouldn't something like this just make it look like a timely thing he is doing?  

Is this the hill to die on?   I always thought the hill to die on would be confiscation?

----------


## sparebulb

The timing is perfect for Barry to bring this to a head with his war on guns next week.

----------


## Badger Paul

Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?

If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?

But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.

I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!

----------


## phill4paul

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...




> We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it.   Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this.  No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes.  You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.





> WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HAMMOND SITUATION:
> 
> I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty).   They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue.  In fact, they have made it very clear, through a public statement by their lawyer, in a letter to the Sheriff dated December 11, 2015, that:
> 
>     Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond.  In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.
> 
> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...anchesInc.html
> 
> Unfortunately, Ammon Bundy has not made that clear.   And despite Dwight and Steven Hammond’s decision to voluntarily report to Federal custody, Ammon has issued a video titled  “BREAKING ALERT! URGENT CALL TO ACTION! ALL CALL FOR ALL PATRIOTS! MILITIAS! OATH-KEEPERS! FROM AMMON BUNDY RANCH!”  In that video, posted on December 29, Ammon Bundy asks those who went to Bundy Ranch to now go to the town of Burns “to make a stand” and he urges them to “come to Burns and defend this family and defend this county.”   Here is a transcript of the last part of his video:
> ...


https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

----------


## Miss Annie

> The timing is perfect for Barry to bring this to a head with his war on guns next week.


Exactly what I was thinking!   People better be careful because they are making his case for him.  




> Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?
> 
> If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?
> 
> But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.
> 
> I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!


The racial thang aside........ these are really good questions.  
There are tons of people wrongfully imprisoned all the time.   I don't feel like this is the right thing for the right time.  
Who is running these militias?

----------


## Mad Raven

This is a little bit funny. They broke into some obscure ranger station that was empty for the holiday weekend. I'm sure the 4 federal staffers will be about as pissed as they were for getting paid during the government shutdown a couple years ago if they can't get through the door on Monday. If they don't get back into the office soon, all the trees and fresh air they give us will be in jeopardy.

----------


## phill4paul

Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...




> We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it.   Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this.  No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes.  You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.





> WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HAMMOND SITUATION:
> 
> I regret having to even make this statement, but I have no choice, since Ammon Bundy has not made it sufficiently clear to the patriot community that the Hammond family has declined physical armed help, and by all indications does NOT want any kind of armed stand off with the Federal government, and they do NOT want anyone to attempt to protect Dwight and Steven Hammond from being taken into Federal custody on Monday, January 4, 2016 when they are scheduled to turn themselves in to serve additional time for their felony convictions (which came after a jury found them guilty).   They intend to voluntarily turn themselves in and serve out the remainder of their sentence, under federal minimum sentencing statutes, after losing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on that issue.  In fact, they have made it very clear, through a public statement by their lawyer, in a letter to the Sheriff dated December 11, 2015, that:
> 
>     Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond.  In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.
> 
> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...anchesInc.html
> 
> Unfortunately, Ammon Bundy has not made that clear.   And despite Dwight and Steven Hammond’s decision to voluntarily report to Federal custody, Ammon has issued a video titled  “BREAKING ALERT! URGENT CALL TO ACTION! ALL CALL FOR ALL PATRIOTS! MILITIAS! OATH-KEEPERS! FROM AMMON BUNDY RANCH!”  In that video, posted on December 29, Ammon Bundy asks those who went to Bundy Ranch to now go to the town of Burns “to make a stand” and he urges them to “come to Burns and defend this family and defend this county.”   Here is a transcript of the last part of his video:
> ...


https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/

----------


## Origanalist

> Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/


Looks like that's what they should do, what's Bundy doing here?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?
> 
> If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?
> 
> But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.
> 
> I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!


Really?

3,578 posts and you've been a member of RPF since 2007. You ought to have some clue that this is not about race. 

Oathkeepers Militia protecting 4 businesses in Ferguson, MO, including a *gasp* black business owner:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...unity-security



Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race.

----------


## tod evans

> Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race.


I personally will stand with country folk before I'd stick my neck out for city folk....

Doesn't matter to me if they're rich or poor, black white or green....

Folks who voluntarily clump up are cut from different cloth.

----------


## Noob



----------


## tod evans

*Credit to Noob for getting this posted first!*




> 




*Large Group Of Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building*

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...eral-building/


BY JUDD LEGUM JAN 2, 2016 10:11 PM
CREDIT: CACOPHONY
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, which was seized by a group of militia on Saturday, January 2, 2016
Share	25,722	
Tweet
A large group of armed militia members have broken into and occupied a federal building in Oregon. The group reportedly includes three sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had a tense standoff with federal officials in 2014.


Radical militia members from across the country descended on Harney County, Oregon today to protest the conviction of two local ranchers for arson on federal land. They claim that the federal government had no authority in Harney County. The militia occupying the headquarters building at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is a splinter group from the larger protest. The gambit seems intended to provoke a standoff with the federal government.

In a phone interview with the Oregonian, Ammond Bundy said that would not rule out violence if law enforcement tries to remove them. He called the headquarters building the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds and said he was planning on stayingfor years. In a message on Facebook Bundy said he planned on establishing the facility as a base for militia members across the country:

Cliven Bundy is also advising the local ranchers, Steven and Dwight Hammond, not to submit to federal authorities as required on Monday. Instead, Bundy is urging them to go to the Harney County jail and ask for protective custody.

Meanwhile, Clivens son Ammon is reportedly rallying other militia members to join the occupation.

In an ominous sign, one member of the group, Jon Ritzheimer, posted a goodbye video to his family on YouTube today. I want to die a free man, Ritzheimer says.
UPDATE JAN 2, 2016 11:16 PM
A photo of the scene by Guardian reporter Jason Wilson:


Share Update
UPDATE JAN 3, 2016 12:14 AM
In response to the armed occupation, the local school district has closed schools all week:

----------


## UWDude

This occupier is done occupying.  And it's only two hundred miles away.  Hang separately.   I wonder if the militia man I met at Occupy is there.

----------


## tod evans

Bundy response to Rhodes;




[edit]

10 min. threats by AUSA

----------


## UWDude

> Chuckle, Chuckle Chuckle. Didn't the AIM do the exactly the same thing in 1973 at Wounded Knee?
> 
> If BLM siezed control of federal building, how would you react to that, the same or worse? What was your reaction when they shutdown Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport?
> 
> But it's okay if white people go and sieze a federal building, on wilderness refuge no less.
> 
> I got it. Long Live the Revolution if you're an AARP member, own 30:06 and get Medicare!


Occupy movements were so 2011.  And $#@! protesters, amirite or amirite?  Let me read my MSM watered down version of events, and then make a decision.

Oh geeze, these guys burned park land.... ..pfft, I know the full story now, I read it in the news.  The protesters should be rounded up.

I think it's time for you all to put your money where your mouth is, just so you can see how serious a game you are playing... and occupiers played, and all other protesters, whilst you clucked your tongues.  Men, boys, and all that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I'd be very sympathetic except Hammond himself said he didn't want this.  In which case it's simply not going to be helpful.  Audacity yes, but only if it's going to make things better not worse.  Doing this when the victim explicitly does not want it is at best unhelpful.

----------


## tod evans

The AUSA (federal prosecutor) has threatened the Hammonds with harsher prison conditions if they associate with the Bundy's, 10 min. in.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...
> 
> https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-hammond-family-does/



The Hammonds explicitly do not want it.  In which case they are totally right to sit it out.  Without the support of the victim this action can only hurt and not help.  OK's are right.

----------


## tod evans

> I'd be very sympathetic except Hammond himself said he didn't want this.  In which case it's simply not going to be helpful.  Audacity yes, but only if it's going to make things better not worse.  *Doing this when the victim explicitly does not want it is at best unhelpful*.


They're not having anything to do with the Hammonds per their request due to threats made by government lawyers.

This has nothing to do with the Hammonds family.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They're not having anything to do with the Hammonds per their request due to threats made by government lawyers.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the Hammonds family.


I don't buy it.  Government lawyers cannot compel them to active speech.  They can say "do not ask for help" whereupon they would just stay silent.  They cannot say "you must explicitly reject help."  They don't have that power.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't buy it.  Government lawyers cannot compel them to active speech.  They can say "do not ask for help" whereupon they would just stay silent.  They cannot say "you must explicitly reject help."  They don't have that power.


What?

Have you at least watched a min or two of the video?

An AUSA has the authority to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons what security level a person will be incarcerated under. Threatening the Hammond's with harsher confinement is completely believable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What?
> 
> Have you at least watched a min or two of the video?
> 
> An AUSA has the authority to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons what security level a person will be incarcerated under. Threatening the Hammond's with harsher confinement is completely believable.


Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to?  Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.

I do not believe it is righteous to try and 'help' someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want said help.

I, and I am sure the OK's would be all-in if Hammond had simply said nothing.  Fedgov can't put you in a harsher prison for saying nothing.  Any DA or cop who threatens you with a harsher confinement for saying nothing is subject to 10 years in the big house...(not that this corrupt government would actually prosecute of course).  If the Hammonds have a proper lawyer (and I am sure they do) they would have been told that the government cannot compell speech or if they made said threats they could actually force the fed to give them _better_ conditions.

I like Bundy, but I'm not buying this.  He's just trying to justify an attempt to relive some glory days.  

It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent.  They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.

You do not go into combat with no potential path to victory.  You just don't.

----------


## asurfaholic

Major event. Can't do much from my home but pray for the safety of those who are making a stand against the out of control tyranny.

----------


## tod evans

> Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to?  Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.
> 
> I do not believe it is righteous to try and 'help' someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want said help.
> 
> I, and I am sure the OK's would be all-in if Hammond had simply said nothing.  Fedgov can't put you in a harsher prison for saying nothing.  Any DA or cop who threatens you with a harsher confinement for saying nothing is subject to 10 years in the big house...(not that this corrupt government would actually prosecute of course).  If the Hammonds have a proper lawyer (and I am sure they do) they would have been told that the government cannot compell speech or if they made said threats they could actually force the fed to give them _better_ conditions.
> 
> I like Bundy, but I'm not buying this.  He's just trying to justify an attempt to relive some glory days.  
> 
> It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent.  They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.
> ...


Bundy very clearly states that he and the guys with him are not acting for or with the Hammonds, they are not "waging war" with the Hammonds approval or under their direction, where have you drawn this "war" language from anyway?

In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.

There's an interesting (to me) video here; https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/20...ing-in-oregon/

As the author states the guy who made it is a tad off but there is definitely food for thought there.



[edit]

Here's a pretty comprehensive article that's not just repetition of the MSM pablum;

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/

----------


## goldenequity

Interview with Ammon Bundy this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...efuge-protest/

----------


## phill4paul

Some thoughts at this early stage:

   Seems to me that if this is not about the Hammonds then this is the wrong location and time. It would seem from these early reports that the community is not in support. That the local sheriff is not a "Constitutional Sheriff."

  If their intention was to make a stand against the BLM it seems that it could be made in any thousands of other places. One that was possibly more sympathetic to their mission and one that was within a "Constitutional Sheriffs" jurisdiction. 

  A militia stand greatly increases it's likelihood of success with these two factors. Without them, I dunno.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it.  Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down.  Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game.  When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor.  When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the _least_ likely routes to victory does not seem wise.

There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly.  Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.  

This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game.  They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.

Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.

----------


## Thor

> Interview with Ammon Bundy this morning
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...efuge-protest/



So, this is the first time I have heard about the so called poaching / slaughter of deer and the fire as a means to cover that up.  I read they were burning juniper and sage to clear land for grass to grow for livestock and the fire got out of control.  So something is being miscommunicated here.  Either the Bundy's/Hammonds or the Government.  Also, the second fire I read was a back fire lit to protect livestock and buildings and to combat a fire set by a lightning strike.  Is there more to that one too, or is that it?  




> The prosecutor said witnesses saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer on public land. 
> 
> 
> "At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene," Williams wrote. 
> 
> 
> He  said a teenage relative of the Hammonds testified that Steven Hammond  gave him a box of matches and told him to start the blaze. "The fires  destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took about 130 acres of  public land out of public use for two years," the prosecutor wrote. 
> 
> 
> Williams also disputed the notion that the Hammonds were prosecuted as terrorists, as Bundy suggested.


I know the last sentence is a lie above, as the whole reason for the new 5 year sentence is domestic terrorism from burning US lands....

It would be interesting to see if the poaching cover-up claim has any merit or not for the first fire.  Witnesses and teenage relative testifying...   Even if it does, it still does not explain the charges on the second fire, nor does it cover the double jeopardy they are now being faced with after spending over 1 year (and 3 months for the son) in prison already to now have a 5 year sentence added to each with a new charge of domestic terrorism.  "The last judge got it wrong, you need to server 5 more years for the same thing you already served time for."  Really?  WTF is that?  Doesn't the 5th amendment of the constitution, let alone any protections from the State of Oregon constitution, prohibit them from being tried and convicted a second time for the what they have already served time for?  Or am I missing something?

It would be nice to get a full scope of the story from an unbiased party, charges originally for each fire, defense they used, and how they can be retried (or have a sentence added) without being subject to double jeopardy. If anyone has more in-depth knowledge of these events, please share...

----------


## XNavyNuke

> Honestly, I'm not so sure. Do they qualify as peaceful protestors?
> 
> Taking a building over is not without precident by protestors.



*#OccupyBLM*





> Do they _intend_ to get into a firefight with the government or are they armed for defense?


If we know, then their OpSec sucks like it did with the Bundy's. 

XNN

----------


## XNavyNuke

> It'd be different of the Hammonds were just silent.  They explicitly said "do not do this," so doing it is a bad idea.
> 
> You do not go into combat with no potential path to victory.  You just don't.


You betcha. There are more than enough government intrusions out there where the victims/surviving families DO want publicity, protection, and support. This smells like personal vendetta. 

XNN

----------


## MelissaCato

Alex Jones just did a live mention on Facebook, he doesn't support this stand off either.

----------


## phill4paul

> Looks like that's what they should do, what's Bundy doing here?


  I would imagine listening to Ryan Payne's bad advise.

----------


## phill4paul

If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.




> The Bureau of Land Management is in the process of stealing another ranchers land.
> 
> Tommy Henderson has already lost land to the BLM and is currently fighting their latest attempt to take his property, “How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours’?” Henderson asked. “… Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours?”


http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-se...lahoma-border/



> The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?
> 
> Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty  years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now  the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that  ranchers  have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.
> 
> The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.


http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ranchers-land/

----------


## osan

I applaud the spirit of this, but question the wisdom.  Choosing not only one's battles, but the circumstances to his best advantage is part of smart action.  I don't know what to call this move, but "smart" has yet to come to mind.  Is there something essential absent from the article?  This seems to be making them appear as the aggressors and as thieves.  Not saying they are that, but this is likely to be the public perception and without substantial support therefrom, these guys stand to lose in a really spectacularly unpleasant manner.

What am I missing?

----------


## osan

> The AUSA (federal prosecutor) has *threatened the Hammonds with harsher prison conditions* if they associate with the Bundy's, 10 min. in.


Next step: punishing friends and family members for the acts of others.  We are being thrown backward into barbarity. 

Nice going, America.

----------


## osan

> This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it.  Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down.  Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game.  When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor.  When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the _least_ likely routes to victory does not seem wise.
> 
> There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly.  Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.  
> 
> This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game.  They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.
> 
> Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.


^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Every last word.

----------


## JK/SEA

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

''He said many would be willing to fight  and die, if necessary  to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands. ''

----------


## Pericles

> This is going to have to happen eventually, but you have to be smart about it.  Phill is right, if it's not about the Hammonds then there are thousands of other times and places this could go down.  Pick your battlefield, pick your fight, pick your ingress, pick your egress, pick your campaign, and pick your end game.  When you go to do battle, you want to maximize the probability of success by manipulating the variables in your favor.  When you have the freedom to pick and choose your time and place, picking one of the _least_ likely routes to victory does not seem wise.
> 
> There are dozens of counties in a handful of States with Constitutional Sheriffs who would be inclined to be friendly.  Many of those same Counties will also have populations and commissions friendly to the cause, or at least not actually opposed.  
> 
> This all seems rushed, with no intelligence, no clear plan, and no clear end-game.  They appear to have taken a strategic low-ground and acted in a politically indefensible way.
> 
> Yes, this is ultimately going to have to happen, but I'm worried that this specific ill advised action is going to set this very cause back by 5 years or more.


That right there. This reeks of an opportunist trying to create conflict for what he perceives to be his benefit.

What does occupying a building achieve? If this is part of a plan, then a new General Staff is needed.

----------


## Pericles

> If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-se...lahoma-border/
> 
> 
> http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ranchers-land/



They are not at the Red River because other militias and supporters have the relationships with the land owners and the "leaders" of the Oregon effort would not be in charge of activity at the Red River.

----------


## Pericles

> Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/E...ed-2918200.php
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire


Its not illegal when the government does it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Its not illegal when the government does it.


Of course, it's only illegal when they want to get other people in trouble.

----------


## raystone

Can someone archive this webpage, because the Oregon Farm Bureau will likely remove it soon.   The 8,000 member Oregon Farm Bureau unequivocally supported the Hammonds in October, including stating "This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers..."  Now, the Oregon Farm Bureau president is running for national farm bureau president.  He won't want to be called out on this.


http://www.tsln.com/news/18551282-113/story.html

SALEM, OREGON, October 7, 2015 –

Statement by Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue on sentencing of Steve and Dwight Hammond:

“Today two Oregon ranchers were sentenced to five years in federal prison under terrorism statutes for setting preventative fires on their own land. We are gravely disappointed at this outcome.

“Elderly Harney County rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, a former OFB Board member and Harney County Farm Bureau president, have already served time in federal prison for their mistakes and paid their debt to society for the less-than-140 acres of BLM land that was accidentally impacted by the fires.

“This is an example of gross government overreach, and the public should be outraged.

“Today’s verdict is also hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to public and private grazing lands, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked on this case quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless.

“This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers, foresters, and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the BLM, and undermine the cooperative spirit most ranchers have brought to the bureau in helping the health of the range.

“Please join Farm Bureau and declare your support for Steve and Dwight Hammond. Join over 2,600 other citizens from across the country and show BLM that this extreme abuse of power will not go unnoticed and is shameful. Sign the petition at www.savethehammonds.com. This must never happen again.

“OFB will continue to work to bring public and policymaker attention to this case.”

Comment from federal attorney Billy Williams:

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. “Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue’s response:

“BLM accused the Hammonds of endangering lives, but a jury found they did not. Saying they ‘intentionally’ set fire to public land or threatened lives is not what the jury concluded. Federal attorney Billy Williams is wrong in his overblown statements in court yesterday. But he has helped frame the debate as we start to look at BLM’s own actions. If Williams’ rhetoric is the standard, BLM will have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond what they’ve done in this case,” said OFB President Barry Bushue.

–Oregon Farm Bureau

----------


## Pericles

> The Hammonds explicitly do not want it.  In which case they are totally right to sit it out.  Without the support of the victim this action can only hurt and not help.  OK's are right.


There is some missing background here. Freedom Outpost is run by a guy name Gary Hunt who is part of the committee of States / Safety organization he heads. Ryan Payne is his designated militia commander in an attempt to build a nationwide militia.

Part of that effort is that any organization (Oathkeepers) or militia that do not follow their lead is denigrated.

----------


## angelatc

> Insane. The federal government annually burns hundreds of thousands of acres in burnout operations and Proscribed burns. Many have escaped and burned homes and business of which it takes years for people to get compensated yet no one has ever gone to prison.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/E...ed-2918200.php
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire


Before this story became such a hotbed of controversy, the local papers were very sympathetic - controlled burns were being done on private land for the same reason.  I won't pretend to understand it or even remember the details, but they reported it as if was just part of the farming cycle.

----------


## Badger Paul

"Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."

No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either. 

But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.

I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional."  So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I?  No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!

----------


## roho76

When the BLM shows up and realized that it might mean their lives upholding some stupid government objective they may not pursue this. I don't understand the mentality here. This may not be the best way to handle this but what are we supposed to do? Keep getting trampled on while begging for mercy???? These people never sleep and they never stop trying to ruin everything in their path. It's about $#@!ing time someone says enough.

----------


## Dr.3D

> "Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."
> 
> No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either. 
> 
> But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.
> 
> I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional."  So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I?  No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!


Yeah, that's gotta be it, it's because Obama is kinda black.

----------


## tod evans

> "Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."
> 
> No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either. 
> 
> But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.
> 
> I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional."  So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I?  No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!


Ummmm,

One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...

The other is telling government to go away.

----------


## Ender

> Before this story became such a hotbed of controversy, the local papers were very sympathetic - controlled burns were being done on private land for the same reason.  I won't pretend to understand it or even remember the details, but they reported it as if was just part of the farming cycle.


It was also reported that the land is in much better condition because of the burnings, but that report was not allowed in court.

My take is the Hammonds are accepting the double-dealings of .gov because their families are being threatened. There could be no other reason for not fighting this serious mockery of natural law.

JMHPOV

----------


## Badger Paul

"One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
The other is telling government to go away. "

Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?

You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get. And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.

Got this from the Gawker comment section to prove my point:

"_Black kids get 2 seconds to comply with law enforcement before they’re shot. These guys point guns at federal agents, and nothing happens. Mandatory minimum sentences are all well and fine with these guys when one person has a crack rock, yet not ok when 2 guys start a fire (which some people are saying was to cover evidence of poaching on federal land, but IDK) that destroyed many acres of public land._

----------


## Lucille

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...e-federal.html



> Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood. 
> [...]
>     I was first apprised of this a few minutes ago by folks on the ground out in Oregon. They report that Payne, Ritzheimer and every other "tiger-talking" fruit, nut and federal provocateur previously identified from the Bundy standoff were now in possession of the building and daring the Feds to do anything about it. My initial reaction was to observe that at least afterward we'll know who the federal snitches are because they will be the only ones who survive the raid to take back the building. My understanding is that this premeditated action has been condemned by the Oregon Three Percenters and other groups but the fact of the matter is that these people are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood. And the Hammonds themselves are disavowing this action in the strongest terms.
> 
>     For the regime, this could not come at a better time. The old Roman adage "cui bono" applies here. There is nothing on the talking heads channels as yet, but by Monday, when Obama meets with his Attorney General on the subject of citizen disarmament, you can bet the farm that this will play right into that narrative. Perfect timing. You've got to give the federal handlers of these pukes credit. This is precisely the sort of offensive action on the part of the "militia terrorists" that they needed.
> [...]
> I'll have updates as I get them, but for now it looks like 2016 is going to start out with a huge propaganda victory for the regime.


http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...om-oregon.html




> The collectivists have begun to exploit it: "Right wing militia from Bundy Ranch occupy federal wildlife building in Oregon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				        Authorities have not yet commented on the occupation but Zaitz reports that Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI are involved in the developing situation.
> 			
> ...

----------


## Ender

> "One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
> The other is telling government to go away. "
> 
> Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?
> 
> You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get. And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.
> 
> Got this from the Gawker comment section to prove my point:
> 
> "_Black kids get 2 seconds to comply with law enforcement before they’re shot. These guys point guns at federal agents, and nothing happens. Mandatory minimum sentences are all well and fine with these guys when one person has a crack rock, yet not ok when 2 guys start a fire (which some people are saying was to cover evidence of poaching on federal land, but IDK) that destroyed many acres of public land._


If the black kids had guns pointed they would not be shot at, either.

As I said in my above post- the burnings improved THE LAND- BUT THE PICS AND PROOF WERE NOT ALLOWED IN COURT. BML burns the lands constantly and these fires have spread to private land- but hey they are gov so they can do what they want.

----------


## tod evans

> "One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
> The other is telling government to go away. "
> 			
> 		
> 
> Black Lives Matter says the police ought to go away from them. Aren't police a part of the government? Hmmm?
> 
> *You're contradictions have screwed up this movement and using RPF boards to forment violence and terrorism and treason is about as far away from Ron Paul as you can get.* And don't think Rand is going to come into this situation to save your arses. Remember, you're the (ahem) bad people, fringe types Jesse Benton was talking about. Isn't that right Collins? If the mods don't drop your account, you've damned us all.
> 
> ...



It appears as though you're addressing me?

Have you actually read my posts about those stupid kids at the college in Mo.?

My position was very clearly articulated in that I moved for the townspeople to kick out the college and all associated parasites and raze the buildings in order to curtail government.

I've yet to comment on this latest thing in Or. other than to post articles...

I will say now though that I'm all for counties having full and complete control over land currently controlled by the feds and that includes colleges.

----------


## 69360

I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?

I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?
> 
> I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.


Yea,....... I am kinda wondering this too.  
I am actually wondering if the militias have not been infiltrated by some CIA hacks that are getting them all lathered up because the timing of this and the executive action on gun control is just too convenient.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?
> 
> I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.


Bundy put out a video laying it out in his own words, I posted it on page 1......

----------


## angelatc

> When the BLM shows up and realized that it might mean their lives upholding some stupid government objective they may not pursue this. I don't understand the mentality here. This may not be the best way to handle this but what are we supposed to do? Keep getting trampled on while begging for mercy???? These people never sleep and they never stop trying to ruin everything in their path. It's about $#@!ing time someone says enough.


The problem with this scenario is that the people who broke into the building are the aggressors in this instance.  If the other family (going to jail for the second time for the same "crime,") had holed in in their house and called for backup, there might have been a chance this would have appealed to the civil libertarians on the left.  Instead, those guys rolled over without even whimpering.  This militia rode in to make a statement about people who don't even want to make a statement.

----------


## 69360

> Bundy put out a video laying it out in his own words, I posted it on page 1......


Yes, but the Bundy son is going against the explicitly stated wishes of the Oregon family. To me it seems like he just wants trouble for the sake of trouble.

----------


## Badger Paul

"So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"

Martyrdom, just like ISIS.

----------


## 69360

> "So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"
> 
> Martyrdom, just like ISIS.


Seems about right actually.

----------


## Snowball

Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
and militias.
Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
of wild areas for conservation purposes.
We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
welcome to poach or burn it.
I suspect that the Hammonds and/or Ammon Bundy have an agenda
which is not what it seems.
Nobody should support these criminals.

The proper course is to cordon them off and allow them to starve
until they leave peaceably and prosecute them legally for wasting
resources and disrupting the peace.

----------


## angelatc

> It was also reported that the land is in much better condition because of the burnings, but that report was not allowed in court.
> 
> My take is the Hammonds are accepting the double-dealings of .gov because their families are being threatened.
> 
> JMHPOV


I agree 100%.  The government has taken their land and their money, but they're still willfully complying with a clearly unconstitutional sentence?  There has to be something we are not being told.

----------


## angelatc

> Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
> of wild areas for conservation purposes.


Uhm, you might want to read it again.

----------


## XNavyNuke

> That right there. This reeks of an opportunist trying to create conflict for what he perceives to be his benefit.
> 
> What does occupying a building achieve? If this is part of a plan, then a new General Staff is needed.


John Brown was seriously lacking a grand strategy during his raids through the Kansas territory, and ultimately Harpers Ferry. That said, his flagrant militarizing the abolitionist movement precipitated in a matter of months, what had been simmering for decades while the abolitionists tried to work through legal means - civil war.

XNN

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Harsher confinement if someone else of their own accord chooses to do something without your having asked them to?  Ask for it in writing take it to a judge and get that DA thrown in prison.


Exactly. Just have the federal judge throw the federal prosecutor in prison. Sounds so simple when you spell it out in baaa's.

----------


## angelatc

> In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.



Maybe they should blow up the twin towers.  That got us to give the Saudi's an airfield.

----------


## XNavyNuke

During jury deliberations, after the panel had only returned a partial verdict and appeared hung, the Feds offered the Hammonds a deal. They thought that signing off on the deal would cause the Feds to give them a pass during sentencing. It didn't work out that way and has now blown up in their face. 

The bigger issue here is the mandatory sentencing guidelines. (Thank you a Drug War). When ACLU, Heritage, and CATO all have problems with these legislative mandates, you would think the media might pick up on that aspect.

XNN

----------


## donnay

From an email sent:




> Dear Friends, 
> 
> Today we are marching in Oregon to stand up for the Hammonds, it is bitter cold with plenty of snow on the ground but we will not waiver.
> 
> We wish you were here, but if not could we ask a small favor?
> 
> Would you please forward this Press Release to your local newspaper and TV outlets?
> 
> This is perhaps the simplest thing you can do to help the Hammonds,  we must bring attention to them now.
> ...

----------


## erowe1

What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?

And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?

----------


## donnay

> What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?
> 
> And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?



The information is embedded in this thread.

----------


## sparebulb

Cliven seems has provided some good suggestions.

It is too bad that the Hammonds trial and deal went down the way it did.  It sounds like they got some $#@!ty legal advice.

It is hard to see a strategy for a good outcome.

----------


## erowe1

> It is hard to see a strategy for a good outcome.


I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?

----------


## Dianne

> Major event. Can't do much from my home but pray for the safety of those who are making a stand against the out of control tyranny.


That's the way I feel, but I'm too far away as well.   If not, I would be there.

----------


## youngbuck

> Domestic Terrorists!


Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but if you're not then you ought to watch this (thanks for posting tod evans):  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0mG6HUyk

----------


## donnay

> I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?


It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.

----------


## Dianne

> I agree. For those who are supportive of this, what good do you expect to come of it?


Occupying that little Federal building is being referred to as trespassing.   Let the Federal Government be reminded, the building and the land belong to the people.   The Federal Government owns nothing.   It is our building and our land.   The Congress and the White House are the same as all other welfare recipients who suck tax dollars out of the people so they may survive.

----------


## erowe1

> It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.


What's that supposed to mean? And how does it answer my question?

It seems obvious to me that if there's no hope or plan for actually accomplishing anything good here, then it would be better not to take over that federal building. What steps come between doing this and achieving whatever the end goals are, and how reasonable is it to think these people can take those steps? If all their ducks are really in a row and they have a well-planned answer to that then great. But if not, then they'll just do more harm than good.

----------


## erowe1

> Occupying that little Federal building is being referred to as trespassing.   Let the Federal Government be reminded, the building and the land belong to the people.   The Federal Government owns nothing.   It is our building and our land.   The Congress and the White House are the same as all other welfare recipients who suck tax dollars out of the people so they may survive.


That's it? Let the federal government be reminded of that? And then pack up and go home after reminding them of it?

----------


## Dianne

> If the black kids had guns pointed they would not be shot at, either.
> 
> As I said in my above post- the burnings improved THE LAND- BUT THE PICS AND PROOF WERE NOT ALLOWED IN COURT. BML burns the lands constantly and these fires have spread to private land- but hey they are gov so they can do what they want.


The neighbor behind me has a farm, and every couple of years he burns the ground.  There is some benefit to doing so.   I have no clue what it is, but seems to be fairly common.  That's probably why the feds have now changed the story from burning the land, to covering up a deer poaching operation.

----------


## Dianne

> Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
> were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
> This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
> Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
> and militias.
> Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
> of wild areas for conservation purposes.
> We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
> welcome to poach or burn it.
> ...


The Federal Government owns absolutely nothing.   We the people own the Federal buildings, Federal land.   The  Feds don't have a pot to piss in.    They serve as caretakers of our property only.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Good for them.

At least somebody is doing something.

----------


## Dianne

> That's it? Let the federal government be reminded of that? And then pack up and go home after reminding them of it?


Yes.  It's the people's land, not Obamas.

----------


## roho76

Who's the aggressor, Angela? I think you're confused, sweet heart. I can't imagine what your thoughts are on the American Revolution and who was the aggressor in that scenario. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Just not sure who's side you're on.

----------


## donnay

> The neighbor behind me has a farm, and every couple of years he burns the ground.  There is some benefit to doing so.   I have no clue what it is, but seems to be fairly common.  That's probably why the feds have now changed the story from burning the land, to covering up a deer poaching operation.


The benefits are putting minerals back into the ground, i.e.; potassium.  It will also make soil more alkaline if too acidic.

----------


## erowe1

> Good for them.
> 
> At least somebody is doing something.


Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?

----------


## erowe1

> Yes.  It's the people's land, not Obamas.


OK. Then now that they've accomplished what you said, why do you suppose they haven't all gone back home?

----------


## tod evans

> Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?


Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....

At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........

----------


## erowe1

> Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....
> 
> At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........


Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?

It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?


Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?


Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?

----------


## TheNewYorker

Good news, the FBI is involved now

----------


## pcosmar

> Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?
> 
> It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.


It draws attention upon the Federal Beast. 

What form the response the Beast will make is yet unknown.
Usually,, and historically, it is violent.

How people respond to that violence, is yet to be seen.
The Beast was backed down once.. and it remembers.

----------


## donnay

> Is that really smart? Somebody do something. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as somebody is doing something?


Standing up to an illegitimate government who are using Agenda 21 to take people's property.  They label people "terrorist" so that they take their property. 

All's well.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Exactly. Just have the federal judge throw the federal prosecutor in prison. Sounds so simple when you spell it out in baaa's.


Don't be stupid.  This government doesn't prosecute their own, but putting it on the public record makes it impossible to carry out the action threatened.  

What I'm saying is that it's bull$#@!.  Federal Prosecutors don't tell you to make a political statement or face harsher confinement.  

Do you accuse everyone with a brain and the ability to carry out deductive reasoning of being a sheep?

----------


## Pericles

> John Brown was seriously lacking a grand strategy during his raids through the Kansas territory, and ultimately Harpers Ferry. That said, his flagrant militarizing the abolitionist movement precipitated in a matter of months, what had been simmering for decades while the abolitionists tried to work through legal means - civil war.
> 
> XNN


This is a cogent analysis. Generally, speaking the guy who thinks he is about to start the next civil war seldom does.

----------


## tod evans

> Even for those who are sick and tired of it, what makes it smart?
> 
> It's not enough just to do something. It matters what is done.


Why?

Why does it matter what's done?

Is it your ass on the line?

Do you have something to lose if government escalates *this* situation? What about the next?

Would it be smarter to wait, or have somebody else do something different?

If you know how to "fix" a broken government then get on it, I don't think there's any fixing anything at this point......

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Bundy very clearly states that he and the guys with him are not acting for or with the Hammonds, they are not "waging war" with the Hammonds approval or under their direction, where have you drawn this "war" language from anyway?


Taking and holding a position with force of arms.  WTF do you think that's called?




> In the video Noob posted (OP) tho objective of taking back land from the federal government and turning it over to the people of the county is the stated goal.


And you think random people from out of state taking possession of an unoccupied shed on federal land is going to have any effect on this at all?




> There's an interesting (to me) video here; https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/20...ing-in-oregon/
> 
> As the author states the guy who made it is a tad off but there is definitely food for thought there.
> 
> 
> 
> [edit]
> 
> Here's a pretty comprehensive article that's not just repetition of the MSM pablum;
> ...


Your source ties this action to the Hammonds.  Didn't we just establish that this action is not connected to the Hammonds?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If they want to confront the BLM this looks like a better bet at first glance.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.truthandaction.org/blm-se...lahoma-border/
> 
> 
> http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ranchers-land/


I couldn't agree more.  

But then they wouldn't be 'in charge.'

Again, this thing stinks to the rafters.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What's the story behind this about the Hammond's? Why is their arrest considered unjust?
> 
> And how is doing this supposed to accomplish anything for them?


What happened to the Hammonds is horrifically wrong.  I would be all in favor of this except the Hammonds have explicitly said they did not want this kind of help.  I think because of the circumstances, with the Hammonds turning themselves in peacefully to serve their sentences, this will mostly serve to set public opinion against the ranchers vs the BLM.  There is no definable security goal.  Forming a security perimeter around the Hammonds and not allowing fedgov to take them is a definable security goal.  Seizing a random unoccupied shack on a federal park is just going to piss off a bunch of idiot liberals and mindless neocons.

----------


## tod evans

> Taking and holding a position with force of arms.  WTF do you think that's called?


I believe citizens standing against a government is called an insurrection but I could be wrong...





> And you think random people from out of state taking possession of an unoccupied shed on federal land is going to have any effect on this at all?


I haven't posted what I think, why would you assume I have...





> Your source ties this action to the Hammonds.  Didn't we just establish that this action is not connected to the Hammonds?


I've posted several "sources" in this thread if you're talking about the treehouse one you quoted it'd really depend on which segment of the timeline and respective actions you wanted to talk about in relation to what words were spoken out of folks mouths in the videos earlier in the thread.

I'm not going to speak badly about these guys, nor am I going to embellish what they've said or done. The Hammonds are getting ready to loose their patriarch to a likely death in prison due to embellishment at the hands of the government......

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I believe citizens standing against a government is called an insurrection but I could be wrong...
> 
> I haven't posted what I think, why would you assume I have...
> 
> I've posted several "sources" in this thread if you're talking about the treehouse one you quoted it'd really depend on which segment of the timeline and respective actions you wanted to talk about in relation to what words were spoken out of folks mouths in the videos earlier in the thread.
> 
> I'm not going to speak badly about these guys, nor am I going to embellish what they've said or done. The Hammonds are getting ready to loose their patriarch to a likely death in prison due to embellishment at the hands of the government......


What fedgov is doing to the Hammonds is insanely evil.  What the Bundys are doing is the _opposite_ of helpful.  There is no strategic value to it.  There are no potential positives and a $#@! ton of potential negatives.  You do not go into any kind of martial operation, war or insurrection or whatever, if you cannot even define a proper path to victory.  

If you want to help the Hammonds, go protest, help fund a law group formulating an amicus brief, do any number of things, but the Bundys are not helping the Hammonds, they are helping themselves to a spotlight that belongs on the Hammonds, not the Bundys.

----------


## angelatc

> Who's the aggressor, Angela? I think you're confused, *sweet heart*. I can't imagine what your thoughts are on the American Revolution and who was the aggressor in that scenario. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Just not sure who's side you're on.


Did you read the Oathkeeper's explanation as to why they do not support this?

----------


## tod evans

> What fedgov is doing to the Hammonds is insanely evil.  What the Bundys are doing is the _opposite_ of helpful.  There is no strategic value to it.  There are no potential positives and a $#@! ton of potential negatives.  You do not go into any kind of martial operation, war or insurrection or whatever, if you cannot even define a proper path to victory.  
> 
> If you want to help the Hammonds, go protest, help fund a law group formulating an amicus brief, do any number of things, but the Bundys are not helping the Hammonds, they are helping themselves to a spotlight that belongs on the Hammonds, not the Bundys.


I'm posting newz blurbs as they pop up, trying to present non-MSM perspective.

It sure seems to me that the Bundy's haven't set out to wage a battle that anybody could win or lose, they're effectively squatting..

Have you listened to the 20 min. video yet? Bundy doesn't sound like a warrior psyching up for battle to me...

----------


## Pericles

> What happened to the Hammonds is horrifically wrong.  I would be all in favor of this except the Hammonds have explicitly said they did not want this kind of help.  I think because of the circumstances, with the Hammonds turning themselves in peacefully to serve their sentences, this will mostly serve to set public opinion against the ranchers vs the BLM.  There is no definable security goal.  Forming a security perimeter around the Hammonds and not allowing fedgov to take them is a definable security goal.  Seizing a random unoccupied shack on a federal park is just going to piss off a bunch of idiot liberals and mindless neocons.


The Hammonds have apparently decided that under the circumstances, the martyr card and keep their land is preferable to the rebellion card and potentially lose their land.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's better to stand for something or continue to fall for anything.


It's better to stand in a way that has a positive effect on what you are trying to change.  If what you are going to do will ultimately make things worse, then it's better not to do anything than to make things worse.  Standing just for the sake of standing sounds romantic and all that, but romance is not strategy.  The first Bundy Ranch Standoff was strategically good, and you may (or may not) remember I backed that 100%.  

When you can seize a moment to have a positive outcome, then act.  If your actions are almost certain to have a negative outcome, then figure a different set of actions.  

This is the same crap that has turned out government into an evil behemoth.  Some crisis pops up and nobody wants to be rational.  The want government to act just for the sake of acting and don't care that 9 times out of 10 the government will just make things worse.

What Bundy is doing here is simply not going to help.  Instead, it will almost certainly have a blowback reaction and make the Rancher's position less tenable int he court of public opinion.  

If, going into an operation it becomes clear that by carrying out your plan it will make things worse, then stop, reassess, and figure out something else to do that won't make matters worse.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Hammonds have apparently decided that under the circumstances, the martyr card and keep their land is preferable to the rebellion card and potentially lose their land.


Aye, and the one hand they actually _elected_ to play -- the martyr card -- is likely to be eroded to uselessness by Bundy's current action when the public goes bat$#@! against the Ranchers.

----------


## erowe1

> Haven't you got a voting booth that needs some hardening?


What does that mean?

----------


## erowe1

> Why?
> 
> Why does it matter what's done?


I was under the impression that you supported this. If not, then I'm not arguing with you. If you do, then obviously it should matter to you what's done.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Good for them.
> 
> At least somebody is doing something.


But what, exactly, are they doing?  I'm all for taking up arms, but making the situation worse is not helpful.  Just doing something to be doing something is not strategically beneficial.  I don't rightly give a flying fart what the BLM thinks or even, to be honest, what "the public" thinks except insofar as its strategic place in accomplishing the goal of relaxing the grip of federal tyranny.

If an action is going to be counterproductive, then my advice is to find a different action to take that will actually be productive.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Standing up to a greater power isn't generally labeled as being "smart".....
> 
> At least not by those who aren't sick-n-tired of said power yet........


On the other hand, Patton criticized Eisenhower's approach to the Nazis, and yet that didn't mean Patton wanted the Nazis to win.  You can't logically presume that anyone who doesn't think this specific operation is a good idea therefore is fine with the BLM bull$#@!.

----------


## dannno

> Looks like the Oathkeepers are sitting this one out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.
> 			
> 		
> ...



I don't have a strong opinion yet on whether this stand-off is a good idea, but I disagree with what Oath Keepers said up there to some extent. 

As an analogy, if somebody was about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft, and you stood up to defend them and they said "no, it's ok, I don't want to be defended.." I still think you have the right to stand up and defend them. It isn't just them you are protecting, it is all the other alleged witches who might face similar persecution in the future.

Now, it's possible that the Hammond family is taking the stand that they are purely for liability reasons and in private they are cheering on their defenders, but I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on that either.

----------


## phill4paul

> They are not at the Red River because other militias and supporters have the relationships with the land owners and the "leaders" of the Oregon effort would not be in charge of activity at the Red River.


  Gotcha. It was really just a quick google which I thought might present a better atmosphere for militia action. Thanks for the info.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm posting newz blurbs as they pop up, trying to present non-MSM perspective.
> 
> It sure seems to me that the Bundy's haven't set out to wage a battle that anybody could win or lose, they're effectively squatting..


On federal property, as a militia, with weapons.

You _do not_ go into an op of any kind without a plan for victory.  

If all he wanted was to make a protest that's a lot different.  Leave the weapons and the tactical gear at home, chain yourselves to the buildings and start singing "we shall overcome" and then it's something else entirely and it's not going to be counterproductive to this case.




> Have you listened to the 20 min. video yet? Bundy doesn't sound like a warrior psyching up for battle to me...


Even more reason why bringing an armed and equipped militia into this is a bad idea.

----------


## Pericles

> Good for them.
> 
> At least somebody is doing something.


As patton said, good tactics can mitigate a bad strategy, and bad tactics can doom even the best strategy.

----------


## libertyjam

> But what, exactly, are they doing?  I'm all for taking up arms, but making the situation worse is not helpful.  Just doing something to be doing something is not strategically beneficial.  I don't rightly give a flying fart what the BLM thinks or even, to be honest, what "the public" thinks except insofar as its strategic place in accomplishing the goal of relaxing the grip of federal tyranny.
> 
> If an action is going to be counterproductive, then my advice is to find a different action to take that will actually be productive.



And you still apparently haven't watched the video.

here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0...nel=AmmonBundy

If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.

----------


## Pericles

> Gotcha. It was really just a quick google which I thought might present a better atmosphere for militia action. Thanks for the info.


One phone call, and just about every militia in Texas will be on the Red River. One of the reasons that would happen is because we know 70% of the people of Texas would support that action and the state government would not stand in the way. In fact, that might even prompt the governor to arm the State Guard and incorporate militias into the State Guard.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What does that mean?


It means you better vote harder, since you disapprove of confronting the system in the manner these people are.

----------


## tod evans

> On federal property, as a militia, with weapons.
> 
> *You do not go into an op of any kind* without a plan for victory.  
> 
> If all he wanted was to make a protest that's a lot different.  Leave the weapons and the tactical gear at home, chain yourselves to the buildings and start singing "we shall overcome" and then it's something else entirely and it's not going to be counterproductive to this case.
> 
> 
> 
> Even more reason why bringing an armed and equipped militia into this is a bad idea.



I've been reading about this most of the day and until you started with the perspective I hadn't heard anybody else referring to what Bundy is doing as a battle/war or "op"...

From what I know what they've done has been purely reactionary after getting shut down by the Hammonds.....But I honestly don't know..

I do however _assume_ after the last televised interaction with the BLM on their own property that Bundy is at least cognizant about setting up a defense or staging an offence.....

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Don't be stupid.  This government doesn't prosecute their own, but putting it on the public record makes it impossible to carry out the action threatened.  
> 
> What I'm saying is that it's bull$#@!.  Federal Prosecutors don't tell you to make a political statement or face harsher confinement.  
> 
> Do you accuse everyone with a brain and the ability to carry out deductive reasoning of being a sheep?


Is this the case where the government came back and said he had not served enough time after he served the time given to him?

Irwin Schiff, what happened to him?

Now regardless of if they explicitly told him to make that statement, after years of harassment and a prison sentence over your head, one might be implicitly coerced into doing or saying things they otherwise might not have done/said.

Maybe he'd rather not be moved so far away from his family as to make visitation practically impossible? Vindictive $#@!s that they are, it's easy to see why making waves might not be what he thinks is in his best interest.

Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.


Yes, this.

----------


## Pericles

> And you still apparently haven't watched the video.
> 
> here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0...nel=AmmonBundy
> 
> If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.


As the liberty movement has no formal mechanisms for decision making, things happen on the basis of personal relationships. Aamon and Ryan Payne have a strong personal relationship, and in this regard, they do not compensate for each other's weaknesses and strengths, but amplify them due to similar personality types.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But what, exactly, are they doing?


Poking the beast in the eye.

I'm always in favor of things that do that.

It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> As patton said, good tactics can mitigate a bad strategy, and bad tactics can doom even the best strategy.


Patton also said to shoot dead protesters and leave their bodies in the street.

----------


## tod evans

> On the other hand, Patton criticized Eisenhower's approach to the Nazis, and yet that didn't mean Patton wanted the Nazis to win.*  You can't logically presume that anyone who doesn't think this specific operation is a good idea therefore is fine with the BLM bull$#@!.*


I presume that oft times doing the wrong thing works out better than doing nothing.

It's apparent that you could provide needed tactical advice to those guys..........

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you still apparently haven't watched the video.


Since I watched it on fedbook before it was even posted on RPFs, your assumptions demonstrate the presumptive nature of your thinking here.




> here it is again since you cannot seem to find it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0...nel=AmmonBundy
> 
> If you have something constructive for him, maybe just contact Ammon directly, he might pay attention.


Well rule #1 in any kind of struggle is "don't make things worse."  The people who like this can't even get past rule #1 so how am I supposed to get them to understand higher strategic thinking if they cannot even grasp the foundation?

That video is basically a 20 minute emotional appeal.  There is no reason or strategy in it.  "Come, do something."  

Maybe he's wants to keep opsec but not sharing his strategy, and that's fine for what it's worth, but what has actually taken place is more of an #Occupy demonstration but with militias and guns.  

Once the Hammonds rejected help, there is no more a security mission involving them.  At that point you can ditch the tactical gear and the weapons, dress in bright colors carry signs and make a protest.  Make the Hammonds the victims in the court of Public Opinion and move the masses to get pissed at the BLM.

What they are doing now, is just going to make the masses pissed at the militias, and turn the BLM into heroes.

Rule #1, don't make things worse.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Rule #1, don't make things worse.


That's where we disagree I guess.

Things are going to have to get much, much worse before they get better.

----------


## Pericles

> Poking the beast in the eye.
> 
> I'm always in favor of things that do that.
> 
> It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.


And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written. Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Dannno nails it.




> I don't have a strong opinion yet on whether this stand-off is a good idea, but I disagree with what Oath Keepers said up there to some extent. 
> 
> *As an analogy, if somebody was about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft, and you stood up to defend them and they said "no, it's ok, I don't want to be defended.." I still think you have the right to stand up and defend them. It isn't just them you are protecting, it is all the other alleged witches who might face similar persecution in the future.*
> 
> Now, it's possible that the Hammond family is taking the stand that they are purely for liability reasons and in private they are cheering on their defenders, but I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on that either.

----------


## phill4paul

> As the liberty movement has no formal mechanisms for decision making, things happen on the basis of personal relationships. Aamon and Ryan Payne have a strong personal relationship, and in this regard, they do not compensate for each other's weaknesses and strengths, but amplify them due to similar personality types.


  I agree with this assessment from what is known through the many thread posts here during the Bundy stand-off.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. *The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written.* Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.


Can't argue with that I suppose.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I've been reading about this most of the day and until you started with the perspective I hadn't heard anybody else referring to what Bundy is doing as a battle/war or "op"...


Militia.  Tactical gear.  Equipment.  Weapons.  What else is it if not an operation?




> From what I know what they've done has been purely reactionary after getting shut down by the Hammonds.....But I honestly don't know..
> 
> I do however _assume_ after the last televised interaction with the BLM on their own property that Bundy is at least cognizant about setting up a defense or staging an offence.....


Knowing how to set up a perimeter is not relevant to the counterproductive nature of what they are doing.  All this is going to do is _undo_ the good will the militias earned at the Bundy Ranch.

Just because someone is doing something does not automatically mean that thing is helpful.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What they are doing now, is just going to make the masses pissed at the militias, and turn the BLM into heroes.
> 
> Rule #1, don't make things worse.


Well, before, during, or after this event, $#@! a BLM.

Bunch of counterproductive tapeworms who ought get real $#@!ing jobs.

They were corrupt before they changed their name. And really, 'the masses' wouldn't know the history of the BLM if I threw a book at them, sooooooo I should care about their ignorant, propagandized opinions why, again?

Because they vote? $#@! their vote.

I suppose this would have been more in line with America if they established a first amendment zone and parked a battalion of pigs to maintain a perimeter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Is this the case where the government came back and said he had not served enough time after he served the time given to him?
> 
> Irwin Schiff, what happened to him?
> 
> Now regardless of if they explicitly told him to make that statement, after years of harassment and a prison sentence over your head, one might be implicitly coerced into doing or saying things they otherwise might not have done/said.
> 
> Maybe he'd rather not be moved so far away from his family as to make visitation practically impossible? Vindictive $#@!s that they are, it's easy to see why making waves might not be what he thinks is in his best interest.
> 
> Regardless, it isn't just about the Hammonds.


According to Ammon Bundy, the Fed's requirement was to not associate with the Bundy's.  Explicitly telling the militias not to get involved is an entirely different thing.  If the Hammonds wanted the militias involved, all they had to do was stay silent on that.  Carry the threat to Fox News and that makes it politically impossibly for the feds to punish them, as that would be extraordinarily illegal and now it's on prime time TV.

Sure, it's not just about the Hammonds, which is why Bundy's actions are a terrible idea.  This is about EVERYONE in America who considers themselves part of a militia and who is willing to stand up and take action.  Throwing up a strawman in front of the jackboots will make it awfully easy for the feds to undo the scant victories we've already had.  We took 2 steps forward at the Bundy Ranch, we don't need to be taking 10 steps backwards now.

There are ways to win and ways to lose.  Handing ammunition to your enemy is just not a best practice.  

Never, never, never go into an op without a set goal and a clear definable path to victory.  I am seeing nothing like that here.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, before, during, or after this event, $#@! a BLM.
> 
> Bunch of counterproductive tapeworms who ought get real $#@!ing jobs.
> 
> They were corrupt before they changed their name. And really, 'the masses' wouldn't know the history of the BLM if I threw a book at them, sooooooo I should care about their ignorant, propagandized opinions why, again?
> 
> Because they vote? $#@! their vote.
> 
> I suppose this would have been more in line with America if they established a first amendment zone and parked a battalion of pigs to maintain a perimeter.


So just $#@! the victory at the Bundy Ranch, let's just undo all of that and set American armed resistance back by 20 years because by God it feels good emotionally.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ammon Bundy should mind his own business, and the Hammonds
> were convicted of arson on Federal Land.
> This place has been a wildlife refuge since 1935.
> Events such as this give a bad name to real freedom movements
> and militias.
> Our constitution provides for the protection and setting aside
> of wild areas for conservation purposes.
> We are welcome to some degree on these lands but are not
> welcome to poach or burn it.
> ...


  You're a very special Snowballflake.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Poking the beast in the eye.
> 
> I'm always in favor of things that do that.
> 
> It makes the beast act like what it is, gloves off.


Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive.  This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.

Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free.  You can't do something just because it feels good.  We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time.  If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's where we disagree I guess.
> 
> Things are going to have to get much, much worse before they get better.


Well, that's a pretty crazy disagreement to have.  I think making fedgov and the BLM more powerful and more respected is a bad idea because it runs directly counter to what we are all supposed to be trying to do.  I mean, if the goal is to make DC more powerful then why not get behind Obama, McCain, or Romney?  I thought we were trying to fight the beast, not make it happier and more powerful.

----------


## phill4paul

> And that would be fine. Thing is that two issues come along with this situation. One, a militia guy somewhere decides to write a check that he expects other militias to cash for him. The polite thing to do is to ask the other militias if they will cover the check before it is written. Second, Bundy Ranch was a militia win, and we can't afford a militia loss - it would be unfortunate to be placed in the position of deciding as to whether or not the deaths of some militia guys would need to be avenged.


  I'm going with Pericles on this. It is not like Oregon does not have it's own militia organizations. From appearances none of these support Ammon Bundys and Ryan Paynes actions. I'm sorry, but at this particular time, I do not believe that you go pissing in anothers back yard without their consent. The local militias have laid a ground work _locally_ that can be seriously hampered by the actions of those that are not local, have no idea of the areas politics, militia capability and public relations.
  It's just bad form. By all means train, equip and be a QRF *if called on.* 
  I've never much cared for this Ryan Payne character. I think this was his call and I'm suspicious of his motives.

----------


## donnay

They should take a stand where the community agrees with them and would stand with them, just like what happened with Cliven Bundy.  I don't think the Hammond's community care one way or another.

----------


## JK/SEA

so these 'protesting, mis-guided wannabe militia types get blown up, who should i write my protest letter to, or just say $#@! em?

----------


## Lucille

The progs are calling for blood...as usual.

Mike Vanderboegh is suspicious and pissed.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...nal-three.html




> Among the other principles is no first use of force. We call this, "No Fort Sumters." To do so would be to surrender the moral high ground. The Founders understood that. Indeed, even the people who responded to the righteous cause of the Bundys at the time of the standoff there understood it. Yet now we have a situation contrived by some of the same people who first showed their true colors in the aftermath of that confrontation throwing this crucial tenet into the garbage can. I refer the reader to my article of yesterday, "*Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood*," and to the statement of the Oregon Three Percent organization whose march was exploited by Ammon Bundy and his supporters to achieve the takeover.
> [...]
>     As to the personalities involved, I can say this from personal experience on the ground at the time of the original Bundy confrontation. The sociopathic weasel (and likely fed provocateur) Ryan Payne insinuated himself into the Bundy family by going to church with them and promising to convert to their brand of the LDS church. Whether he actually did or not is unknown to me, but I was told by Bundy himself that this was the reason that they trusted him and took him into their personal defense detail, much as Cleopatra clasped the asp to her own bosom.
> 
>     In addition, I am informed by someone on the ground out there that Ammon Bundy believes that it is his mission "to make the refuge into some sort of New Jerusalem." The parallels between Ammon and John Brown grow creepier by the minute. Others apparently view this as an opportunity for "suicide by Fed," acting out whatever private demons they have pursuing them.
> 
> Boil all of this down and this is what we have left as our own demands, our own declaration, if you will:





> Good news, the FBI is involved now


"Yeah, both inside and outside the building, you can bet on it."

----------


## tod evans

> They should take a stand where the community agrees with them and would stand with them, just like what happened with Cliven Bundy.  I don't think the Hammond's community care one way or another.


CNN had an interview this morning with some "guy" who had a very distinctive lilt to his speech pattern, he wasn't very happy..

That was one of the people CNN set forth to be representative of the locals.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive.  This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.
> 
> Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free.  You can't do something just because it feels good.  We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time.  If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.


Key word..."if".

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point completely and it is not without solid merit.

It *might* do just the opposite: a heavy handed and over the top "Waco-esque" response by the central government might ignite and invigorate this effort.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're a very special Snowballflake.


Bless his little heart.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bottom line for me: I'm not going to sit back and criticize men who are doing what I lack the balls to do myself.

Maybe it will hurt, maybe it will help, but in the end, they are putting their lives on the line (literally) for what all of us *talk* about.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Making the beast look like a hero to the idiots across America is not productive, it's counterproductive.  This gives the BLM a perfect opportunity to undo the damage that was done at the Bundy Ranch, recover their status, and gain new ground they did not previously have.
> 
> Poking the beast in the eye feels good, sure, but if it's going to set the resistance back by 10 or 20 years then it will be that much longer before America is free.  You can't do something just because it feels good.  We can't afford a strategic failure involving the militia at this point in time.  If this action turns the BLM into heros, the only people that will help is the BLM and Washington DC.



I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence.  That is not how civilization works.  That is how savages act.

They have initiated force. They should be given one  opportunity to surrender with no negotiation.  If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.

----------


## The Gold Standard

I'm pretty sure Boobus would be all for a Waco style assault and razing the building to the ground to ensure no one survived, then printing the money to put up a new building. 

I don't really know what to think of this. They have every right to stake a claim to unowned land. But big picture, I don't know what this accomplishes unless they have a way of holding this property against government attack. And if these people get out alive, I would be very suspicious that the government is behind it in the first place.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Meh. I suppose being compared to John Brown isn't the worst thing in the world.

The slaves should have just asked for their freedom politely. Or waited until after their deaths for the possibility of their children being free. It's the American way, right?

----------


## goldenequity

"a place you can come for several years..."

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence.  That is not how civilization works.  That is how savages act.
> 
> They have initiated force. They should be given one  opportunity to surrender with no negotiation.  If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.


It's like when the British passed the Stamp Act. Except some of the glorified founders of this country had a penchant for tarring tax collectors. But you know, they initiated violence by going against the courts of the king and any amount of force necessary would have been justified in quelling the rebellious nature of men who'd rather not be illegitimately bound.

----------


## phill4paul

> I am failing to see the difference between these people and the Ferguson looters or Rodney King rioters. If you don't like a court ruling, you don't threaten with violence.  That is not how civilization works.  That is how savages act.
> 
> They have initiated force. They should be given one  opportunity to surrender with no negotiation.  If they don't, it is legitimate to use whatever force necessary to get them to surrender. These baboons have nothing in common with libertarianism and shouldn't be glorified.


  Thank you for dropping by Eduardo, your posts towards incitement are always entertaining.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Bottom line for me: I'm not going to sit back and criticize men who are doing what I lack the balls to do myself.
> 
> Maybe it will hurt, maybe it will help, but in the end, they are putting their lives on the line (literally) for what all of us *talk* about.


I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch.  I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois.  I have no problem cashing that check.  My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans.  I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory.  I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant.  If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me.  If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Meh. I suppose being compared to John Brown isn't the worst thing in the world.
> 
> The slaves should have just asked for their freedom politely. Or waited until after their deaths for the possibility of their children being free. It's the American way, right?


Hey, if this isn't some CIA op, then I admire them for doing it. But I'm questioning the wisdom of it in the grand scheme when 99% of the people will be calling for them to be drone bombed or strung up in public.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch.  I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois.  I have no problem cashing that check.  My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans.  I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory.  I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant.  If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me.  If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.


think making these guys martyrs would help?

----------


## phill4paul

Ryan Payne. That name should be familiar to the members of RPF that followed the Bundy stand-off.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-Not-a-Ranger!!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Hey, if this isn't some CIA op, then I admire them for doing it. But I'm questioning the wisdom of it in the grand scheme when 99% of the people will be calling for them to be drone bombed or strung up in public.


Kind of makes you want to move to the mountains, right?

War criminals joke on television about their crimes but the taking of property from an agency funded by way of the theft from all, an agency which is notorious for stealing land for political reasons, that gets them fired up.

It's a brave new world. I think I'm going to pour me a cup.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I was broke and tried (unsuccessfully) to get funded to go to the Bundy Ranch.  I had my gear equipment and weapons packed and ready, and had my routes drawn out to avoiding gun hostile states like Illinois.  I have no problem cashing that check.  My perspective may be colored by having been an intelligence analyst and working with the G-3 and S-3 shops to formulate fully fleshed out operation plans.  I'll stand right up this very hour and [do things I'm not going to talk about online] if there is a clear and achievable route to victory.  I wouldn't even be criticizing if I didn't think this stood a far greater chance of making the beast more powerful and making the sheep more compliant.  If it was going to have no tangible effect at all, then it wouldn't matter to me.  If I thought it would help, I'd be supporting it.


That you did, and I (think) I cut a check for that effort.

Like I said, I understand your point, I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> think making these guys martyrs would help?


I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd.  It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias.  The _only_ positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result.  The chances of _both_ of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd.  It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias.  The _only_ positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result.  The chances of _both_ of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.


1% of this country is 3.2 million people. They might not want to anger so many people.

----------


## Pericles

> I think at this point the vast majority of American sheeple would cheer if they got Waco'd.  It would make 1% of the population MORE angry, 24% of the population wouldn't care, and 75% of the population would be all about killing them some militias.  The _only_ positive outcome I can see at this point is if they held the property for 5 years and Oregon became more prosperous as a result.  The chances of _both_ of those happening, well, it's pretty slim.


Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.

If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 1% of this country is 3.2 million people. They might not want to anger so many people.


I was being general, not specific.  There are not 3.2 million people in America who identify with the militia. Maybe 500,000 to 700,000 total?  If we are lucky maybe as many as 1 million?  Even at 1 million it's less than a drop in the bucket.  The rule of threes applies. You need 3% direct active support and 30% passive inactive support.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.
> 
> If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.


Aye, and like it or not public support is the name of this game.  The 3% who fought in the American Revolution were only able to do so because of the 30% public support they received.  Without that support, pretty much any effort to do anything is dead in the water.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Point being you win public support by wanting to be left alone, and the government refuses to do so.
> 
> If you are trying to win public support by taking over a BLM building in the middle of nowhere Oregon, most people would suggest another starting point if taking back the government was your true objective.


If it impedes their progress of taking land in Oregon, who am I to argue with their means? (Whether that be sit ins, voting, et. al) Far as I can see, they still are attempting to be left alone. They've also given warning that further encroachments will not be tolerated. Their line is in the sand. Now, the government can look at this and say, "We've overstepped our Constitutional (supposed) authority" and take a step back or they can further prove their nature.

What they've hinted at is waiting those there out. They know people are watching. Pray for these men and women as the government is well known for murdering peaceful individuals.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I was being general, not specific.  There are not 3.2 million people in America who identify with the militia. Maybe 500,000 to 700,000 total?  If we are lucky maybe as many as 1 million?  Even at 1 million it's less than a drop in the bucket.  The rule of threes applies. You need 3% direct active support and 30% passive inactive support.


Whatever the number may be, if it keeps them on their toes and prevents (even temprorarily) the violation of rights, it is better than the alternative.

It is why I don't necessarily knock voting, or waving signs, or anything attempting to restore and protect rights.

If the government were founded on consent these people would not even be there.

----------


## phill4paul

The more I read the more I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bundy/Payne are pissing in someone else's back yard. No co-ordination, no consideration. This is NOT how it should be done.



> The occupation of the refuge headquarters came as a surprise to several groups that helped organize the Jan. 2 demonstration in Burns, including 3 Percent of Idaho and other affiliated organizations. In a post on the 3 Percent of Idaho Facebook page, the group detailed its relationship to the demonstration and said the occupation came as a surprise.
> 
> "Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, *Oregon 3%*, it’s leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover after the rally," the post read. The Idaho group went on to say it does not condone the occupation.


http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/mil...nt?oid=3687251



> **3% of Idaho Press Release**
> 
> Topic: Malheur Wildlife Refuge Siege
> 
> On January 2, 2016, various patriot organizations under the direction of the Oregon 3% and associated groups organized a peaceful rally in Burns, Oregon in a show of support for the Hammonds Family and the community of Harney County. The immediate aims of this peaceful protest were to voice dissent of the wrongful prosecution of the Hammonds, the family’s subsequent decision to report to prison for federal charges, and for the refusal of the Sherriff to protect and support the citizens of Harney County. Following the peaceful protest, members of militias and individuals voiced their decision to “take a hard stand” which would be to seize a Federal National Wildlife Refuge building in Malheur County, and succeeded in doing so.
> 
> Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, Oregon 3%, it’s leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover after the rally. *The 3% of Idaho, 3% of Oregon, The Oregon Constitutional Guard, and PPN organizations in no way condone nor support these actions. They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process.*
> 
> During the weeks leading up to the rally, none of the aforementioned groups made any Calls to Arms to it’s members, nor planned or advocated for any form of armed uprising. The citizens of Harney County remain in solidarity with the aforementioned groups, as well as support our efforts to remain peaceful in our attempt to exercise the 1st Amendment Right. For the time being, we will remain in Harney County to continue to show our support for the Hammonds, and the community. We will continue to release updates and information as it is available. We want to personally thank the citizens of Harney County and Burns for their hospitality and trust.
> ...


http://beehive-2.beforeitsnews.com/a...e-3270118.html

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Miss Annie

> This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.


Totally agree with this.

----------


## wizardwatson

> "So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?"
> 
> Martyrdom, just like ISIS.


Martyrs for stupidity, just like ISIS.

----------


## Dianne

> The benefits are putting minerals back into the ground, i.e.; potassium.  It will also make soil more alkaline if too acidic.


Thanks, I wasn't sure.   As I reflect back, I do remember seeing lots of fields burned.   At least, now I know why.

----------


## Dianne

> This does not talk about the "poaching", but help fill in some historical information (if accurate) for sure:
> 
> 
> 
> Continued here, and it is long...
> 
> http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/


That all makes sense now.   Another land grab, much like the 12 million people who lost their homes to foreclosure by the Fed run Fannie Mae.    After the Feds confessed the foreclosures were done fraudulently and illegally, they so kindly sent the homeowners a $500. check for any inconvenience they may have suffered as a result.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> HossUSMC on this:
> 
> His opinion is interesting because he was at Bundy Ranch


He was also at the Sugar Pine Mine in Oregon, which is kind of a big deal.

His rationale is pretty much the same as I've given except he focuses more on NIMBY and less on probability of success.  He did mention one thing I didn't know, that the Oregon Militias also do not want them there.  And looking up-thread it seems the Oregon militias -- not even participating in this -- are already getting widely demonized.  This is going to set the militia movement back 10-20 years and leave this beast government more powerful and more secure in their despotism.  Sometimes I think I might just be more of a "cassandra" than even Ron Paul was.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *“Mow them Down,” Americans Once Critical of Police Killings Now Beg Feds to “Slaughter” US Citizens*
> 
> By Matt Agorist on January 3, 2016    
> 
> However, this time, instead of the far right calling for insanely violent police state measures, it’s the far left. It appears that some of those on the left have thrown all logic and reason to the wayside and have begun calling, not only for the removal of due process for their fellow Americans, but also for their full-on slaughter.
> 
> On various Facebook posts about the militiamen, multiple antagonists claiming to ‘support Bernie Sanders’ and declaring their ‘peaceful Democratic stances’ have called for the murder of those men, women, and children at the Oregon refuge.
> 
> Bernie Sanders would certainly not agree that it is okay to drone strike American citizens without due process.
> ...


This totally makes my point.  After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will.  Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.

Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.  

Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things _worse_, then do something else.

----------


## squarepusher

> This totally makes my point.  After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will.  Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.
> 
> Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.  
> 
> Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things _worse_, then do something else.


this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already.  It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Ummmm,
> 
> One group called for more government, government funding, government enforcement, government investigations and special privileges granted by government...
> 
> The other is telling government to go away.


Winner winner chicken dinners for life.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> "Now, if you want to discuss why some stories catch support like this, and why some don't, I'm sure anyone's guess would be as good as the next guy's, but I'm thinking you can rule out race."
> 
> No, I will not because there's a double standard and you know there's one. Did you support the black students at Missouri or Princeton taking control of buildings or disrupting classes or conducting a strike before a football game? Do you like it when Black Lives Matter blocks an intersection and holds back traffic? I'm not just talking about Oathkeepers. I seriously doubt there is a lot of support for such actions among the militia community, not too mention the wider white community for it either. 
> 
> But takeover a federal building with guns drawn? Hey, yeah! We're just exercising our constitutional rights while those BLM types need to be put in jail or expelled from school.
> 
> I'm tired of this crap. If there was a broad-based, multi-racial movement against police abuse and corruption and federal overreach it would be beautiful. But no, there isn't. One group demands the other be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law and then insists it has the right to break such law whenever it wishes because its "unconstitutional."  So is being shot in the back trying to flee police, but I don't see the militias taking over police stations do I?  No, we know what you hate and it's the federal government head by the not 100 percent white person in the White House with the foreign sounding name who might be a Muslim and may never have been a citizen to begin with. Certainly the Bundys didn't sieze any federal buildings when Bush II was President even though the dispute they've had with government goes back to 1993!


I know that sometimes this forum starts looking like a Huffpo comment section because there are certain RPF members who use cries of racism to try to shut down debate. It's tiresome and intellectually lazy.

The BLM is and has been conducting a war on ranchers and farmers out west. That's what we're discussing. If you want to discuss the wisdom of taking over a federal office then I'll grant that I don't think it's particularly well-thought-out, considering Ammon Bundy didn't even provide any demands during an interview. He says they're just 'gonna stay there for years.' Maybe he was drunk and it seemed like a good idea at the time. But I don't recall him mentioning anything about race in the interview, so why bring that up?

And I don't give a flipping $#@! whether government is headed by a corrupt 100%-white man, a corrupt 50%-black man, or a corrupt 100%-black man. Maybe you ought not pretend to know me and instead go post some comments in a DailyKoz circle jerk.

----------


## XNavyNuke

> this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already.  It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.


_Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training. Now please step this way, as we provide you with our final test......_

If you bother to study history, but bring your presentistic blinders, don't be surprised when the red ink flows on the final exam.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cflpNLjhi0s

XNN

----------


## Badger Paul

As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But _now_ they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why?  War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm quite confident in it.
> 
> That's all they know.


  I'm sure Harry Reid is ecstatic at the prospect of a Dorner bombfire.

----------


## pcosmar

> If, going into an operation it becomes clear that by carrying out your plan it will make things worse, then stop, reassess, and figure out something else to do that won't make matters worse.


Do you read the future?  I am not seeing failure at this point.. though that certainly is possible.

anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.

----------


## pcosmar

> this illustrates the point completely, these "militia" groups are mislead, out of touch, clueless and they are probably coop-teed already.  It doesn't help they have tons of guns and are willing to die for whatever stupid reason they are told.


And you are either quite ignorant of facts,, or deliberately dishonest.

How many people died in the last confrontation? The one at the Bundy Ranch,, when 200 well armed ,,tactically trained and equipped mercenaries were routed..

By some of these same men.

Not a shot fired from the ignorant trigger happy rednecks.. (I see them differently)

----------


## pcosmar

> This situation reeks of deception. I'd put my money on federal agent provocateurs being the ones making this happen - and just in time, too, for Obama's executive (AKA lawless) action on gun control to be revealed. A bloodbath here would be the perfect script - so perfect, it must be scripted.


What bloodbath?

and who's blood?

Who died last time?

----------


## Lucille

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...might-be-stuck




> 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.*

----------


## pcosmar

> As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But _now_ they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why?  War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?


I would say that everyone (of sound mind and body) should join the fight against the beast where ever they are.
same beast in Ferguson and Nevada and Oregon.

BLM or Fusion Center makes little difference,  just different arms of the beast.

----------


## JK/SEA

from Facebook.

Gavin Seim: It appears some 3% groups are actually opposing the Oregon patriots stand and supporting a terrorist goverment by opposing liberty (whether intentional or not). 

Now let me be more clear. I'm not saying all these folks are loyalists. But I appeal to these groups to be bold for liberty. 
Be careful your group is not infiltrated by loyalists. But also that good as good intentioned patriots, we do not support the terrorist goverment inadvertently by in fighting and fear. Hold leadership accountable and remember the message is liberty, not faction. We can unite.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Y'all know it is possible for someone to say that "this one op is a bad idea" without being a fed stooge.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Y'all know it is possible for someone to say that "this one op is a bad idea" without being a fed stooge.



and its also possible that this OP can bear fruit in spite of the lack of support from III.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ilding-n489606

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you are either quite ignorant of facts,, or deliberately dishonest.
> 
> How many people died in the last confrontation? The one at the Bundy Ranch,, when 200 well armed ,,tactically trained and equipped mercenaries were routed..
> 
> By some of these same men.
> 
> Not a shot fired from the ignorant trigger happy rednecks.. (I see them differently)


You do know that a whole stinkin *bunch* of militia members who totally supported (and even participated in!) the Bundy Ranch op, do not support this one, right?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do you read the future?  I am not seeing failure at this point.. though that certainly is possible.
> 
> anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.


I'm actually reading the present.  All the good will that was won over the Bundy Ranch has already been pissed away.  The entire set of Oregon militia members, most of whom actively participated at Bundy Ranch and Sugar Pines Mine, do not support this Ammon Bundy op.  Metric pluck-tons of people I know personally who had gained respect for the militias after Bundy Ranch now want to see them "mowed down" or bombed with drones.

You don't have to look at the future to see what's happening right the hell now.  This is already extremely counterproductive.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You do know that a whole stinkin *bunch* of militia members who totally supported (and even participated in!) the Bundy Ranch op, do not support this one, right?


so?...doesn't mean they are right, right?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> so?...doesn't mean they are right, right?


And opposing Ammon Bundy doesn't make anyone wrong either.

However, there is a far stronger argument that says if the entire breadth of all the Oregon militias do not want you to conduct an op in Oregon, don't.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> and its also possible that this OP can bear fruit in spite of the lack of support from III.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ilding-n489606


The damage is already done.  The feds are chuckling with glee.  The entire American militia movement has been set back 20 years.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> This totally makes my point.  After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will.  Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.
> 
> Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.  
> 
> Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things _worse_, then do something else.


They were calling for the slaughter of those at the Bundy Ranch as well.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They were calling for the slaughter of those at the Bundy Ranch as well.


Not to even a fraction of the degree or the quantity of people as they are now.  Face it, this was a bad idea.  The Bundy Ranch op advanced the American Militia movement by 5 years, and the Ammon Bundy op has set us back 20.

Just because someone is "doing something" does not auto-magically make it a good thing.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Not to even a fraction of the degree or the quantity of people as they are now.  Face it, this was a bad idea.  The Bundy Ranch op advanced the American Militia movement by 5 years, and the Ammon Bundy op has set us back 20.
> 
> Just because someone is "doing something" does not auto-magically make it a good thing.


Yawn.

No, practically every progressive on the Internet was calling for everything from a storming of the ranch to a drone strike. Same as they are now.

Your opinions are just that: opinions. Or do you have a scientific measurement to quantify the exact progress and regression of the militia movement? You throw out a lot of numbers which, from here, sound like complete bull$#@!.

You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.

----------


## phill4paul

> The damage is already done.  The feds are chuckling with glee.  The entire American militia movement has been set back 20 years.


  While I don't think they are in the right for conducting this Op in other militias backyard I don't think you can quantify the effect this has had. At least not yet. It certainly has done a bang up job of dividing the militias and independent operators. I don't know if that was the purpose though or why they would do such.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> anything other than maintaining the status quo requires the risk of failure.. but there are also chances for success.


I think that is his point. What could possibly come of this that is considered a success? They hold the building until the government relinquishes their claim on it? How likely is that? 

If the feds kill all of them, the overwhelming majority of Boobus will cheer and it may incite them to call for their masters to crack down on all anti-government sentiment. They could be martyrs too, but to whom? The local militias up there don't even want them involved.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think that is his point. What could possibly come of this that is considered a success? They hold the building until the government relinquishes their claim on it? How likely is that? 
> 
> If the feds kill all of them, the overwhelming majority of Boobus will cheer and it may incite them to call for their masters to crack down on all anti-government sentiment. They could be martyrs too, but to whom? The local militias up there don't even want them involved.


Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?

----------


## Isaac Bickerstaff

It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.

----------


## phill4paul

> Actually, from current reports, the police aren't even on scene as they are afraid of the response they might receive. "Anti-government militia analysts" on CNN are saying that a heavy handed response would be strategically foolish. They know the world is watching and regardless of what particular militias think about these protester's methods, they are currently backing down the feds. Now what will happen? They'll probably be left there until they leave. So while before it'd have been riot police with batons, dogs, bean bag shotguns, and tasers, that is not happening here. I wonder why?


  I would say that the "militia analyst" are saying what they are saying because, even though other militias don't appreciate this Op, they have stated that a heavy-handed approach would in turn force their hands. I don't know whether it was Mike V. or Rhoades that stated that Bundy has written a check that he expects other militias to cash. They do not appreciate being put in that situation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yawn.
> 
> No, practically every progressive on the Internet was calling for everything from a storming of the ranch to a drone strike. Same as they are now.
> 
> Your opinions are just that: opinions. Or do you have a scientific measurement to quantify the exact progress and regression of the militia movement? You throw out a lot of numbers which, from here, sound like complete bull$#@!.
> 
> You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.


I can see it with my own eyes.  During the Bundy Ranch standoff barely anyone  I knew in FB was hostile.  Now my fb is lit up with calls to bomb them.  

This call to let them be and do something else is insane.

I see a man jamming a fork into a wall outlet and I speak up to say "that's a bad idea" and you are going to tell me to find my own light socket to play with?  Really?

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harming the militia movement in America. I _care_ about the militia movement.  Hell, I'm a _member_ of the militia movement.  

You don't get to auto-magically assume that what Bindy is doing is somehow good just because something is being done.  

Why would you go bat$#@! at people who recognize that what they are doing is counterproductive unless you actually WANT to see harm done to the militia movement?

I mean, if you were being rational here, you would be acting like Anti-Fed.  He disagrees with me, but acknowledges that I at least have a rational argument and a valid point.  He's not trying to shut dissent down via the use of dubious sophistry.

What Ammon Bundy is doing is actively harmful to the militia movement.  You want me to shut up.  I will not.  I care about advancing the American militia movement.  I now will have to double down on secrecy with my own group lest we end up under surveillance.

If someone is going to be an idiot and actively bring harm to the American militia movement, I am going to call them out on it.  You don't like it?  Tough cookies.  Deal with it.

----------


## erowe1

> You don't like what they are doing? Do something else. Something else aside from whining, preferably.


I don't get why I've seen multiple posts in this thread expressing something like this, as if exchanging opinions is out of place in an internet forum.

If there were something positive I could do that would effectively convince these militia members to back down now, I would. As it is, merely stating here that I think they should will have to do.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> While I don't think they are in the right for conducting this Op in other militias backyard I don't think you can quantify the effect this has had. At least not yet. *It certainly has done a bang up job of dividing the militias and independent operators.* I don't know if that was the purpose though or why they would do such.


I do not think it was intentional.  I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong.  If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It looks like the "wildlife refuge" has been bad, bad from the very beginning. Having been on the defensive end of an attempted land grab myself, I tend to believe what Ammon Bundy, Breitbart, etc. are saying. However, these battles can only be won if there is broad local support, which it looks like they don't have.
> The only good I can see coming from this is awareness of the outrages committed by BLM et al. Even if that is the outcome, I still don't like the method. An unarmed occupation would have a clearer path to that goal simply because the people that need to be reached are just too stupid to understand "self defense" when the government is the illegal aggressor.


Clearly the BLM and this "wildlife refuge" is wicked wicked evil bad.  Opposition to what Ammon is doing does not imply support for this wicked government.

----------


## phill4paul

> I do not think it was intentional.  I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong.  If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.


  On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.

----------


## 69360

I don't know if anyone saw this, but #YallQueda waging #Yeehad in reference to these guys in Oregon is hilarious no matter what side of the issue you are on.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> On Ammon Bundy's part I agree. There is not just a little amount of speculation about Ryan Payne from the Oathkeepers and III%'ers. I don't know if it was the intention from the beginning to seize the Wildlife HQ. If it was it should have been co-ordinated which casts some speculation about how such a proposal would have been received and why one continue with a plan that would not garner acceptance. Then again it might just have been a spur of the moment idea since the Hammond's were going to peacefully submit and the whole episode would have blown to the winds as a simple peaceful march.


Oh, yeah, there is definitely a better than zero chance that this Payne guy is crooked as a three dollar bill.  At this point I'd be more surprised if Payne *wasn't* a stooge than if he was.  I wasn't thinking about him when I responded.  I totally think _he's_ dirty as hell.

----------


## rpfocus

> I don't understand the goal of this. The 2 parties have said they intend to report to prison as ordered. So what do the militia intend to accomplish by taking the building?
> 
> I'm not necessarily against armed militias and don't really have a problem with armed protests. I just don't see the point here.


Seems like an Ammon Bundy fame grab. Too bad lives are at stake. No support from me.

----------


## Ender

JFYI

George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.

http://www.history.com/news/10-thing...ston-tea-party

Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right? 

And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.

I don't know if Bundy is being smart or not but I DO know that this forum screams continually about "doing something" and when someone does, everyone goes ballistic.

----------


## JK/SEA

> JFYI
> 
> George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.
> 
> http://www.history.com/news/10-thing...ston-tea-party
> 
> Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right? 
> 
> And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.
> ...



in this case, its become a pissing contest between militia groups. Not good.

----------


## Lucille

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ey-are-ready-f




> In the latest development in the ongoing saga of Ammon Bundy's seizure of a Federal wildlife refuge office in Oregon, the members of the militia said they're ready to fight, but they won't say what they would actually do if federal authorities try to remove them by force as reported in the clip below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, while we noted the shortcomings in Bundy's latest standoff last night, what is even more notable is that as Shepard Ambellas of Intellihub points out, Montel Williams he tweeted that the National Guard should be mobilized to “kill” protesters who have currently overtaken the federal building in Burns, Oregon.
> [...]
> Moreover USA Today has reported that “militia members used the ranchers as a ruse,” in what I and others feel may be the planed catalyst to start a civil war in America.
> 
> ...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Seems like an Ammon Bundy fame grab. Too bad lives are at stake. No support from me.


meh...its possible that many so-called Patriots who are opposing this are actually lying Feds behind their keyboards. It's what they do.

----------


## phill4paul

> JFYI
> 
> George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.
> 
> http://www.history.com/news/10-thing...ston-tea-party
> 
> Also- many are ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished TWICE for the same offense- completely unconstitutional and against Common Law. Not only that but the land that was "arsoned" is in much better condition because of the fire, AND the BLM sets fires continually to land and sometimes it has spilled onto private property- but hey it's the gov so who cares, right? 
> 
> And, as I stated earlier, I believe the only reason that the Hammonds are going peacefully off to prison for the 2nd time, is that a threat has been made towards their families.
> ...


  No, no one is ignoring the fact that the Hammonds are being punished twice for the same offense. I firmly believe that had Hammond asked for protection that most, if not all, of Oregon militias, various III% militias from Oregon , Idaho and other states and the Oathkeepers would have all responded to the call. 
  He did not want their help. What were they to do? Chain him in a barn until his intentions matched theirs?

----------


## jbauer

> This totally makes my point.  After Bundy Ranch, the militias had managed to build up some good will.  Now, every bit of that is squandered and we are worse off than we were before the Bundy Ranch.
> 
> Thanks to this event, the cops could probably go door to door dragging out militia members by the hair and executing them in their driveways and America by and large will heap adulation on the police.  
> 
> Rule #1, if what you want to do is going to make things _worse_, then do something else.


Gunny, 

I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective.  They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse.  So, the bigger question:  Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?

----------


## phill4paul

> Gunny, 
> 
> I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective.  They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse.  So, the bigger question:  Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?


  I can't speak to what Gunny believes, but I believe that an out of state militia should at the very least run their plan by the local militias. At least have that simple courtesy.

----------


## jbauer

> As I said, the Bundys didn't do a damn thing during the Bush II even though the dispute with the Feds goes back to 1993. But _now_ they want to play Johnny Reb? Hmmm, I wonder why?  War against West? You think it started yesterday? Ever heard of the Sagebrush Rebellion? This has been going for 40 f'ing years! The Feds are supposed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Bundys to avoid Waco-style bloodshed while others are gunned down in the street by the local cops and videos are suppressed. You may think it has nothing to do with race but this lack of empathy with other people's struggle's with oppression only makes the disputes between ranchers and the BLM petty by comparison. If you don't believe in broad front again repression by any form of the state, not just the federal government, then don't be surprised at how isolated your cause will become. As I said, the Bundys didn't speak up after Ferguson, who is going to speak up for them other than the same people?


So why don't you go to your next local militia meeting and suggest that you take on one of your suggested projects?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, 
> 
> I usually agree with you, but "making things worse" is very subjective.  They folks barricaded in that govt building probably think what you're doing (by denouncing their actions) is worse.  So, the bigger question:  Does a militia have to ask you for permission before they feel they need to act?


By what right do you think they have to waltz into someone else's state uninvited and unwanted and set up armed camp?  They don't have wildlife refuges in their own state?  This isn't about my permission, it's about the militias of Oregon who do not want them there.

----------


## jllundqu

Hammons are getting screwed, twice, by the feds.  The Bundy thing is stupid and counter-productive.  Two separate issues.

----------


## JK/SEA

> By what right do you think they have to waltz into someone else's state uninvited and unwanted and set up armed camp?  They don't have wildlife refuges in their own state?  This isn't about my permission, it's about the militias of Oregon who do not want them there.


huh?...you telling me militia groups must stay in their own State, and can't mobilize at will without permission from other groups?...seems a bit authortarian, and doesn't live up to the spirit of liberty...

c'mon...really?

this is way more than just about the Hammonds....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> huh?...you telling me militia groups must stay in their own State, and can't mobilize at will without permission from other groups?...seems a bit authortarian, and doesn't live up to the spirit of liberty...
> 
> c'mon...really?
> 
> this is way more than just about the Hammonds....


Seriously?  

You seriously think it's okay to just waltz into someone else's State against their objections and start acting like you own the place?  

Some random guy thinks you are abusing your dog, so he's gonna move into your kitchen with a shotgun.  You think this is freaking okay?

----------


## CPUd

> Church Statement — 4 JANUARY 2016
> *Church Responds to Inquiries Regarding Oregon Armed Occupation*
> 
> SALT LAKE CITY — 
> 
> In response to news media inquiries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement Monday, January 4 (for more context on this issue, see this story from the Washington Post): 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...med-occupation

----------


## Mach

> Oh, yeah, there is definitely a better than zero chance that this Payne guy is crooked as a three dollar bill.  At this point I'd be more surprised if Payne *wasn't* a stooge than if he was.  I wasn't thinking about him when I responded.  I totally think _he's_ dirty as hell.


Here are a couple things that have some,_ surveillance background_.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/oregon-s...hs-and-idiots/




> Still later, from the Oregonian:
> 
>     Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move. He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militias presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community. At a community meeting in Burns Friday, Payne disavowed any ill intentions.


-----

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=46564

-----

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...army/519mi.htm

F Co, 51st Infantry, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion




> 519th Military Intelligence Battalion (Collection) (Airborne)
> 519th Military Intelligence Battalion (Tactical Exploitation) (Airborne)
> 
> As part of the transformation of the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade to a Battlefield Surveillance Brigade in 2008, the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion transformed from a Tactical Exploitation Battalion to a Collection Battalion.
> 
> Previously, the mission of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion (Tactical Exploitation) (Airborne) had been to conduct interrogation of prisoners of war, counterintelligence, and long range reconnaissance and surveillance in support of XVIII Airborne Corps and subordinate divisions.
> 
> The 519th Military Intelligence Battalion (Collection) (Airborne) was first constituted on 1 October 1948 in the Regular Army as the 519th Headquarters Intelligence Detachment and activated on 15 October 1948 at Fort Riley, Kansas. The Detachment was reorganized and redesignated on 10 May 1949 as Headquarters, 519th Military Intelligence Platoon, on 11 August 1949 as the 519th Military Intelligence Service Platoon, on 21 November 1951 as the 519th Military Intelligence Service Battalion, and again on 31 December 1953 as the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.
> 
> ...



-------


What has the Federal Government been doing to _get_ terrorist for many years now?

They _feed_ them, encourage them and give them _direction_ to their _heroism_.... with no real goals.




Problem
Reaction
Solution

----------


## JK/SEA

> Seriously?  
> 
> You seriously think it's okay to just waltz into someone else's State against their objections and start acting like you own the place?  
> 
> Some random guy thinks you are abusing your dog, so he's gonna move into your kitchen with a shotgun.  You think this is freaking okay?


this effort by patriot groups in Oregon is actually taking place on Federal Land. Harney County is owned by the feds. 75% of Harney county is controlled by terrorists.

----------


## jbauer

> Seriously?  
> 
> You seriously think it's okay to just waltz into someone else's State against their objections and start acting like you own the place?  
> 
> Some random guy thinks you are abusing your dog, so he's gonna move into your kitchen with a shotgun.  You think this is freaking okay?


It more accurately described as: if the government was beating your dog on your property and your neighbor decided to take over the post office thats within a stones throw distance-wise.  Rather than your neighbor going on your private property.  

I get it, I get asking the other "militias" I get that you don't care for their actions.  I tend to agree that its probably counter productive.  I'm not sure that its a requirement to poll the local community first.  I'm not sure that other people get a say in "my" personal actions.  Government oppression is government oppression regardless of where, when or how it happens.  These folks are getting the long schlong of the government.  Its absurd to put these guys back in jail after already paying for their "crime".

----------


## phill4paul

> this effort by patriot groups in Oregon is actually taking place on Federal Land. Harney County is owned by the feds. 75% of Harney county is controlled by terrorists.




 H.Q.

4701 N Torrey Pines Dr

Las Vegas | NV 89130-2301

  Why go all the way to Oregon? Where they are not wanted.  Plenty of targets in their own back yard.

----------


## jllundqu

Bottom line is this was supposed to be about the Hammons and their fight.  It has now been successfully co-opted by the bundy's and their kind against the Hammons wishes.

----------


## JK/SEA

> H.Q.
> 
> 4701 N Torrey Pines Dr
> 
> Las Vegas | NV 89130-2301
> 
>   Why go all the way to Oregon? Where they are not wanted.  Plenty of targets in their own back yard.


why?...well, finances, logistics, holiday schedule, apathy, too cold...dunno...as to not being wanted...as i said in an earlier post, it could be that this issue is bigger than just the Hammonds, who are in the FEDS crosshairs for some odd reason, and that reason is subjective...just depends on what kind of coward one is..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> this effort by patriot groups in Oregon is actually taking place on Federal Land. Harney County is owned by the feds. 75% of Harney county is controlled by terrorists.


Land that exists inside of a STATE, where the very active STATE militias there DID NOT WANT them.

----------


## jllundqu

> why?...well, finances, logistics, holiday schedule, apathy, too cold...dunno...as to not being wanted...as i said in an earlier post, it could be that this issue is bigger than just the Hammonds, who are in the FEDS crosshairs for some odd reason, and that reason is subjective...


It's no 'odd' reason.

The feds want their land!  It's private property and they own the water rights and everything, but the feds want it and will stop at nothing to drive them out, much like that family outside area 51 that was forced out.  In the Hammonds prior court case, they were forced to give the feds 'first right of refusal' for selling the property.  Basically, if/when they ever have to sell the ranch, they are FORCED to sell it to the FEDS.

This is a land grab with massive fishy political undertones.

This is where the focus should have been kept... taking over the stupid building is a distraction, detracts from the cause, and makes the Hammons look really bad in their JUST FIGHT against the feds.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Bottom line is this was supposed to be about the Hammons and their fight.  It has now been successfully co-opted by the bundy's and their kind against the Hammons wishes.



this is more than just about the Hammonds....amirite?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It more accurately described as: if the government was beating your dog on your property and your neighbor decided to take over the post office thats within a stones throw distance-wise.  Rather than your neighbor going on your private property.  
> 
> I get it, I get asking the other "militias" I get that you don't care for their actions.  I tend to agree that its probably counter productive.  I'm not sure that its a requirement to poll the local community first.  I'm not sure that other people get a say in "my" personal actions.  Government oppression is government oppression regardless of where, when or how it happens.  These folks are getting the long schlong of the government.  Its absurd to put these guys back in jail after already paying for their "crime".


You don't have to "poll the local community," you _should_ ask the local militias if it's okay to do _militia stuff_ inside of _their state_, and the Oregon militias have not exactly been silent about their disagreement.  

And disagreement with Ammon Bundy in this one event does not imply support for the monsters of the BLM.  Most of the Oregon militia members who have spoken against this, actually participated in the Bundy Ranch standoff.

----------


## phill4paul

> why?...well, finances, logistics, holiday schedule, apathy, too cold...dunno...as to not being wanted...as i said in an earlier post, it could be that this issue is bigger than just the Hammonds, who are in the FEDS crosshairs for some odd reason, and that reason is subjective...just depends on what kind of coward one is..


  All those "why's" would point that they should have looked no further than their back yard. 

  Militias are meant to be local. It doesn't mean that they can't join together but that is not what is happening in Oregon. It's pretty damn hypocritical to go up to Oregon and seize fed property in the name of the liberty movement as a whole when there is fed property right in their backyard. Perhaps they chose not to do that there because "you don't $#@! were you eat."

----------


## JK/SEA

> It's no 'odd' reason.
> 
> The feds want their land!  It's private property and they own the water rights and everything, but the feds want it and will stop at nothing to drive them out, much like that family outside area 51 that was forced out.  In the Hammonds prior court case, they were forced to give the feds 'first right of refusal' for selling the property.  Basically, if/when they ever have to sell the ranch, they are FORCED to sell it to the FEDS.
> 
> This is a land grab with massive fishy political undertones.
> 
> This is where the focus should have been kept... taking over the stupid building is a distraction, detracts from the cause, and makes the Hammons look really bad in their JUST FIGHT against the feds.


don't you think that by 'taking' over a deserted vistor center with open doors, is now getting much needed and embarrassing media attention towards the Feds, is actually working. Its now all over the cable news and internet....bearing fruit my friend. Stay tuned, and keep your powder dry.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> why?...well, finances, logistics, holiday schedule, apathy, too cold...dunno...as to not being wanted...as i said in an earlier post, it could be that this issue is bigger than just the Hammonds, who are in the FEDS crosshairs for some odd reason, and that reason is subjective...just depends on what kind of coward one is..


You think it was too cold in Southern Nevada so they had to go invade Eastern Oregon?  50° highs are too cold so let's go where the highs are in the 20's?

----------


## JK/SEA

> All those "why's" would point that they should have looked no further than their back yard. 
> 
>   Militias are meant to be local. It doesn't mean that they can't join together but that is not what is happening in Oregon. It's pretty damn hypocritical to go up to Oregon and seize fed property in the name of the liberty movement as a whole when there is fed property right in their backyard. Perhaps they chose not to do that their because "you don't $#@! were you eat."


didn't militia groups from across the country go to Bundy's Ranch?...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> don't you think that by 'taking' over a deserted vistor center with open doors, is now getting much needed and embarrassing media attention towards the Feds, is actually working. Its now all over the cable news and internet....bearing fruit my friend. Stay tuned, and keep your powder dry.


You think they would have gotten less attention doing this in their own state where they weren't unwanted?

----------


## phill4paul

> didn't militia groups from across the country go to Bundy's Ranch?...


  Were militia groups from across the country ASKED to come to the Bundy ranch?  By...the Bundy's.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> didn't militia groups from across the country go to Bundy's Ranch?...


You mean where they were invited and wanted?

----------


## jllundqu

> don't you think that by 'taking' over a deserted vistor center with open doors, is now getting much needed and embarrassing media attention towards the Feds, is actually working. Its now all over the cable news and internet....bearing fruit my friend. Stay tuned, and keep your powder dry.


Yeah and instead of the headline being, "Hammons fight unjust sentencing" etc... the headline is "Armed Militia Takes Over Federal Building!"  Driving the narrative that serves TPTB and away from the Hammons plight.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You think it was too cold in Southern Nevada so they had to go invade Eastern Oregon?  50° highs are too cold so let's go where the highs are in the 20's?


thats why i said ''dunno''...

i understand why some milita troopers didn't go....too 'hot' in Oregon?....lol..

----------


## nobody's_hero

> don't you think that by 'taking' over a deserted vistor center with open doors, is now getting much needed and embarrassing media attention towards the Feds, is actually working. Its now all over the cable news and internet....bearing fruit my friend. Stay tuned, and keep your powder dry.


I have to admit that I've not heard anything about the Hammonds situation until the militia took over a hut, and on RPF we usually hear about things before they are news (and even things that never become news). 

Of course I'll do my homework on the issue and find out what led up to this, while most of America will hear about it for the first time and decide they're terrorists because media.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I have to admit that I've not heard anything about the Hammonds situation until the militia took over a hut.


I sure had.  I was actively advocating for the Hammonds.




> Of course I'll do my homework on the issue and find out what led up to this, while most of America will hear about it for the first time and decide they're terrorists because media.


Media and most Americans are ignorant.  And getting worse by the hour.

----------


## Schifference

If I were the Hammond's I would think it were great that another entity was taking up my cause. On the outside they say "Oh we plan to turn ourselves in and do our time" but then all the attention is brought to the issue and they were compliant and not involved.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah and instead of the headline being, "Hammons fight unjust sentencing" etc... the headline is "Armed Militia Takes Over Federal Building!"  Driving the narrative that serves TPTB and away from the Hammons plight.


soo, what you're saying is, that in the upcoming negotiations with the Feds, the 2 hammonds that were violated by the government, will not be part of the negotiations to perhaps dismiss the charges?...will see, but i'm thinking it will.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> thats why i said ''dunno''...
> 
> i understand why some milita troopers didn't go....too 'hot' in Oregon?....lol..


Yeah, some guy who did combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan is too scared that he can't handle the action in Oregon.    Or maybe he just has sense and principles that you don't go $#@!ting in someone's back yard where you aren't wanted.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If I were the Hammond's I would think it were great that another entity was taking up my cause. On the outside they say "Oh we plan to turn ourselves in and do our time" but then all the attention is brought to the issue and they were compliant and not involved.


That's not what they said.  They specifically told the Bundy's to stay out of it.  All fedgov asked of them was to stay quiet, but they didn't stay quiet, they actively told the Bundy's to stay out.  Plus the actual militia groups in Oregon likewise do not approve.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> soo, what you're saying is, that in the upcoming negotiations with the Feds, the 2 hammonds that were violated by the government, will not be part of the negotiations to perhaps dismiss the charges?...will see, but i'm thinking it will.


Throughout the 200+ year history of the United States, whenever an armed group demands that the US release prisoners, the US inevitably makes those prisoners lives more miserable than they already were.  The US has never once in all of our history ceded to such demands.  The only time we have released prisoners was to secure the release of hostages ala Bowe Bergdahl.

----------


## JK/SEA

> That's not what they said.  They specifically told the Bundy's to stay out of it.  All fedgov asked of them was to stay quiet, but they didn't stay quiet, they actively told the Bundy's to stay out.  Plus the actual militia groups in Oregon likewise do not approve.



some people play checkers, while others play chess.

i guess we will have to wait and see if this OP bears fruit.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Throughout the 200+ year history of the United States, whenever an armed group demands that the US release prisoners, the US inevitably makes those prisoners lives more miserable than they already were.  The US has never once in all of our history ceded to such demands.  The only time we have released prisoners was to secure the release of hostages ala Bowe Bergdahl.


will shall see...btw, this mission is not in Iraq.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> some people play checkers, while others play chess.
> 
> i guess we will have to wait and see if this OP bears fruit.


Wait, so you think it is smart strategy to $#@! on other people's states unwanted and uninvited?  That people who would rather respect the wishes of the local militias are "playing checkers" while the people who just want to $#@! all over them are "playing chess?"  Are you seriously trying to argue that violating State sovereignty is an intelligent strategy while respecting State sovereignty is a dumb strategy?

----------


## Schifference

> That's not what they said.  They specifically told the Bundy's to stay out of it.  All fedgov asked of them was to stay quiet, but they didn't stay quiet, they actively told the Bundy's to stay out.  Plus the actual militia groups in Oregon likewise do not approve.


So they telling Bundy's to stay out exonerates them from any wrongdoing associated with the situation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> will shall see...btw, this mission is not in Iraq.


You are the one who argued people were too cowardly to join.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So they telling Bundy's to stay out exonerates them from any wrongdoing associated with the situation.


You don't get to make that assumption, and neither does Ammon Bundy.  if ANYONE gets to make that assumption, it's the *OREGON* militias.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You mean where they were invited and wanted?



i think we're getting past the 'invite' stage...$#@!s getting real more and more everyday...agreed?

----------


## JK/SEA

> You don't get to make that assumption, and neither does Ammon Bundy.  if ANYONE gets to make that assumption, it's the *OREGON* militias.


so, when something as disgusting as this Hammond case is concerned, someone has to send invitations in all future actions otherwise you're on your own...nice to know...

----------


## Schifference

> You don't get to make that assumption, and neither does Ammon Bundy.  if ANYONE gets to make that assumption, it's the *OREGON* militias.


So the militias should organize and have the heads of the militias get together for meetings to make decisions.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> i think we're getting past the 'invite' stage...$#@!s getting real more and more everyday...agreed?


You don't get to walk in uninvited no matter how real the $#@!'s gotten.




> so, when something as disgusting as this Hammond case is concerned, someone has to send invitations in all future actions otherwise you're on your own...nice to know...


If you are wanted, go.  If you are unwanted, don't.  Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So the militias should organize and have the heads of the militias get together for meetings to make decisions.


The militias are _already_ organized, and they _already_ have chains of command.

----------


## JK/SEA

[QUOTE=GunnyFreedom;6087292]You are the one who argued people were too cowardly to join.[/QUOTE

ok, if not a coward then what is the real excuse here....money, time, distance, weather, need a gold fringed invite?...

meh...looks like the militias are actually loyalists. Nothing wrong with that, but it does explain a few things. Don't need the main stream miltias anyway it appears...

----------


## Schifference

> You don't get to walk in uninvited no matter how real the $#@!'s gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are wanted, go.  If you are unwanted, don't.  Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?


Maybe they were really wanted but the Hammond's chose to not openly admit it. Had this not happened no one would know of their situation.

----------


## Schifference

> The militias are _already_ organized, and they _already_ have chains of command.



So what if your militia in your state chooses to not take a stand in a particular instance but all the other militia's across the nation think a stand is necessary? What then?

----------


## JK/SEA

> You don't get to walk in uninvited no matter how real the $#@!'s gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are wanted, go.  If you are unwanted, don't.  Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?


well, you either give a $#@! or you don't, and like i said, you don't need an invite. You might, but if i was able, i would be down there with or without your 'permission'...

----------


## Pericles

> I do not think it was intentional.  I think Ammon Bundy sincerely means well, he's just sincerely wrong.  If anything the fact that actual members of the actual militias are at each other's throats now should be an indication that this op has set the movement back.


When we see the reaction from the Feds, we will know what they think they learned from Bundy Ranch.

On the other side, we see the actions of those who think the win at Bundy ranch was due to the skill and determination of the militia leaders, and think that they can now do this repeatedly.

I'm in the minority that attribute the win at Bundy Ranch due to a freedom flash mob that showed up, and not the skill of the militias involved.

The risk is in finding out who learned the correct lesson from the incident.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Maybe they were really wanted but the Hammond's chose to not openly admit it. Had this not happened no one would know of their situation.


Gunny lives too far away. Not his fault.

----------


## AmberH

> Bottom line for me: I'm not going to sit back and criticize men who are doing what I lack the balls to do myself.
> 
> Maybe it will hurt, maybe it will help, but in the end, they are putting their lives on the line (literally) for what all of us *talk* about.



Agreed. If everyone waits for the perfect plan or perfect time then nothing is ever going to change.

----------


## Pericles

> huh?...you telling me militia groups must stay in their own State, and can't mobilize at will without permission from other groups?...seems a bit authortarian, and doesn't live up to the spirit of liberty...
> 
> c'mon...really?
> 
> this is way more than just about the Hammonds....


Constitutionally, a militia could only operate out of state if called into the actual service of the United States. You might argue there is also provision if necessary to repel an invasion ....

When you are a militia that claims Constitutional protections, you are also bound by Constitutional restrictions.

----------


## Pericles

> So the militias should organize and have the heads of the militias get together for meetings to make decisions.


Basic step in avoiding "friendly fire".

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Constitutionally, a militia could only operate out of state if called into the actual service of the United States. You might argue there is also provision if necessary to repel an invasion ....
> 
> When you are a militia that claims Constitutional protections, you are also bound by Constitutional restrictions.


Indeed, historically the militia was actually much more organized and bound by, what I guess you could call 'red tape' for lack of a better word. I'm not trying to knock militias these days but there's gotta be more to it than Bubba wanting to get some drinking buddies together and naming a band of militia members after their favorite beer brand, which, I hate to say, seems to be basically what we're seeing in Oregon.

And there really should be at least some degree of organization between local sheriffs and militias (I'm not saying put the militia under the command of the sheriff). Right now, Sheriff Ward could step in and offer an independent investigation from the Feds and determine:

a) If the Hammonds have indeed had their constitutional rights violated by being re-sentenced for a sentence they've already served

b) If the Feds have issued an unlawful and sinister variation of a 'gag order' akin to blackmail for harsher sentencing if the Hammonds encourage protests

That would be enough, I think, for the militia to pack up and go home, and would at least de-escalate the situation, and those aren't unreasonable terms given the background information on this case that has circulated.

Those two issues really need to be examined, in my opinion, as they are the best defense the Hammonds have.

But frankly, if you don't have a sheriff with at least a basic understanding of how local government > federal government then you're all but wasting your time to try to start up a militia. My guess is that sheriff Ward is of the breed of local law enforcement that thinks his job is just to be the fingertips on the arm of the federal government, which we have far too many of in our nation.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Constitutionally, a militia could only operate out of state if called into the actual service of the United States. You might argue there is also provision if necessary to repel an invasion ....
> 
> When you are a militia that claims Constitutional protections, you are also bound by Constitutional restrictions.


so the Bundy mission wasn't Constitutional...lots of wiggle room and subjective ideals at play...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> You are the one who argued people were too cowardly to join.
> 
> 
> ok, if not a coward then what is the real excuse here....money, time, distance, weather, need a gold fringed invite?...
> 
> meh...looks like the militias are actually loyalists. Nothing wrong with that, but it does explain a few things. Don't need the main stream miltias anyway it appears...


Opposition to Ammon Bundy does not imply support for the BLM.  Logic, you should try it.

----------


## Valli6

> Yeah and instead of the headline being, "Hammons fight unjust sentencing" etc... the headline is "Armed Militia Takes Over Federal Building!"  Driving the narrative that serves TPTB and away from the Hammons plight.


This is what's pissing me off. It's all going to devolve into a bunch "racism" "white people are blah blah blah " arguments, instead of covering the government's persecution of people they want to steal property from.

Look at the governments response when they decided to set fires on a warm, dry day after the local weather department advised against it, and ranchers begged them not to! The fire spread to several private properties destroying property, fences, and killing animals.




> ...After a U.S. Forest Service-ignited fire sickened and killed cattle while burning privately-owned grass, fences, hay and trees, and the agency refused to compensate them, Perkins County, South Dakota ranchers have now taken the next step and filed suit
> 
> ...The U.S. Department of Agriculture informed the ranchers in June of 2015 that it would accept no responsibility and cover no associated expenses from the April 2013 fire
> http://www.tsln.com/news/19891391-11...ver-2013-blaze

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe they were really wanted but the Hammond's chose to not openly admit it. Had this not happened no one would know of their situation.


You do not get to make that determination.  If anybody gets to make that determination it is the militias in OREGON.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So what if your militia in your state chooses to not take a stand in a particular instance but all the other militia's across the nation think a stand is necessary? What then?


Then the people of my State do not think the issue is important enough and the other states had best butt out of our sovereignty.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Opposition to Ammon Bundy does not imply support for the BLM.  Logic, you should try it.


Logic...thats a good one.

frankly, if you don't like the BLM, then why are so-called miltias doing everything they can to make sure this Hammond issue is swept under the rug?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> well, you either give a $#@! or you don't, and like i said, you don't need an invite. You might, but if i was able, i would be down there with or without your 'permission'...


Opposition to Ammon Bundy does not imply not giving a $#@! about the Hammonds.  Logic, you should try it.

You tote a rifle on my property without my permission and you are going to find yourself missing half your grey matter.

----------


## Deborah K

> I can't speak to what Gunny believes, but I believe that an out of state militia should at the very least run their plan by the local militias. At least have that simple courtesy.


Which begs the questions: Who are they?  How does one "vet" a militia?  Is there any historical background on said militia?  Do we even know if they are 'legit'?  Has it been established that they have a history, etc.?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Then the people of my State do not think the issue is important enough and the other states had best butt out of our sovereignty.


even if the cancer is spreading...got it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny lives too far away. Not his fault.


I'm citing the guy who lives in Oregon, and who participated in Bundy Ranch and who participated in Sugar Pines Mine.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Opposition to Ammon Bundy does not imply not giving a $#@! about the Hammonds.  Logic, you should try it.
> 
> You tote a rifle on my property without my permission and you are going to find yourself missing half your grey matter.


the miltia group IS NOT on Hammond property as we speak, they are on FEDERAL LAND. Harney county is 75% owned by the FEDS...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Constitutionally, a militia could only operate out of state if called into the actual service of the United States. You might argue there is also provision if necessary to repel an invasion ....
> 
> When you are a militia that claims Constitutional protections, you are also bound by Constitutional restrictions.


This. 1000 times this.  People want to act like States do not exist.  People are getting pissed at me because I respect State sovereignty.  I thought nearly all of us respected State sovereignty, but I guess most of these folks are just fine with pissing on sovereign States whenever it emotionally 'feels good.'

----------


## nobody's_hero

> This is what's pissing me off. *It's all going to devolve into a bunch "racism" "white people are blah blah blah " arguments, instead of covering the government's persecution of people they want to steal property from.*
> Look at the governments response when they decided to set fires on a warm, dry day after the local weather department advised against it, and ranchers begged them not to! The fire spread to several private properties destroying property, fences, and killing animals.


Already happened a few pages back in this very thread.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Logic...thats a good one.
> 
> frankly, if you don't like the BLM, then why are so-called miltias doing everything they can to make sure this Hammond issue is swept under the rug?


I respect State sovereignty.  Oregon didn't want them.  That should be enough.  But you just go on and invent bull$#@! you want me to believe because it makes it easier to hate your strawman.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Which begs the questions: Who are they?  How does one "vet" a militia?  Is there any historical background on said militia?  Do we even know if they are 'legit'?  Has it been established that they have a history, etc.?


you have to get permission from OathKeepers. They have a list.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Which begs the questions: Who are they?  How does one "vet" a militia?  Is there any historical background on said militia?  Do we even know if they are 'legit'?  Has it been established that they have a history, etc.?


there are plenty of well known and respected militia groups in Oregon with a solid history.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I respect State sovereignty.  Oregon didn't want them.  That should be enough.  But you just go on and invent bull$#@! you want me to believe because it makes it easier to hate your strawman.


State Sovreignty?....even on Federal Land?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> you have to get permission from OathKeepers. They have a list.


This is just ignorant.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> even if the cancer is spreading...got it.


If it's not your State, then you don't get to make that call.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> the miltia group IS NOT on Hammond property as we speak, they are on FEDERAL LAND. Harney county is 75% owned by the FEDS...


Which resides in the STATE of Oregon, which STATE has active militia.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> State Sovreignty?....even on Federal Land?


The States have sovereignty within their borders, even over federal land.

----------


## 69360

I saw another one. They are also refering to these guys now as #vanillaISIS 

That is awesome even if I don't agree with it.

----------


## JK/SEA

> The States have sovereignty within their borders, even over federal land.


ok.

bottomline for me is i'm very glad someone is doing 'something' to get this issue up front.

----------


## Origanalist

> ok.
> 
> bottomline for me is i'm very glad someone is doing 'something' to get this issue up front.


The same could be said for what you're saying. You're saying if Oregon doesn't want them to bad because Federal.....

That sounds a bit like ol' honest Abe.

----------


## Deborah K

> there are plenty of well known and respected militia groups in Oregon with a solid history.


I'm sure there are.  What I'm getting at, is whether the out of state militia (in question) is legit.  You know, are we sure it's not a false flag issue?  What is known about the out of state militia?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ok.
> 
> bottomline for me is i'm very glad someone is doing 'something' to get this issue up front.


The love of "doing something" is the root of all kinds of evil.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm sure there are.  What I'm getting at, is whether the out of state militia (in question) is legit.  You know, are we sure it's not a false flag issue?  What is known about the out of state militia?


I think Ammon Bundy is sincere enough.  His man Payne though may be a fedgov stooge.

----------


## JK/SEA

> The same could be said for what you're saying. You're saying if Oregon doesn't want them to bad because Federal.....
> 
> That sounds a bit like ol' honest Abe.


no, the argument was States rights. Apparently i was mistaken about the Feds having complete jurisdiction over land they claim to own...but they really dont...apparently.

fyi...a new vid has been up-loaded from the Bundy group. A different rancher in the area is asking for help now.

----------


## JK/SEA

> The love of "doing something" is the root of all kinds of evil.


no mercy eh?...pretty sure you don't know all of whats going on behind the scene, and neither do i, but my conscience says the Hammonds need help whether they know it or not...lots of stuff to figure out, but its getting more clear the average patriot can't count on the miltia and their white horses for much of anything at this time.

----------


## rpfocus

> meh...its possible that many so-called Patriots who are opposing this are actually lying Feds behind their keyboards. It's what they do.


LOL? Yeah when I finish my day here at the Bureau, I'm on my way... comical.

----------


## Origanalist

> no, the argument was States rights. Apparently i was mistaken about the Feds having complete jurisdiction over land they claim to own...but they really dont...apparently.
> 
> fyi...a new vid has been up-loaded from the Bundy group. A different rancher in the area is asking for help now.


Not to be argumentative, but you just agreed with me. Yes, the argument is States rights. Tube or link on the other rancher?

----------


## JK/SEA

> LOL? Yeah when I finish my day here at the Bureau, I'm on my way... comical.


were you invited ..?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> no mercy eh?...pretty sure you don't know all of whats going on behind the scene, and neither do i, but my conscience says the Hammonds need help whether they know it or not...lots of stuff to figure out, but its getting more clear the average patriot can't count on the miltia and their white horses for much of anything at this time.


Doesn't matter if you or I think, emotionally, what someone needs.  If it's a militia issue, then the OREGON militia needs to deal with stuff in OREGON.

----------


## Origanalist

> no mercy eh?...pretty sure you don't know all of whats going on behind the scene, and neither do i, but my conscience says the *Hammonds need help whether they know it or not...*lots of stuff to figure out, but its getting more clear the average patriot can't count on the miltia and their white horses for much of anything at this time.


Wow, that's really good of you to decide that for them.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Not to be argumentative, but you just agreed with me. Yes, the argument is States rights. Tube or link on the other rancher?


finally we agree on something...

the vid is on facebook...bundy ranch page.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Wow, that's really good of you to decide that for them.


$#@! you. i have an opinion...deal...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> LOL? Yeah when I finish my day here at the Bureau, I'm on my way... comical.


We do not bow before him and kiss his feet, therefore me must be feds.  Simple eh?  If he were forced to acknowledge that we are rational people who might have a point, then he'd be forced to reexamine his own understanding.  Can't have that now.  Therefore we're all feds.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> $#@! you. i have an opinion...deal...


But the Hammonds are not allowed their opinion.  Because, emotions.

----------


## JK/SEA

> But the Hammonds are not allowed their opinion.  Because, emotions.


meh.

marines don't have emotions...my mistake.

----------


## rpfocus

> We do not bow before him and kiss his feet, therefore me must be feds.  Simple eh?  If he were forced to acknowledge that we are rational people who might have a point, then he'd be forced to reexamine his own understanding.  Can't have that now.  Therefore we're all feds.


Now he tells me. I could have been abusing my authority all this time!

----------


## Origanalist

> $#@! you. i have an opinion...deal...


Whoa there big guy, you're opinion doesn't carry the weight of authority over the Hammond's wishes.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Whoa there big guy, you're opinion doesn't carry the weight of authority over the Hammond's wishes.


no $#@!ing $#@! sherlock. 

this is a political forum, and damn if people don't toss out their own opinions in here daily. including you.

----------


## phill4paul

> no mercy eh?...pretty sure you don't know all of whats going on behind the scene, and neither do i, but my conscience says the Hammonds need help whether they know it or not...lots of stuff to figure out, but its getting more clear the average patriot can't count on the miltia and their white horses for much of anything at this time.


  Whatcha gonna do? Lock the Hammonds in the basement until they come to their senses? The militia and their white horses worked out pretty well at the Bundy's Ranch.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I don't know why anybody would be surprised that folks on RonPaulForums believe in State Sovereignty.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Whatcha gonna do? Lock the Hammonds in the basement until they come to their senses? The militia and their white horses worked out pretty well at the Bundy's Ranch.


the jury is still out on Hammond and this visitor center uprising, and any results that might come from it...

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't know why anybody would be surprised that folks on RonPaulForums believe in State Sovereignty.


did you make a typo?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> the jury is still out on Hammond and this visitor center uprising, and any results that might come from it...


Most of us here are not consequentialists, we operate on principle.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> did you make a typo?


No, should I?

----------


## Origanalist

> no $#@!ing $#@! sherlock. 
> 
> this is a political forum, and damn if people don't toss out their own opinions in here daily. including you.


Indeed I do, but most of the time it doesn't include doing things for people that they don't want for their own good per my opinion.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Most of us here are not consequentialists, we operate on principle.


ok.

the jury is still out regardless.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Indeed I do, but most of the time it doesn't include doing things for people that they don't want for their own good per my opinion.



you're sure about that?...

i'm not.

----------


## Origanalist

> you're sure about that?...
> 
> i'm not.


Nobody's perfect, I'm open to examples.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Indeed I do, but most of the time it doesn't include doing things for people that they don't want for their own good per my opinion.


Unless they are _your_ children or _your_ pets, then doing things for people that they don't want for their own good shouldn't even be considered an option.

----------


## UWDude

Does anybody else find it interesting this BLM thing has the same name as another BLM thing that most people at this government siege would probably hate?

It's like Hussein Obama and Osama and Saddam Hussein.  It's eerie.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Does anybody else find it interesting this BLM thing has the same name as another BLM thing that most people at this government siege would probably hate?
> 
> It's like Hussein Obama and Osama and Saddam Hussein.  It's eerie.


Yeah, I have noticed that.  The antagonism goes both ways too.  Honestly though, I think the #BlackLivesMatter crowd is more likely to hate the Bundys than the Bundys are to hate the #BlackLivesMatter crowd.

----------


## Schifference

I would think the attorney for the Hammond's are pleased that the Hammond's distanced themselves from the group and are not upset that the situation is getting attention. I would bet that the attorney couldn't have it any better.

----------


## UWDude

> Yeah, I have noticed that.  The antagonism goes both ways too.  Honestly though, I think the #BlackLivesMatter crowd is more likely to hate the Bundys than the Bundys are to hate the #BlackLivesMatter crowd.


Maybe, maybe not.  I don't think #BLM is very fond of CIA and FBI, NSA and DEA if you get right down to it.  I would venture to guess the racist elements in both, relish the idea of the other getting blown to bits.

My friend asked me if this was it, the right wing revolution I was talking about for years now.  I said, "nope, there will be no great event".

I don't think this will turn to much, honestly.

----------


## Schifference

Gunny, your enthusiasm and dedication for what you believe is sincerely commendable! You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

----------


## Pericles

> so the Bundy mission wasn't Constitutional...lots of wiggle room and subjective ideals at play...


It wasn't and one of the reasons at least one Texas militia would not go.

----------


## Origanalist

> Maybe, maybe not.  I don't think #BLM is very fond of CIA and FBI, NSA and DEA if you get right down to it.  I would venture to guess the racist elements in both, relish the idea of the other getting blown to bits.
> 
> My friend asked me if this was it, the right wing revolution I was talking about for years now.  I said, "nope, there will be no great event".
> 
> I don't think this will turn to much, honestly.


The venom on both sides is sickening to behold, divide and conquer is alive and well.

----------


## Uriel999

> no mercy eh?...pretty sure you don't know all of whats going on behind the scene, and neither do i, but my conscience says the *Hammonds need help whether they know it or not*...lots of stuff to figure out, but its getting more clear the average patriot can't count on the miltia and their white horses for much of anything at this time.





> But the Hammonds are not allowed their opinion.  Because, emotions.


Let's bomb some FREEDOM into Oregon. They will surely view us as liberators.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, I have noticed that.  The antagonism goes both ways too.  Honestly though, I think the #BlackLivesMatter crowd is more likely to hate the Bundys than the Bundys are to hate the #BlackLivesMatter crowd.


And that's because, if you'll recall, tptb and their propagandist media machine successfully managed to vilify Bundy as a racist.  In so doing, they ruined the support he was gaining and ultimately marginalized him.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think Ammon Bundy is sincere enough.  His man Payne though may be a fedgov stooge.


Payne was outed.  What is Ammon thinking??  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5522352

----------


## erowe1

> Does anybody else find it interesting this BLM thing has the same name as another BLM thing that most people at this government siege would probably hate?
> 
> It's like Hussein Obama and Osama and Saddam Hussein.  It's eerie.


There's no reason at all that they should hate Black Lives Matter, and I hope they don't. There are so many obvious reasons that they should be natural allies. Whatever it is that stands in the way of building that alliance, we need to get past it.

----------


## Origanalist

> Payne was outed.  What is Ammon thinking??  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5522352


Makes you wonder.

----------


## Dr.3D

//

----------


## Origanalist

> //


Did you get lost Doc?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Did you get lost Doc?


Yeah, too many tabs open at the same time.

----------


## Valli6

Lou Dobb just did a couple segments on the Hammonds on the Fox Business channel. 
First and only proper mainstream coverage I've seen yet! 

Dobbs is real pissed - says they're persecuting the two ranchers, ridiculous to charge them as terrorists, and the US attorney that re-sentenced them is "beneath contempt". Apparently the jury was not made aware that they were trying the ranchers on terrorism charges?  He's asking "Where's Oregon's congressional delegation?" "Why isn't anyone standing up for these ranchers?" and quoting Madison.

Also interviewed John O'Keefe who is the head of the Oregon Cattleman's Association. All agree the Bundy's shouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Guys, at this point I have to say, I don't think this story would be getting covered _at all_ in my part of the country if the Bundy's hadn't done something conspicuous. I live in the east, and we have no concept of how ranching works out there in the wide open spaces. Too easy to fool us! I only know what I know about it now, because I read what you all say and then did some research.

----------


## XNavyNuke

> George Washington was against the Boston Tea Party as were most Americans until the Brits began their punishment of Boston. This brought many colonials together.
> 
> http://www.history.com/news/10-thing...ston-tea-party


From the link:
*George Washington Condemned The Boston Tea Party*

Well......not exactly. He clearly had a alternate viewpoint being a Virginian. That is not the same as condemnation.

From his 1774 letter to Bryan Fairfax while discussing the Boston situation.
*http://founders.archives.gov/GEWN-02-10-02-0081*



> .   That I differ very widely from you, in respect to the mode of obtaining a defeat [repeal] of the acts so much and so justly complained of, I shall not hesitate to acknowledge; and that this difference in opinion may probably proceed from the different constructions we put upon the conduct and intention of the ministry may also be true; but, as I see nothing, on the one hand, to induce a belief that the Parliament would embrace a favorable opportunity of repealing acts, which they go on with great rapidity to pass, and in order to enforce their tyrannical system; and, on the other, I observe, or think I observe, that government is pursuing a regular plan at the expense of [422] law and justice to overthrow our constitutional rights and liberties, how can I expect any redress from a measure, which has been ineffectually tried already? For, Sir, what is it we are contending against? Is it against paying the duty of three pence per pound on tea because burthensome?


He differed with the approach, but absolutely agreed with the need to address the tax. There were various protests during these years, but it was not any British response to protesters that ultimately unified the colonies into action. Instead it was a unilateral action against the communities of Concord, Lexington, and Menotomy that was the galvanizing event. Even previous powder raids did not have this effect.

XNN

----------


## Thor

> Guys, at this point I have to say, I don't think this story would be getting covered _at all_ in my part of the country if the Bundy's hadn't done something conspicuous.


I think that is very accurate.  If Bundy had not shown up, the Hammonds would have quietly turned themselves in and nobody would be even talking about this.  Would Lou Dobbs talk about 2 ranchers that turned themselves in if Bundy and crew had not done what they did?  So for a "stupid white rancher", he has gotten the whole country aware of what has happened.  What is disturbing though is all the liberal bootlickers who come out on social media and want them all "removed."  

So if it was stupid of Bundy or not to do what he did, he is getting awareness everywhere, that otherwise would have been a silent victory for the government as the Hammonds quietly went to the klink, again....

----------


## Deborah K

Does anyone remember the Battle of Athens?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ens_%281946%29




> Date
> August 12, 1946 
> 
> Location
> Athens, Tennessee, United States
> 35.442°N 84.592°WCoordinates: 35.442°N 84.592°W 
> 
> *Result
> McMinn County government forced to disband, replaced by new government*  
> ...

----------


## Pericles

> Let's bomb some FREEDOM into Oregon. They will surely view us as liberators.


And then they should be forced to buy health care for their own good.

----------


## Pericles

> Lou Dobb just did a couple segments on the Hammonds on the Fox Business channel. 
> First and only proper mainstream coverage I've seen yet! 
> 
> Dobbs is real pissed - says they're persecuting the two ranchers, ridiculous to charge them as terrorists, and the US attorney that re-sentenced them is "beneath contempt". Apparently the jury was not made aware that they were trying the ranchers on terrorism charges?  He's asking "Where's Oregon's congressional delegation?" "Why isn't anyone standing up for these ranchers?" and quoting Madison.
> 
> Also interviewed John O'Keefe who is the head of the Oregon Cattleman's Association. All agree the Bundy's shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
> 
> Guys, at this point I have to say, I don't think this story would be getting covered _at all_ in my part of the country if the Bundy's hadn't done something conspicuous. I live in the east, and we have no concept of how ranching works out there in the wide open spaces. Too easy to fool us! I only know what I know about it now, because I read what you all say and then did some research.


While true, the militia guys there have put themselves into a situation where they have little tactical flexibility and have to come away with a win, or do great damage to the movement. You want to be able to manage the conflict to your advantage.

I even know of a book written about just how to do that.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Hoping for the best, expecting the worst. A lot of the guys around the Bundy's seem shady, and the entire situation just doesn't feel right. Nevertheless, I have a lot of respect for Cliven Bundy and his children. I just think they may be a little overzealous for their own good and it may come to bite them this time. I will pray that the situation remedies itself in a peaceful and productive manner.

----------


## dannno



----------


## Schifference

has any crime been committed as of this moment? Can all people just decide to go home? Can anyone just decide to go home without being prosecuted?

----------


## Origanalist

> has any crime been committed as of this moment? Can all people just decide to go home? Can anyone just decide to go home without being prosecuted?


They can charge them, whether they will or not remains to be seen. Trespassing on federal property and probably a whole host of things you and I never thought of. I'm sure they could charge them with a lot that carries significant prison time, just look at the Hammonds.

----------


## Thor

> has any crime been committed as of this moment? Can all people just decide to go home? Can anyone just decide to go home without being prosecuted?


I heard they needed snacks...  maybe they should order some delivery pizza and tip the guy with a white flag...  I think if they wanted to make 'merika aware of the issue, they have succeeded at their task....   no need to keep it going.  Everyone knows what the BLM and FWS did to the Hammonds, or will now that this has hit the spotlight.  No need to fall on the sword too...

----------


## dannno

> has any crime been committed as of this moment? Can all people just decide to go home? Can anyone just decide to go home without being prosecuted?


Check the vid I posted, the Hammonds got charged with terrorism for starting maintenance burns that got a little out of control, went off their property and ended up increasing the value of BLM land. The first judge said that it was unconstitutional to charge them with terrorism, and the feds came in and re-sentenced them under the terrorism charges.

You don't think they would charge the Bundy group with terrorism for taking over their building?

----------


## sparebulb

> You don't think they would charge the Bundy group with terrorism for taking over their building?


That is too easy.

How many here would like to bet against me that the feds have multiple warrants ready to go against every Bundy and many others regarding the last event in NV?

Harry Reid is to be believed when he said that this is not over, from the Fed's point of view.

----------


## Schifference

Can food and supplies be delivered or would that be considered aiding?

----------


## Origanalist

> Can food and supplies be delivered or would that be considered aiding?


I believe they already are.

----------


## Deborah K

> Check the vid I posted, the Hammonds got charged with terrorism for starting maintenance burns that got a little out of control, went off their property and ended up increasing the value of BLM land. The first judge said that it was unconstitutional to charge them with terrorism, and the feds came in and re-sentenced them under the terrorism charges.
> 
> You don't think they would charge the Bundy group with terrorism for taking over their building?


I thought it was "the people's" building.  I thought they were public servants.  I thought the taxpayer was their employer.  Oh yeah, we are!!  We've just gotten so _pussified_ that we've bought into the "us vs. them" thinking, so now it's THEIR building, and THEIR property!  W.T.F.???  I know I've been saying this for years and years, but we need a tax revolt.  Starve the beast!  And we need more brave souls banding together, like the militia.  Anyone who thinks they can just armchair quarterback this $#@! and hope for the best, or maybe just wait it out and watch it all burn down, and be there to pick up the pieces - is delusional.

----------


## phill4paul

> I thought it was "the people's" building.  I thought they were public servants.  I thought the taxpayer was their employer.  Oh yeah, we are!!  We've just gotten so _pussified_ that we've bought into the "us vs. them" thinking, so now it's THEIR building, and THEIR property!  W.T.F.???  *I know I've been saying this for years and years, but we need a tax revolt.*  Starve the beast!  And we need more brave souls banding together, like the militia.  Anyone who thinks they can just armchair quarterback this $#@! and hope for the best, or maybe just wait it out and watch it all burn down, and be there to pick up the pieces - is delusional.


  6+ yrs. and still standing.

----------


## Origanalist

> 6+ yrs. and still standing.


Not six uninterrupted but probably 3 out the last 4 anyway. I don't think I paid a dime last year. (on wages)

----------


## Dianne

> 6+ yrs. and still standing.


You have probably missed out on a lot of money.   You can owe no income tax whatsoever and still get an earned income credit check in the mail in the amount of $4,000. to $5,000. depending on the amount of dependents you have.

----------


## phill4paul

> You have probably missed out on a lot of money.   You can owe no income tax whatsoever and still get an earned income credit check in the mail in the amount of $4,000. to $5,000. depending on the amount of dependents you have.


  Money is not important to me. Not _filing_ is.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZywsT8Sy-c



this is not the first time the Federal government imprisons people for land grabs and money by making examples out of innocent people thrown in prison just to redefine laws or enforce existing bull$#@!

----------


## TheNewYorker

> Money is not important to me. Not _filing_ is.


You better be careful with that... It's going to catch up to you. My brother in law is serving 25 years in prison for not reporting his income

----------


## UWDude

I see the "thing" happening now.  The big "it."  Where those radicals, who should be united against the repression of the police state, are instead, in hot hatred of each other.  Their anger once again focused to the man standing next to him, instead of the one holding the whip above him.

Right now, it is an operation.  Why here?  Why now?  Why Oregon?

Solidarity is the answer.  Division will destroy all human freedom.  Boot on face forever style.

I am quite convinced now, Bundy and the BLM and the BLM movement, 9/11 and emergency code 911, Osama and Obama, are all related to the bigger puppet show.  This is literal mass mind control, dreamed up by scientific, philosophical, ancient order megalomaniacal minds.  Their dream is your nightmare, masses, I assure you.

Thing is, it's a dirty job, and someone's gotta do it.  Someone has to be the megalomaniac, right?  All power is justified in the mind of the user as a path to some greater good.  

So yeah, we'll even one day hear about solidarity, and they'll mean, "solidarity, under my cause, in my small radical tent", and nobody will be able to actually unite.  Race was, is, and always will be the American Empire's weak point.  If you can't solve that, you are all damned to your destiny with the rest of the miserable race.  A miserable, angry, hateful land of people intent on killing each other for centuries.  Constant war and conflict.

This is what upset me, I posed the question here, about 10 minutes later, this video shows up in my youtube subscriptions:
The Shared Interests of the Oregon Militia Movement, 
"oh? I'll mouse over that"
Koch Brothers and LDS Church.
"oh boy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0vGjIBK7ww 

This is your controlled, leftist "radical" opposition.  _(don't bother watching, I didn't, the title is what is important.)_

I loathe to post it here though, because a lot of smug right wingers, engrossed in their own hatred, will just use it to justify their own racist and hateful ideologies.  But hey, let the hate flow.  I think this group has the highest amount of people per capita of seeing through it and not getting caught up in it.  And I am just here to help those who do care about the truth, justice, and the American way.  It is hard to know truth and impossible to know justice in the empire of lies.


Let me put it this way:
If I see signs of division, and actors of division, I will know they are part of the dividers.  There is much truth in what they say, that is the function of dis-info and controlled opposition.  It must use truth most of the time.  But even a 100% truthful news piece can be ALL LIE.  Yes, because sometimes, it is what THEY DON'T SAY that determines the truth of something.

So I see actors of Division for what they are, and actors of unity as what they are.  The actors of unity are quite rare.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I see the "thing" happening now.  The big "it."  Where those radicals, who should be united against the repression of the police state, are instead, in hot hatred of each other.  Their anger once again focused to the man standing next to him, instead of the one holding the whip above him.
> 
> Right now, it is an operation.  Why here?  Why now?  Why Oregon?
> 
> Solidarity is the answer.  Division will destroy all human freedom.  Boot on face forever style.
> 
> I am quite convinced now, Bundy and the BLM and the BLM movement, 9/11 and emergency code 911, Osama and Obama, are all related to the bigger puppet show.  This is literal mass mind control, dreamed up by scientific, philosophical, ancient order megalomaniacal minds.  Their dream is your nightmare, masses, I assure you.
> 
> Thing is, it's a dirty job, and someone's gotta do it.  Someone has to be the megalomaniac, right?  All power is justified in the mind of the user as a path to some greater good.  
> ...


I say they are idiots.

I'm honestly hoping it doesn't go beyond that and they just go away and this is settled peacefully.

An Alamo situation is forced upon you.  You don't go around creating an Alamo situation by picking a gun fight against drone gangsters over such a wonky set of circumstances.

I've also been considering what course to take if we start to see "Liberty" Guerillas here in the forest the way we saw Trumpaloompas climb out of their hobbit holes after Ferguson.  We can handle Trumpaloompas.  They are siding with a guy, however much clown crack he appears to be smoking, who is participating in the political arena.  We can handle 20 Trumpaloompas hell bent on setting fire to the political arena.

We can't handle or tolerate 20 guys justifying guerilla warfare and armed sedition as a primary strategy.  

We establish a consensus on red lines that the enemy doesn't cross.  We don't cross the enemies red lines to establish a consensus.

----------


## UWDude

If I was given freemason/illuminati/lizard people/ZOG/astrological wavelength/bankstercronyacapitalistcorporatistsfascist reigns this moment, I would have the #BlackLivesMatter take some national guard fire, killing a couple, and then do the same to the Bundy camp, be sure at least a couple are killed, especially a woman or child in one.

Now hot heads get hot.  The rest are arrested, and the hate simmers a little hotter.  Now it is life or death.  They get mad at each other for not recognizing eachothers martyrs, instead demonizing them.  (remember, I control the media too, so I write the stories, and I publicize the character assassinations of the dead... ..the blacks will be portrayed as thugs, and the whites would be portrayed as rabid racist right wingers.)

then I would roar out an evil laugh, kind of like, MWahahahahahahaha... HA HA HA HA mmmm mmmmhmmm hmmm hmmm.

----------


## Uriel999

> If I was given freemason/illuminati/lizard people/ZOG/astrological wavelength/bankstercronyacapitalistcorporatistsfascist reigns this moment, I would have the #BlackLivesMatter take some national guard fire, killing a couple, and then do the same to the Bundy camp, be sure at least a couple are killed, especially a woman or child in one.
> 
> Now hot heads get hot.  The rest are arrested, and the hate simmers a little hotter.  Now it is life or death.  They get mad at each other for not recognizing eachothers martyrs, instead demonizing them.  (remember, I control the media too, so I write the stories, and I publicize the character assassinations of the dead... ..the blacks will be portrayed as thugs, and the whites would be portrayed as rabid racist right wingers.)
> 
> then I would roar out an evil laugh, kind of like, MWahahahahahahaha... HA HA HA HA mmmm mmmmhmmm hmmm hmmm.


But what if they did recognize each others martyrs and they came together realizing their problems are different yet the same...too much government.

----------


## Origanalist

> But what if they did recognize each others martyrs and they came together realizing their problems are different yet the same...too much government.


That right now is a very large *if*.

----------


## Origanalist

> I say they are idiots.
> 
> I'm honestly hoping it doesn't go beyond that and they just go away and this is settled peacefully.
> 
> An Alamo situation is forced upon you.  You don't go around creating an Alamo situation by picking a gun fight against drone gangsters over such a wonky set of circumstances.
> 
> I've also been considering what course to take if we start to see "Liberty" Guerillas here in the forest the way we saw Trumpaloompas climb out of their hobbit holes after Ferguson.  We can handle Trumpaloompas.  They are siding with a guy, however much clown crack he appears to be smoking, who is participating in the political arena.  We can handle 20 Trumpaloompas hell bent on setting fire to the political arena.
> 
> We can't handle or tolerate 20 guys justifying guerilla warfare and armed sedition as a primary strategy.  
> ...




So far they have neither fired on anyone or threatened to.

----------


## Origanalist

> Money is not important to me. Not _filing_ is.


Already used my rep, THAT is the point.

----------


## Mach

Even if you don't regularly watch Stefan, watch this one, a good, quick _Ranch_ timeline overview.

----------


## Thor

> Even if you don't regularly watch Stefan, watch this one, a good, quick _Ranch_ timeline overview.


Thanks, that was a good overview.  He did not mention the alleged deer poaching charges, which would be interesting to see addressed.  Want to see the next installment he has planned as for the "reasons" the BLM might want to go after them and their land. (I have read some about it, but would like to see him lay it out as well.)

Again, the Bundy's might not have any business being there since it is not their case, or in their state; but because they are there and with their occupation, it is getting covered and talked about far, far more than it would have otherwise.  So from that regard, what they did was great to build awareness.

----------


## dannno

> Thanks, that was a good overview.  He did not mention the alleged deer poaching charges, which would be interesting to see addressed.


lol.. I don't think anarchists are generally too opposed to deer 'poaching' on public lands.

----------


## Thor

> lol.. I don't think anarchists are generally too opposed to deer 'poaching' on public lands.


True, but it was supposedly part of the argument the government used against them in the reason for the "arson", so should be addressed at least.

----------


## dannno

> True, but it was supposedly part of the argument the government used against them in the reason for the "arson", so should be addressed at least.


Is there really any evidence these were anything other than controlled burns, the same kind that the BLM does on their own land?

So the government is claiming they burned the BLM land so they could commit the crime of poaching deer?

----------


## Thor

> Why are you calling it arson? These were controlled burns, the same kind that  the BLM does on their own land.


Did you notice the quotes I used around the word "arson"?  That is indicative of the claim of others, but not what I necessarily subscribe to or agree with.




> So the government is claiming they burned the BLM land so they could commit the crime of poaching deer?


From what I read, the government claims they poached deer and there were witnesses to the poaching, and then set a fire - a.k.a. "arson" as it is called by the government - to cover up the poaching, and the fire got out of control and burned BLM land...  I am not saying that is what happened, but if it was part of the "case" as I saw reported elsewhere (which could be fictitious - but here it is below.) 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...efuge-protest/




> *What the feds say*
> 
> Acting U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams of Oregon gave a starkly different perspective on the *arson* case. *(here it is being called "arson")*
> 
> His  office declined to comment on the situation at the wildlife refuge  Saturday, but it cited an opinion piece written by Williams in the Burns Times Herald last month defending the federal prosecutors' actions in the Hammonds case. 
> 
> "Five  years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with  committing *arson* *(again)* on public lands and endangering firefighters," Williams  wrote for the newspaper. "Steven Hammond was also found guilty of  committing a second *arson* *(again)* in 2006." 
> 
> *The prosecutor said witnesses saw the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer on public land. 
> ...


Therefore, to me, it would be interesting to see the "poaching" addressed as part of the overall summary of history of events.

----------


## vita3

How many folks who had no idea about the Federal land grab, got informed because of this Oregon stunt??

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Lou Dobb just did a couple segments on the Hammonds on the Fox Business channel. 
> First and only proper mainstream coverage I've seen yet! 
> 
> Dobbs is real pissed - says they're persecuting the two ranchers, ridiculous to charge them as terrorists, and the US attorney that re-sentenced them is "beneath contempt". Apparently the jury was not made aware that they were trying the ranchers on terrorism charges?  He's asking "Where's Oregon's congressional delegation?" "Why isn't anyone standing up for these ranchers?" and quoting Madison.
> 
> Also interviewed John O'Keefe who is the head of the Oregon Cattleman's Association. All agree the Bundy's shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
> 
> Guys, at this point I have to say, I don't think this story would be getting covered _at all_ in my part of the country if the Bundy's hadn't done something conspicuous. I live in the east, and we have no concept of how ranching works out there in the wide open spaces. Too easy to fool us! I only know what I know about it now, because I read what you all say and then did some research.


Everything gets tried on terrorism charges these days which is a travesty in itself. 

If you leave a baby locked in a hot car, then frankly you are a pretty scummy person and if the infant dies then you are at the very least guilty of some degree of manslaughter. But it doesn't make you a _terrorist._ 

If you start a back-burn on some over-grown land to try to save your property from an encroaching fire and it gets out of control, then it, *at most,* makes you careless. But it doesn't make you a _terrorist._ 

"Terrorism" is the most liberally applied charge in our lifetime. The notion that the family was tried and found guilty on charges meant to apply to acts of terrorism is little more than government using a 'trigger word' to turn public sentiment against the accused before the gavel has even dropped, and it works to the government's favor most of the time, unfortunately.

EDIT: Even if the Hammonds were not tried and found guilty on acts of terrorism, as the Feds now claim, the appealing attorneys seem to want them to be re-sentenced according to the _Anti-Terrorism act of 1996_, which I say fails the constitutional sniff test on all counts. You can't be sentenced for a charge you weren't found guilty of, and if they WERE found guilty according to the Anti-Terrorism act, then it shouldn't have applied to their case anyway, since they weren't committing terrorism. 

The Feds seem to want it both ways here, and their self-contradictions are deafening.

----------


## tod evans

Watched a newz blurb on CNN this morning and they showed some grayhaired rancher who made sense, he said the group was there to work. Specifically work to improve life for residents of that county whose  livelihoods had been negatively affected by the feds...

Of course being CNN they had to include statements (made anonymously of course) from government supporters...

----------


## phill4paul

> You better be careful with that... It's going to catch up to you. My brother in law is serving 25 years in prison for not reporting his income


  We all must draw our line somewhere.

----------


## Slave Mentality

> Money is not important to me. Not _filing_ is.


Exactly, taking money from the system is worse than involuntarily putting it in as far as legitimizing theft of labor.  

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

----------


## phill4paul

If they need to re-supply they better do so soon. 




> Authorities plan to cut off power to militia at occupied Oregon refuge
> 
> Federal authorities are planning to cut off the power of the wildlife refuge in Oregon that has been taken over by militia , exposing the armed occupiers to sub-zero temperatures in an effort to flush them out.
> 
> Armed militants will begin their third day at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a remote federal outpost in eastern Oregon, on Tuesday, and have vowed to remain for months in protest over the treatment of two local cattle ranchers.
> 
> A federal government official told the Guardian that authorities were planning on Monday to cut the power at the refuge.
> 
> “It’s in the middle of nowhere,” said the official, who is based in Washington, DC, and has knowledge of the planned response to the militia. “And it’s flat-ass cold up there.”
> ...





> In an interview on Monday, Cliven Bundy distanced himself from the takeover of the federal parks building spearheaded by his sons.
> 
> He said that he was aware of the planned weekend protest in rural Oregon but did not know that the militia planned to splinter away from a peaceful demonstration and forcefully take over the facility.
> 
> When asked if he would have condoned the takeover, he laughed.
> 
> “I would have questioned them,” he said of his three sons, who are all at the standoff. “What are you doing, taking over property?”
> 
> Cliven Bundy, who for years has faced off with the BLM over grazing rights near his ranch in southern Nevada, said he stands behind the spirit of the occupation in Oregon.
> ...





> Bundy said he did not know how long his sons would remain in the area or how long the standoff would continue. “I want to be there,” he said, adding that he was baffled that the local schools had cancelled classes for the week in light of the armed standoff.
> 
> “I’d go visit with the sheriff and the school officials and tell them what’s on my mind. I’d say, ‘Why shut the school down? That’s just fear-mongering.’
> 
> “There is no indication that this is anything other than a peaceful protest,” he added.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/auth...oregon-refuge/

----------


## wizardwatson

> So far they have neither fired on anyone or threatened to.


Of course not.  

I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.

"We don't want any bloodshed.  We're simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty.  We call on all patriots to join us."

Seems legit.

----------


## tod evans

> Of course not.  
> 
> *I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.*
> 
> "*We* don't want any bloodshed.  *We're* simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty.  *We* call on all patriots to join us."
> 
> Seems legit.


What an absolutely illogical analogy.

Good use of "we" though........

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.


Whose rights have been violated by them so far?

----------


## wizardwatson

> What an absolutely illogical analogy.
> 
> Good use of "we" though........


I don't think so.  

Use of "we" is intentional.  If renegade militia men get to pretend to represent the "people" why not wizardwatson?

----------


## Origanalist

> Of course not.  
> 
> I guess we should defend bank robbers if they also use a consitutional argument.
> 
> "We don't want any bloodshed.  We're simply here to confiscate this unconstitutional money and return this purchasing power into the hands of those who stand for liberty.  We call on all patriots to join us."
> 
> Seems legit.


I'm not entirely in agreement with this group and have said so, I think they are out of their own State uninvited by the principles here. However I'm not going to join the left and just eviscerate them for the sin of trespassing on hallowed federal land. I don't see the analogy between fiat money and land annexed at will by the federal government.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't think so.  
> 
> Use of "we" is intentional.  If renegade militia men get to pretend to represent the "people" why not wizardwatson?


Do whatever you like, I think you sound foolish though.

Anybody who tries to profess groupthink does, it's a persuasion tactic that's long ago outlived it's effectiveness.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Whose rights have been violated by them so far?


Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?

I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.

I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.

----------


## tod evans

> *Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?*
> 
> I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.
> 
> I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.


I've been paying taxes for over 40 years and *I* don't want *my* tax dollars used by these people in this manner.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Taxpayers who have to respond to this incident with their tax dollars?
> 
> I never said they were criminals, I used the analogy because one could also make an argument that robbing a bank is also not a crime since the Fed's are supposed to only use gold and silver as money.
> 
> I only said they were idiots, when I joined this thread.


If taxpayers are being forced to do anything, that is the violation of their rights. Not these guys squatting in an unowned building.

----------


## Lucille

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223019/

----------


## phill4paul

> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223019/


  Yup. Black Panthers take over government building? Sticking it to the man! Listen to their demands! Indigenous people taking over a government building? Sticking it to the man! Listen to their demands! White men taking over a government building? Terrorists! Burn them out!

----------


## wizardwatson

> If taxpayers are being forced to do anything, that is the violation of their rights. Not these guys squatting in an unowned building.


What is "unowned" about it?  Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned?  Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?

You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.

The federal government derives its rights from the people.  It's invalid to say that "Fed things" are "unowned" and by burning federal property or taking over federal facilities "no ones rights are violated".  It shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional principles that some seem to eager to attribute to this protest group.

That building is owned by the people.  A group that does not represent the people has occupied it.  The government is fully within their authority to remove them.  

Apart from officially being representative of the people, they don't have the support of Oregonians, militiamen, the protesters they are protesting, the Sheriff, the general public, and from the sounds of it even Clive Bundy was out of the loop and is baffled.

I wouldn't even call it an "ill-conceived strategic blunder" because I'm not sure all that many people take this seriously.  What people seem to be taking seriously is the possibility that the Fed's will make it worse.  What is the best case scenario if this is their real strategy?  A successful suicide by cop public outreach campaign?  

These are strategies of desperation and they won't work.  

Now if your strategy is to pour gasoline on the fire and hasten the country to it's destruction because you believe the broken window strategy is bad for economics but somehow good for political liberty and a utopia will be built from the ashes, well then I guess antagonizing the police state to get it to fully come out of the closet is the bees knees.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> What is "unowned" about it?  Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned?  Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?
> 
> You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.


Yes, it is unowned, and you can rightfully squat in it. You would be killed for doing so, but that is their evil, not yours. And you have never and will never hear the words "long live the Republic" come out of my mouth.

----------


## tod evans

> That building is owned by the people.  A group that does not represent the people has occupied it.  The government is fully within their authority to remove them.  
> .


How many people who are not involved would have to stand up and agree with these guys before it was okay?

Or is this situation one that can only be resolved by government in the media?

I haven't thrown in with the ranchers but I'm certainly opposed to any and all government action.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Yes, it is unowned, and you can rightfully squat in it. You would be killed for doing so, but that is their evil, not yours. And you have never and will never hear the words "long live the Republic" come out of my mouth.


So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment?  A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?

Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment?  A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?
> 
> Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?


One resting on consent, probably.

----------


## dannno

> What is "unowned" about it?  Is an M1 Abrams tank sitting in Ft. Benning also unowned?  Can I just go in there and squat on one since it's owned by the people?
> 
> You can't just switch back and forth between saying "the state is illegitimate" and "long live the Republic" when it suits you.
> 
> The federal government derives its rights from the people.  It's invalid to say that "Fed things" are "unowned" and by burning federal property or taking over federal facilities "no ones rights are violated".  It shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional principles that some seem to eager to attribute to this protest group.
> 
> That building is owned by the people.  A group that does not represent the people has occupied it.  The government is fully within their authority to remove them.  
> 
> Apart from officially being representative of the people, they don't have the support of Oregonians, militiamen, the protesters they are protesting, the Sheriff, the general public, and from the sounds of it even Clive Bundy was out of the loop and is baffled.
> ...


My "consent" level for government is at 0%, I don't know where yours is, but I don't believe they have any more legitimacy than a criminal gang.

I pay taxes and obey the laws so I don't have violence perpetrated at me, but if you think I'm going to defend the government when they are unlawfully putting a hardworking, productive family in prison over trumped up charges you have got to be absolutely nuts...

Those tanks you are talking about are used to kill innocent people overseas, they aren't for self defense. The best thing that could ever happen to them is end up in the hands of a local militia.. the next best thing would be for them to just disappear.

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment?  A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?
> 
> Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?


The federal government doesn't have military equipment. It doesn't have anything. Everything it possesses, it stole.

Sure, being governed by the rights of others, and otherwise free to do as I wish and keep what is mine. You mean a legitimate state? There is no such thing.

----------


## wizardwatson

> My "consent" level for government is at 0%, I don't know where yours is, but I don't believe they have any more legitimacy than a criminal gang.
> 
> I pay taxes and obey the laws so I don't have violence perpetrated at me, but if you think I'm going to defend the government when they are unlawfully putting a hardworking, productive family in prison over trumped up charges you have got to be absolutely nuts...
> 
> Those tanks you are talking about are used to kill innocent people overseas, they aren't for self defense. The best thing that could ever happen to them is end up in the hands of a local militia.. the next best thing would be for them to just disappear.


My consent is based upon the facts surrounding the action in question.  Some people are following the rules, some people aren't.  I don't see the utility in personifying the whole of government as malign or benign as a matter of habit.  Even Nock made a separation between the "state" and Jeffersonian democracy.  Individuals are responsible even when it's a conspiracy of more than one.  

If your consent stays at 0% and everyone elses goes to zero as well, then we have no foundation to delegate authority at all and ultimately no standard by which to hold people accountable.

----------


## tod evans

> My consent is based upon the facts surrounding the action in question.  Some people are following the rules, some people aren't.  I don't see the utility in personifying the whole of government as malign or benign as a matter of habit.  Even Nock made a separation between the "state" and Jeffersonian democracy.  Individuals are responsible even when it's a conspiracy of more than one.  
> 
> If your consent stays at 0% and everyone elses goes to zero as well, then we have no foundation to delegate authority at all *and ultimately no standard by which to hold people accountable.*


You say this as if it's a bad thing......

----------


## JK/SEA

> 


where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You say this as if it's a bad thing......


It is bad, and it shows (not that you are alone) that people use these words like "the state" without enough education about what that means and essentially destroy the meaning of the term.

In Nock's book "Our Enemy the State" he spends his time trying to outline the difference between legitimate government and the state.  




> AS FAR back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. *This difference is not one of degree, but of kind.*


I would say based on what a lot of people on these boards say in their words, that they would disagree with Nock there in the opening of Chapter 2 right off the bat.  "The original government was just a 'baby' State like all government."  Perhaps because the only thing that stuck in their mind, if they ever cared to read his work, was that once the State progresses beyond a certain level, it never reverts but collapses and dies.

Which is well enough for this generation of victimhood.  It absolves us of making too many strenuous efforts to seek out, establish and promote legitimate government.

Anyway, all been said before.  

Ethics Chapter 20 has always been the place where I see the liberty movement as stuck at.  The intellectual movement has not progressed into the realm of real strategy.  We recognize when we see the absence of liberty, but are largely clueless about how to bring it about.

----------


## tod evans

> where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.


Well worth the time!

+rep

----------


## tod evans

> It is bad, and it shows (not that you are alone) that people use these words like "the state" without enough education about what that means and essentially destroy the meaning of the term.
> 
> In Nock's book "Our Enemy the State" he spends his time trying to outline the difference between legitimate government and the state.  
> 
> 
> 
> I would say based on what a lot of people on these boards say in their words, that they would disagree with Nock there in the opening of Chapter 2 right off the bat.  "The original government was just a 'baby' State like all government."  Perhaps because the only thing that stuck in their mind, if they ever cared to read his work, was that once the State progresses beyond a certain level, it never reverts but collapses and dies.
> 
> Which is well enough for this generation of victimhood.  It absolves us of making too many strenuous efforts to seek out, establish and promote legitimate government.
> ...


Do ya' think maybe book discussions might belong in another thread?

Or are you better able to tie this book to what's going on in Or. than you've done?

----------


## Ender

> So the federal government doesn't even have authority over it's military equipment?  A power that's clearly defined in the Constitution?
> 
> Is there any idea of legitimate government that you would support?


The Constitution was a political Hamiltonian coup to create a powerful central state. THAT is what it was clearly designed for.

----------


## fisharmor

> Well worth the time!
> 
> +rep


Every single word of that video gets discarded the instant the topic shifts to immigration.

----------


## sdsubball23

So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Every single word of that video gets discarded the instant the topic shifts to immigration.


Love KrisAnne, but she missed the clause "or other property" in Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2.  Note particularly the word "*or*" in context.

----------


## phill4paul

> So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?


  It doesn't matter. They were convicted and served the time the judge sentenced them to.

----------


## dannno

> So how do we know what's the truth? The Hammonds set the fires on purpose to hide killing deer or to protect their land?


Either way it was determined that they cost the government less than $100 in damages and improved the value of the BLM property by much more than that.

If it was to hide hunting deer - well, I'm certainly not opposed to people hunting deer in the wilderness, don't care what the government says. But, I have a hard time believing that is true. The first time their fire got out of control, they were told that if it happened again they would face a lot of trouble. Seems like the fire would get them in a lot more trouble than the deer hunting... and what exactly were they burning to hide their deer hunting activities? Bullet casings? Even if found, could they prove they belonged to the Hammonds? Was any of the evidence found? Wouldn't it have been easier to just clean up after themselves? Or have their hunting base on their property and go out onto the BLM property to poach and then retreat?

----------


## phill4paul

Seems the power may not be cut as was earlier reported. Bundy's twitter suspended. Some local residents in support....

http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/orego.../#8gBJF99pWqqH

----------


## Valli6

*Lou Dobbs* just showed a snippet of Congressman *Greg Walden* standing up for the Hammonds.
Not sure if it's live… I'm checking.

_edit:_ Well it's not live, but it looked like he was speaking in the "House" - must have been today, possibly just a little while ago.
I only heard two sentences "I don't condone" (taking over that building) - but he was talking about government overreach.

----------


## dannno

> Seems the power may not be cut as was earlier reported. Bundy's twitter suspended. Some local residents in support....
> 
> http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/orego.../#8gBJF99pWqqH


The revolution will not be tweeted.

----------


## tod evans

Anybody know folks out there?

I'm curious about local sentiment that's not aired on "Teh-Newz"...

----------


## Deborah K

> where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.


Thanks to Payne, they were basically run out on a rail at the Bundy ranch.  And Ammon seems to have aligned himself with Payne.  What can one expect of them after that?

----------


## Deborah K

> But what if they did recognize each others martyrs and they came together realizing their problems are different yet the same...too much government.


This would be smart.

----------


## dannno

I gotta total cointel vibe from Payne, should be interesting how this plays out.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Thanks to Payne, they were basically run out on a rail at the Bundy ranch.  And Ammon seems to have aligned himself with Payne.  What can one expect of them after that?


i was led to believe Oathkeepers didn't go to Oregon because they weren't invited by the Hammonds, and the local Oregon militia didn't want outsiders...or both...doesn't make sense. Oh well. Pick your battles i guess. Good thing some true patriots saw the writing on the wall and implemented their current OP. Getting tons of publicity now, and depending on ones political litmus test, it looks like its working from my perspective.

----------


## erowe1

> Good thing some true patriots saw the writing on the wall and implemented their current OP. Getting tons of publicity now, and depending on ones political litmus test, it looks like its working from my perspective.


You may be right. And I hope you are.

The true test will come when and if any law enforcement is sent in to arrest people. If that does happen, the right course of action will be for all these armed militiamen to allow themselves to get arrested without so much as threatening a soul.

As this has gone on, and I've gotten more of an impression that they intend not to resort to violence, I've gotten much more comfortable with it.

This can work as a publicity thing. It can't work as leverage to use in trying to make any kind of ultimatum with the BLM.

----------


## Uriel999

New Stefan Molyneux video on the issue:

----------


## Valli6

UPDATE: Tube now available.


-----------
You can listen to Rep. *Greg Walden*'s floor speech at the following link.
It begins at 54:34(?) and lasts almost 25 minutes.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?402734-...ote&start=3258

_summary in case you don't have time for the video:_
Walden starts put by trying to describe how very large the area is. Then describes the size of the natural fires they deal with every year. They cover hundreds of thousands of acres. (The Hammond's fire covered 139 acres). He expresses disgust with the way ranchers are being laughed at and ridiculed, and says it's no laughing matter. He goes back decades discussing laws and fights and the BLM's mismanagement which ignores the people and frequently results in a lot of unnecessary damage to private property. He mentions some "bad players" during the 80's and eminent domain threats to take ranchers' property away. Finally, he goes into some detail about using a law intended for terrorists to send the Hammonds to prison for 5 years.
-----------
I hope Rand will familiarize himself with this issue and speak about it publicly soon. I know *Rubio* and *Cruz* have made statements, but they were limited to saying, essentially, that the Bundys must stand down. *Trump* can't say anything about it that voters will like, because he's all for eminent domain.

Rand can focus on the Hammonds and tie it in with his stance on eminent domain abuse.

----------


## phill4paul

Don't know how credible it its but Rhoades is putting out a warning. I could see a task force already having been formed. I don't necessarily think it is indicative of an impending attack. Take it however you want to....




> URGENT Warning on OR Standoff: Military Special OP Assets Have Been Assigned for Standoff. Get All Children Out of There Immediately
> 
> Oath Keepers has received very credible information from an active duty source within the special operations community that at least one SOD-X (Reserve/National Guard Special Operations Detachment, see this, this, and this) unit under the command of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has been tasked for this standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Reserve and moved to the area.   Given this, we should expect that other special operations assets, such as Delta Force, will also be involved if the Obama Administration decides to give the green light on a military raid/strike.  And we should expect the presence of the infamous FBI HRT (which were present at both Ruby Ridge and Waco).
> 
> Due to this, anyone who has children there, at the wildlife refuge, needs to get them out immediately, and DO NOT take any more children there for any reason (and we do know that some children, including a baby, have been seen there).  We do not need to have the risk of dead children in this incident.  It is unconscionable and immoral for anyone to place children at risk of being in the middle of a firefight or military raid/strike on the armed men holding that federal wildlife refuge.   Now, of course, just because military special operations units have been sent to the area and are tasked with a possible action does not mean it will be done.  It may not.  But we DO NOT trust the Obama Administration to do this right, which would be to handle it like the Montana Freeman standoff rather than the Waco standoff, and anyone who thinks that Obama wouldn’t dare drop the hammer on Ammon and his men is a fool.   We hope “the adults in the room” in the Administration and in the federal LEO and military community will keep that from happening, but hope is not an operational plan.  We don’t trust them, and you shouldn’t either, so:
> 
> Get, and keep, children off the friggin X.
> 
> This is not a “free speech” barbecue at Bundy Ranch with live music by Jordan Page.   This is a whole different animal.   Children have no business being there.   In fact, there should be no non-combatants (no women and children) there at all.   This is not a family event.  The only people there should be the armed men who are willing to die there with Ammon Bundy and his brothers and a couple of embedded reporters.   If they want to put themselves at risk, that is their choice, but don’t have children there.   If a dozen men die in a shootout, that is one thing, but if children die, there will be a civil war.
> ...


https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-w...e-immediately/

----------


## Schifference

The US government should stand down. 

They should if they feel they have a case start a legal eviction process to evict the squatters in a legal peaceful manner like I would have to do if squatters took up residence on one of my properties. 

No need for guns and bullets. 

Use the court system.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Man I wish I was sheriff of Harney County, Oregon for just one day. 

These guys are in a real pickle. If the sheriff doesn't try to negotiate some peaceful resolution to this the Feds are gonna go in guns blazin'. But Sheriff Ward seems to be a bit of a coward.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*However, as much as we oppose what Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne have done, we must warn the Obama Administration that it does not have free reign to “Waco” the people in this standoff by using deadly military force, such as an SOD-X, Delta Force, or the FBI HRT to kill them all. The Federal government must respect their right to due process and do all it can to end this standoff peacefully, without loss of life. It must treat it like the Freeman standoff, not the Waco standoff. There will be no more free Wacos, as Mike Vanderbgh, Founder of the Three Percenter movement puts it. Treat this with kid gloves or risk a civil war.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *However, as much as we oppose what Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne have done, we must warn the Obama Administration that it does not have free reign to “Waco” the people in this standoff by using deadly military force, such as an SOD-X, Delta Force, or the FBI HRT to kill them all. The Federal government must respect their right to due process and do all it can to end this standoff peacefully, without loss of life. It must treat it like the Freeman standoff, not the Waco standoff. There will be no more free Wacos, as Mike Vanderbgh, Founder of the Three Percenter movement puts it. Treat this with kid gloves or risk a civil war.*


This.  x1000.  I doubt it will affect the haters in any way though.

----------


## tod evans

I've always looked at OK with a healthy degree of skepticism........

*



			
				Treat this with kid gloves or risk a civil war.
			
		

*

This however gives me a little leave...

They're still by and large kops though.....

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *JK/SEA*
> 
> <font color="#111111">
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.where's Oathkeepers?...no excuses.


Oh, I *LIKE* this girl.

Suggestion: shall we have an educational thread where these sorts of issues are presented, hashed out, and cobbled into a cohesive set of lessons such that we could spread this as a free course for the edification of one and all?  I am see a GREAT need for such things to be made freely available without the encumbrances of monetary outlays.

I know RPF projects never go anywhere and have no expectation that this would be any different, but I ask anyway just so nobody can say the subject was never broached.

----------


## phill4paul

Oath Keepers...




> NOTE and UPDATE as of 4am, Wed., Jan 6:   We are already getting flack for even saying this, with people accusing us of spreading “false intel” or rumors, and of course, wild-eyed accusations of us somehow being “traitors” because we don’t want to see women and children put at risk.   It is really a no-brainer that this Administration would at least stage both military and Federal law enforcement Special Response Teams for possible use in this situation.  That is hardly an out-there conspiracy theory. And it should be a no-brainer and common sense to keep women and children clear of such an armed occupation of a federal facility, but apparently it is not, and so we felt duty bound to tell people to keep them away, and exactly why we think it necessary (I will ALWAYS put the safety of women and children first, no matter who it pisses off.  I am not in this for a popularity contest).  So, don’t shoot the messenger.   In addition, last night (Jan 5) Ammon Bundy himself let it be known that he had received information from three independent sources that a dynamic raid of some kind was possibly coming soon.   So there!  – Stewart


https://www.oathkeepers.org/urgent-w...e-immediately/




> 3% of Oregon Official Press Release
> 
> Topic: Malheur Wildlife Refuge Siege
> 
> On January 2, 2016, various patriot organizations under the direction of the Oregon 3% and associated groups organized a peaceful rally in Burns, Oregon in a show of support for the Hammonds Family and the community of Harney County. The immediate aims of this peaceful protest were to voice dissent of the wrongful prosecution of the Hammonds, the family’s subsequent decision to report to prison for federal charges, and for the refusal of the Sherriff to protect and support the citizens of Harney County. Following the peaceful protest, members of militias and individuals voiced their decision to “take a hard stand” which would be to seize a Federal National Wildlife Refuge building in Malheur County, and succeeded in doing so.
> 
> Unbeknownst to the Idaho 3%, Oregon 3%, it’s leaders, associations, rally participants, or the citizens of Harney County; these actions were premeditated and carried out by a small group of persons who chose to carry out this takeover after the rally. The 3% of Idaho, 3% of Oregon, The Oregon Constitutional Guard, and PPN organizations in no way condone nor support these actions. They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process.
> During the weeks leading up to the rally, none of the aforementioned groups made any Calls to Arms to it’s members, nor planned or advocated for any form of armed uprising. The citizens of Harney County remain in solidarity with the aforementioned groups, as well as support our efforts to remain peaceful in our attempt to exercise the 1st Amendment Right. For the time being, we will remain in Harney County to continue to show our support for the Hammonds, and the community. We will continue to release updates and information as it is available. We want to personally thank the citizens of Harney County and the city of Burns for their hospitality.
> 
> Oregon iii%


https://www.oathkeepers.org/oregon-i...ldlife-refuge/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh, I *LIKE* this girl.
> 
> Suggestion: shall we have an educational thread where these sorts of issues are presented, hashed out, and cobbled into a cohesive set of lessons such that we could spread this as a free course for the edification of one and all?  I am see a GREAT need for such things to be made freely available without the encumbrances of monetary outlays.
> 
> I know RPF projects never go anywhere and have no expectation that this would be any different, but I ask anyway just so nobody can say the subject was never broached.


Ehh, KrisAnne is great, but she's technically wrong here.  Art 1 §8 includes an "and other needful buildings" proviso, and Art 4 §3 Para 2 contains an "and other properties" proviso.  In this particular case she's letting her emotions run away with her reason.  Still, a pretty girl on the verge of crying claiming to be an expert, most people are going to believe her, just because.

----------


## Deborah K

> I gotta total cointel vibe from Payne, should be interesting how this plays out.


Yeah, apparently Rhodes has the same vibe according to the article.  Payne has been outed as a liar about his Ranger background.  I am befuddled as to why Bundy has aligned with him.

And I don't get the sudden lack of support for the Oath Keepers. I know first hand Stewart is a stand-up guy, has integrity, and smarts.  RPFs by and large, was a huge supporter of theirs.  What happened?

----------


## Deborah K

> *However, as much as we oppose what Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne have done, we must warn the Obama Administration that it does not have free reign to “Waco” the people in this standoff by using deadly military force, such as an SOD-X, Delta Force, or the FBI HRT to kill them all. The Federal government must respect their right to due process and do all it can to end this standoff peacefully, without loss of life. It must treat it like the Freeman standoff, not the Waco standoff. There will be no more free Wacos, as Mike Vanderbgh, Founder of the Three Percenter movement puts it. Treat this with kid gloves or risk a civil war.*


Can it be made any clearer?

----------


## LibertyEagle

What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, apparently Rhodes has the same vibe according to the article.  Payne has been outed as a liar about his Ranger background.  I am befuddled as to why Bundy has aligned with him.
> 
> And I don't get the sudden lack of support for the Oath Keepers. I know first hand Stewart is a stand-up guy, has integrity, and smarts.  RPFs by and large, was a huge supporter of theirs.  What happened?


  IIRC Payne was one of the first on the scene at the Bundy standoff. He assumed the position as head of their personal security detail and practically lived with them 24/7. He went with them to church and converted to the L.D.S.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yeah, apparently Rhodes has the same vibe according to the article.  Payne has been outed as a liar about his Ranger background.  I am befuddled as to why Bundy has aligned with him.
> 
> And I don't get the sudden lack of support for the Oath Keepers. I know first hand Stewart is a stand-up guy, has integrity, and smarts.  RPFs by and large, was a huge supporter of theirs.  What happened?


Most of the negativity to OK seems to be coming from one person.

----------


## Uriel999

> What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.


My guess is Paynes handlers are pissed round 1 at Bundy Ranch backfired and looked good for the militia movement so they got him to trick Bundy into a round two that makes them look retarded. 

It doesn't even make sense either. The 300 person strong protest brought plenty of coverage to the situation. Now not even just the liberty movement in general but even militias are looking at them like they have dicks growing out of their foreheads.

----------


## phill4paul

> What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.


   No idea. Bundy/Payne didn't run the idea by any of the Oregon militias and took that initiative without any consideration/input. But, hey, look where Eric Holder is today after taking over a government building. Maybe Ammon wants to be the next A.G.

----------


## wizardwatson

> What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.


I watched a video last night that has made me even more suspicious of the Bundy situation.

It's the latest video by dutchsinse on youtube, who is an earthquake watcher.  He had done some research last year into Bundy's ranch which is near the ghost town Gold Butte, Nevada.  Apparently, pointing out that the BLM really wants the ranch for its gold and uranium deposits (short version).  In this new video he points out that the area in question in Oregon also just happens to be rich in gold and uranium.  

dutchsinse doesn't propose or outline any concrete conspiracy, but it does seem suspicious and certainly something to keep in mind when we see what happens to this land in the future.  

What "work" exactly are these renegade militia men planning to do in Oregon?  Whose private hands do they want to see that land in the possession of?  How much do certain players involved know about the mineral deposits in all these federal lands?  

Anyway, dutchsinse really raises more questions than he answers, but not far-fetched I think to believe this story about more than this veneer of cattle grazing and standing up to tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkm6iSd--c

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I watched a video last night that has made me even more suspicious of the Bundy situation.
> 
> It's the latest video by dutchsinse on youtube, who is an earthquake watcher.  He had done some research last year into Bundy's ranch which is near the ghost town Gold Butte, Nevada.  Apparently, pointing out that the BLM really wants the ranch for its gold and uranium deposits (short version).  In this new video he points out that the area in question in Oregon also just happens to be rich in gold and uranium.  
> 
> dutchsinse doesn't propose or outline any concrete conspiracy, but it does seem suspicious and certainly something to keep in mind when we see what happens to this land in the future.  
> 
> What "work" exactly are these renegade militia men planning to do in Oregon?  Whose private hands do they want to see that land in the possession of?  How much do certain players involved know about the mineral deposits in all these federal lands?  
> 
> Anyway, dutchsinse really raises more questions than he answers, but not far-fetched I think to believe this story about more than this veneer of cattle grazing and standing up to tyranny.
> ...


Yes. It is Obama'a gold and uranium. We ought not forget and squat on the king's land. Besides, it offends the apologists. CNN coverage might be negative.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes. It is Obama'a gold and uranium. We ought not forget and squat on the king's land. Besides, it offends the apologists. CNN coverage might be negative.


Because we're all apologists for this dip$#@! administration.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Yes. It is Obama'a gold and uranium. We ought not forget and squat on the king's land. Besides, it offends the apologists. CNN coverage might be negative.


The questions raised are about motivations.  Just because you are "against the government" doesn't mean you are for liberty, or for the people.

In an ideal world where liberty reigned and property rights were respected and industries were held accountable, sure, I suppose we should open all this land up and let homesteading rules apply.  But in the current environment, that would just mean we'd be improving the positions of the globalists who would buy it up, strip mine it, and use it to improve their own position with borrowed money.  And just like we see with the fracking problems, no damage they do to the environment would ever be compensated because the electorate is bought and paid for.

If liberty reigns, yes the economy naturally performs better.  But simply dumping massive amounts of wealth into a corrupt political economy is not going to improve the climate of liberty, it's just going to take from Uncle Sam's piggy bank, where at least we have some political means to agree with what to do with this land, rather than simply cashing it all out and handing it over to globalist corporations, where some prospecting homesteaders get golden parachutes for being the first armed occupants who can rightfully sell it to them.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.


Subjective.

 Some people think that civil disobedience should be a qualifier for the death penalty.

$#@!in traitors and cowards running rampant in here.

----------


## Valli6

Greg Walden addresses U.S. House on situation in Harney County, OR, federal overreach in the West
Jan 5, 2016

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Subjective.
> 
>  Some people think that civil disobedience should be a qualifier for the death penalty.
> 
> $#@!in traitors running rampant in here.


You should stop attributing bull$#@! to people to help demonize them in your mind.  Considering Ammon Bundy's *specific* action ill advised, does not imply opposition to civil disobedience or even opposition to an armed uprising.  It just means thinking this _specific_ action was a bad idea.  Why in the actual hell is this so hard to grasp?

----------


## JK/SEA

> You should stop attributing bull$#@! to people to help demonize them in your mind.  Considering Ammon Bundy's *specific* action ill advised, does not imply opposition to civil disobedience or even opposition to an armed uprising.  It just means thinking this _specific_ action was a bad idea.  Why in the actual hell is this so hard to grasp?



you could be right. I  think i need to take a big healthy $#@!, then i might come around....maybe.

meanwhile innocent God fearing people are in prison....

----------


## phill4paul

> Subjective.
> 
>  Some people think that civil disobedience should be a qualifier for the death penalty.
> 
> $#@!in traitors and cowards running rampant in here.


  What the $#@! are you on about? All but the first sentence is nothing but a load of horse$#@!.

----------


## phill4paul

D.P.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Subjective.
> 
>  Some people think that civil disobedience should be a qualifier for the death penalty.
> 
> $#@!in traitors and cowards running rampant in here.


I don't see any traitors and cowards in here.  In fact, many of the articles I've read are making fun of these guys right and left.  "Jamokes", "Vanilla ISIS", etc.  Here people are criticizing the strategy mostly.  What is their endgame?  What do they hope to accomplish?  Because as LE said, right now it just seems like a buttload of bad press for militias and "patriots" since they've chosen to adorn their rhetoric with liberty memes and call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

If you stick your neck out and try to "lead" a movement, naturally the movement at large is going to evaluate the substance of not only your character but your strategy as well.  

Taking unnecessary, and unproductive risks doesn't make you a brave leader.  It makes you dangerous to yourself and those who choose to follow you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What the $#@! are you on about? All but the first sentence is nothing but a load of horse$#@!.






^^ Elementary thinking.

----------


## Lucille

More on the vagina who appealed the sentence.

UNBELIEVABLE Update  Oregon Bundy Militia Standoff  The U.S. Attorney At The Heart of The Hammond Family Problem
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...amily-problem/




> So what would prompt U.S. Attorney for the Sate of Oregon Ms Amanda Marshall to file such a rare appeal? And, what motivation might lay behind her intentions?
> 
> A review of Amanda Marshall reveals some rather disturbing facts.
> 
> First, she was an Obama appointee.  A very left-wing activist appointee who took office October 7th 2011.  Marshall had no experience at all as a federal prosecutor before being given the job as a U.S. Attorney for Oregon.
> 
> Marshall was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon Department of Justice. [Pay attention to this little child advocacy aspect because it might play a larger role later on.] Before that, she served as a deputy district attorney in Coos County.  Why?  Apparently it was because the White House wanted a woman for the job.
> [...]
> After winning the sentencing appeal  In May of 2015 activist Amanda Marshall stepped down from her job as U.S. Attorney for Oregon, citing health concerns.
> ...


Sounds like the Hammonds could have used a better lawyer.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't see any traitors and cowards in here.  In fact, many of the articles I've read are making fun of these guys right and left.  "Jamokes", "Vanilla ISIS", etc.  Here people are criticizing the strategy mostly.  What is their endgame?  What do they hope to accomplish?  Because as LE said, right now it just seems like a buttload of bad press for militias and "patriots" since they've chosen to adorn their rhetoric with liberty memes and call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.
> 
> If you stick your neck out and try to "lead" a movement, naturally the movement at large is going to evaluate the substance of not only your character but your strategy as well.  
> 
> Taking unnecessary, and unproductive risks doesn't make you a brave leader.  It makes you dangerous to yourself and those who choose to follow you.


well, before y'all hang me, i would just like to inform you that this current action in Oregon is still fluid, and any negative results that might occur, and somehow reflect poorly on ALL miltia organizations is still yet to be decided. All your rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. 

Am i disapponted in OK?...yes, i am, but my one man revolution isn't going to move the dial much, and OK will still be an organization with many good men and women in their midst in spite my temper tantrum.

keep your powder dry...if you have any.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> well, before y'all hang me, i would just like to inform you that this current action in Oregon is still fluid, and any negative results that might occur, and somehow reflect poorly on ALL miltia organizations is still yet to be decided. All your rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. 
> 
> Am i disapponted in OK?...yes, i am, but my one man revolution isn't going to move the dial much, and OK will still be an organization with many good men and women in their midst in spite my temper tantrum.
> 
> keep your powder dry...if you have any.


Speaking of rhetoric, you are the one calling people "traitors and cowards" simply because they want to be intelligent and strategically successful, and act in a rational manner.  If anyone here is causing division, it's you.

----------


## Ender

> I don't see any traitors and cowards in here.  In fact, many of the articles I've read are making fun of these guys right and left.  "Jamokes", "Vanilla ISIS", etc.  Here people are criticizing the strategy mostly.  What is their endgame?  What do they hope to accomplish?  Because as LE said, right now it just seems like a buttload of bad press for militias and "patriots" since they've chosen to adorn their rhetoric with liberty memes and call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.
> 
> If you stick your neck out and try to "lead" a movement, naturally the movement at large is going to evaluate the substance of not only your character but your strategy as well.  
> 
> Taking unnecessary, and unproductive risks doesn't make you a brave leader.  It makes you dangerous to yourself and those who choose to follow you.


Most local people were appalled at the Boston Tea Party- now we see the instigators as cool.

----------


## wizardwatson

> well, before y'all hang me, i would just like to inform you that this current action in Oregon is still fluid, and any negative results that might occur, and somehow reflect poorly on ALL miltia organizations is still yet to be decided. All your rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. 
> 
> Am i disapponted in OK?...yes, i am, but my one man revolution isn't going to move the dial much, and OK will still be an organization with many good men and women in their midst in spite my temper tantrum.
> 
> keep your powder dry...if you have any.


I don't think it's a big deal really.  In fact, the idea that they're being ostracized is probably a good thing overall.  An article I read a few days ago basically said that what they are doing is "bad" because it fast forwards the clock on demonizing "patriots" and the like.  But even that now, I think is minimal and really the truth of how that will play out remains to be seen.

What's really cause for concern is that whoever took part in this will likely go to jail.  "Go home peacefully" doesn't mean they won't be served arrest warrants when they get back home.  And for what?  Throwing yourself in jail to protest others in jail isn't much of an accomplishment.

The "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom" went off the reservation.  In one of Bundys youtube videos he said that he knew the militias had said to "stand down" from this and he was urging "the true patriots" to ignore their leaders and join him.  So not only is his specific choice of actions questionable, but he's even going against the leadership of the standing militias.

The climate of this country is apathy and desperation on one side, and a lot of hate-filled collectivist rhetoric on the other.  I'd say we are on the former side.  We should be aware of our level of desperation and not think that more desperate people are going to cure the apathy, or that your level of desperation is a barometer of how much you care.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 'I've got a lot to live for'
> 
> Protesters said they're ready for a long wait.
> 
> Bundy said he expected other "patriot groups" to arrive and support the Oregon protesters.
> 
> "It is important that we as people stand when our government is out of control," he said. "We are planning to defend ourselves."
> 
> LaVoy Finicum, an Arizona rancher and father of 11 children, talked to reporters Tuesday night while sitting outside the compound in a rocking chair with a rifle in his hands.
> ...


hxxp://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-armed-protest/index.html

----------


## JK/SEA

> Speaking of rhetoric, you are the one calling people "traitors and cowards" simply because they want to be intelligent and strategically successful, and act in a rational manner.  If anyone here is causing division, it's you.


thanks, i needed that, may i have another...

being loyal to OK doesn't necessarily translate into always doing the right thing. But seeing how your military discipline and training is a factor, which i have neither of, i can see your anger towards a mundane like me being justified in your mind.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Most local people were appalled at the Boston Tea Party- now we see the instigators as cool.


This is important to always keep in mind.

No matter how good your PR machine is, if you are rebelling against a standing system that the majority is vested in, that majority will fight you and push back.

----------


## Valli6

> What was the rationale for taking that federal building?  Because it seems to be generating a large amount of negative PR.


I'm guessing they chose the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, because the feds intend to designate 2 1/2 million acres of Malheur county "a national monument or wilderness area". It's about the _next_ battle.

Listen to Greg Walden's floor speech, between 11:06 to 12:33: 



> Right now, this administration, _secretly_… but not so much… is threatening in the next county over - that looks a lot like this one... *Malheur County*…to *force a monument of two and a half million acres*, we believe. I think this is outrageous! It flies in the face of the people! And a way of life! And the public access! There's a company - Keen shoes - that already has a big marketing campaign. This is about selling shoes, for God's sakes! 
> 
> I call on the president - if he wants to help reduce the tension thats out there, to walk away from this! And if he doesn't want to walk away and say, "No. We're not gonna do that" to help us bring down this level of frustration and anger, then at least be honest - or his Secretary of interior needs to be honest - and tell us they are gonna do it! They either are, or they aren't, but all they are, is being coy! That feeds into this! It feeds into the anger that I feel, it feeds into the anger out there! So, the president should say, "I'm not gonna do a national monument. I'm not gonna add more fuel on this fire in the west."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4o...ature=youtu.be


There's a whole, 'nother story here!



> *Ranchers oppose Malheur County monument designation*
> Sean Ellis - Capital Press
> October 21, 2015
> 
> *Ranchers, farmers and others in Malheur County are opposing a proposal to designate 40 percent of the Eastern Oregon county as a national monument or wilderness area.*
> 
> ONTARIO, Ore. — An effort by conservation groups to have a large chunk of Malheur County set aside as a national monument or wilderness area has riled up ranchers and farmers in the area.
> 
> They have joined forces with a group of concerned citizens and elected officials who are fighting *the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal*, which would encompass 2.5 million acres.
> ...


Very complicated bunch of issues here. Looks like we need to check out the _local_ media to find answers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> thanks, i needed that, may i have another...
> 
> being loyal to OK doesn't necessarily translate into always doing the right thing. But seeing how your military discipline and training is a factor, which i have neither of, i can see your anger towards a mundane like me being justified in your mind.


You may recall that I explained my position before the OK's were even asked.  Or you may not.  Whatever.  You just keep on heaping fictional bull$#@! onto people if it makes it easier for you to demonize them.  Frankly all of this GWB like says a hell of a lot about you, and none of it good.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You may recall that I explained my position before the OK's were even asked.  Or you may not.  Whatever.  You just keep on heaping fictional bull$#@! onto people if it makes it easier for you to demonize them.  Frankly all of this GWB like says a hell of a lot about you, and none of it good.


well Gunny, it appears those Patriots holed up in Oregon don't need you or OK.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm guessing they chose the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, because the feds intend to designate 2 1/2 million acres of Malheur county "a national monument or wilderness area". It's about the _next_ battle.
> There's a whole, 'nother story here!
> 
> Very complicated bunch of issues here. Looks like we need to check out the _local_ media to find answers.


  Thanks for that insight! +1

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> well Gunny, it appears those Patriots holed up in Oregon don't need you or OK.


Because I'm not a patriot amirite?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Because I'm not a patriot amirite?


no need to go there. 

The fact these guys don't follow the rules of engagement in OK eyes, and possibly the Constitution, doesn't diminish their efforts. You have made your valid reasons for not going, and it follows OK mission statement, so i will apologize for any insults, that were actually veiled, but none-the-less taken as insults by you, but not directly at you...

And yes, those guys out there are PATRIOTS in my opinion, and i'm sure many others across this nation feel the same way.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> no need to go there. 
> 
> The fact these guys don't follow the rules of engagement in OK eyes, and possibly the Constitution, doesn't diminish their efforts. You have made your valid reasons for not going, and it follows OK mission statement, so i will apologize for any insults, that were actually veiled, but none-the-less taken as insults by you, but not directly at you...
> 
> And yes, those guys out there are PATRIOTS in my opinion, and i'm sure many others across this nation feel the same way.


I totally agree that they are patriots, I just wish they would have coordinated with the Oregon militias and done this without ignoring state sovereignty.  Chances are if they had done that, a _much_ better op would have emerged....like a direct security op for the people who are having their land taken for this stupid "monument."

----------


## JK/SEA

> I totally agree that they are patriots, I just wish they would have coordinated with the Oregon militias and done this without ignoring state sovereignty.  Chances are if they had done that, a _much_ better op would have emerged....like a direct security op for the people who are having their land taken for this stupid "monument."



interesting that Rhodes said the FEDS are risking civil war.

----------


## phill4paul

> interesting that Rhodes said the FEDS are risking civil war.


  I've yet to hear any of the militia groups say that they would leave Bundy out to dry. While not supportive, even chagrined, over the Op without consideration all have said that the there will be no "free Waco's."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> interesting that Rhodes said the FEDS are risking civil war.


I totally agree with him, and with his characterization of it too.  Just from a purely logical standpoint it parses correctly.  There is nothing, literally nothing that the Bundys could do right now to trigger a wider conflict.  The feds, however, could totally trigger a wider conflict by going all Janet Reno.  The problem...for both sides...is that such a civil war would largely _not_ be sectioned geographically.  The patriots would neither have a solid base of operations nor the potential for secession.  The loyalists would have no safe areas and no way to tell friend from foe.  It would be a bloody nightmare for both sides.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I totally agree with him, and with his characterization of it too.  Just from a purely logical standpoint it parses correctly.  There is nothing, literally nothing that the Bundys could do right now to trigger a wider conflict.  The feds, however, could totally trigger a wider conflict by going all Janet Reno.  The problem...for both sides...is that such a civil war would largely _not_ be sectioned geographically.  The patriots would neither have a solid base of operations nor the potential for secession.  The loyalists would have no safe areas and no way to tell friend from foe.  It would be a bloody nightmare for both sides.


i'm 8 hours drive from there.

''the blood of patriots and tyrants''

that tree is getting pretty thirsty.

----------


## phill4paul

> i'm 8 hours drive from there.
> 
> ''the blood of patriots and tyrants''
> 
> that tree is getting pretty thirsty.


  So what is stopping you? At the most that's less than $60 in gas. You could be the RPF's member on the scene. Giving us behind the scene info. If they were 8 hrs. from me I'd drive out to see what was going on. I'd even buy some groceries to take with me. Do you want to start a chip in? I'd throw $10 your way.

----------


## JK/SEA

> So what is stopping you? At the most that's less than $60 in gas. You could be the RPF's member on the scene. Giving us behind the scene info. If they were 8 hrs. from me I'd drive out to see what was going on. I'd even buy some groceries to take with me. Do you want to start a chip in? I'd throw $10 your way.


nah..ima coward, and the sight of blood makes me pass out. I could make some sammitches and send my wife down there with them.

----------


## Schifference

> So what is stopping you? At the most that's less than $60 in gas. You could be the RPF's member on the scene. Giving us behind the scene info. If they were 8 hrs. from me I'd drive out to see what was going on. I'd even buy some groceries to take with me. Do you want to start a chip in? I'd throw $10 your way.


Is distance or gas expense what is stopping you?

----------


## phill4paul

> Is distance or gas expense what is stopping you?


    Many equations. 38 hrs. travel one way with a relief driver. $300 gas one way/ $600 round trip. Lost jobs and income. I could probably swing all jobs to March after the end of the next week and take the hit if I did a draw against my life insurance to make sure the ole lady was taken care of through the winter. Cold weather gear. I'm not really set for cold winter tactics, but could probably get by with layer upon layer. Food. Ammo, I'd take what I got. But, not enough for a sustained engagement in case I decided to stay. Food. I'd give it a go with the right funding. I'd really have to sit down and figure it out, monetarily. 
  8 hrs. from me is one thing. The other side of the nation in a different climate zone is something else entirely. If they had occupied a Wildlife HQ in Virginia, S.C. or Tenn. then I'd probably already went out there to just see what was up. /shrug.

----------


## JK/SEA

btw Phil, i'm not in the habit of telegraphing my intentions. Especially in regards to this issue, on the internet.

----------


## phill4paul

> btw Phil, i'm not in the habit of telegraphing my intentions. Especially in regards to this issue, on the internet.


  It's not something I really worry about. If some do I can see their point. It seems these Patriots have no need for op/sec with regards to their identity. I have none myself.

----------


## Valli6

*Lou Dobbs* is going to interview *Rep. Greg Walden* on Fox Business channel, sometimes between 7 and 8PM ET.
edit: NOW

----------


## nobody's_hero

> UPDATE: Tube now available.
> 
> 
> -----------
> You can listen to Rep. *Greg Walden*'s floor speech at the following link.
> It begins at 54:34(?) and lasts almost 25 minutes.
> http://www.c-span.org/video/?402734-...ote&start=3258
> 
> _summary in case you don't have time for the video:_
> ...


That vid is worth sharing. If you haven't watched it yet, you're missing out. 

43,000 views, over 900 likes and 21 dislikes. It tells me that people are supportive of the cause even if not the methods, which gives me some hope.

----------


## phill4paul

> That vid is worth sharing. If you haven't watched it yet, you're missing out.


  At the least Rand can argue against "mandatory minimums" and that being the whole issue in this situation. Non violent crime. Judge thought the mandatory was egregious in this instance.

----------


## Schifference

> That vid is worth sharing. If you haven't watched it yet, you're missing out. 
> 
> 43,000 views, over 900 likes and 21 dislikes. It tells me that people are supportive of the cause even if not the methods, which gives me some hope.


Guy reminds me of Ron when he speaks.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Exclusive Interview With Oregon ‘Militiamen’ – “We Have an End Game…This isn’t a Crybaby Protest”*

By William N. Grigg on January 6, 2016

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/exc...reedom-oregon/				

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Harney County, Oregon — Members of the group calling itself “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom” told The Free Thought Project that they intend to remain ensconced on federally owned land while legal researchers explore ways of “returning the land to the people who should control it.” They went on to say that they are enjoying both moral and material support from ranchers whose properties are imperiled by the BLM and other federal agencies.

“We have an end game in mind — this isn’t merely a crybaby protest,” insisted controversial activist Jon Ritzheimer, who spoke to The Free Thought Project while acting as a security guard at the top of a long driveway leading to the administrative headquarters of the refuge. “We are going to town on the land rights issues. There are researchers investigating title and land rights issues, mineral and resource rights issues, and we intend to stay here until we can build a legal case to return control of the land back to the people who should have it.”

A recent essay published in this space explored the federal dispossession of the Paiute Indians, who in the 1870’s had been promised the territory now called Harney County as part of a peace agreement following the Snake War. Asked if the CCF had made overtures to Native groups regarding land rights issues, Ritzheimer replied that he and his associates would be eager to reach out “if we knew how to contact them and who we should talk to.”

“We are very aware of the treatment of Natives, and we have offered to help them in Arizona,” added Blaine Cooper, who — like Ritzheimer — is a native of the Grand Canyon State. “We offered our support to the Apaches after Senator [John] McCain snuck through a deal to grab their lands on behalf of his cronies last year.”

In late 2014, Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake stealthily attached a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act arranging a land swap that deprived the San Carlos Apache tribe of 2,400 acres that includes Oak Flat, revered by them as a sacred site called Chich’l Bildagoteel.

Former tribal chairman Wendsler Noise, Sr. told The New York Times that his community regards Oak Flat to be as sacred as “Mount Sinai … how the holy spirit came to be.”

The beneficiaries of this surreptitious deal — which was arranged at literally the last moment before the Senate approved the must-pass military spending measure — are the owners of Rio Tinto, an Australian-British transnational mining consortium, and BHT Biliton, a multi-resource mining company also based in Australia. Front groups for the mining company have been generous McCain campaign donors, and prior to his congressional career, Senator Flake was a paid lobbyist for Rio Tito Rossing Uranium, which had a huge operation in Namibia. McCain and Flake succeeded where several previous attempts by Arizona congressmen had failed. One of them, former Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, began a three-year federal prison term for money laundering and corruption a few months after the dirty deal was consummated.

Beginning roughly a year ago, members of the San Carlos Apache Nation have staged an occupation of Oak Creek, which is scheduled for delivery into the hands of its new corporate “owners” sixty days after a federal environmental impact statement is completed. 

Last August, when McCain visited the Navajo Nation Museum to honor World War II “Code Talkers,” a group of protesters literally chased him from the site in a dramatic illustration of the Proverb that “The wicked flee where none give pursuit.”

The proposed copper mine would destroy many irreplaceable cultural and historic sites, the most notable of which is “Apache Leap” — a ledge from which 75 warriors are said to have plunged to their deaths, rather than surrendering to the U.S. Army. That act of heroic intransigence inspires the contemporary defenders of Oak Flat, whose tactics are broadly similar to those of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom — with the significant difference that the CCF is armed and has expressed the intention to use force in the event of a violent confrontation. (None of the CCF activists displayed firearms during our visit.) It also must be acknowledged that the core of the CCF consists of people who are not native to Harney County, and that some residents of nearby Burns have expressed an earnest desire that they leave. 

Several CCF members interviewed by The Free Thought Project claimed that local ranchers who reside within the federal Refuge area have expressed concern and support and offered material assistance. During a January 5 visit to the site of what has been called an “armed occupation,” The Free Thought Project spoke with one couple from neighboring Clark County who had brought a cord of firewood for the CCF, which would be useful in the event law enforcement official cut power to the facility.

“They’re probably not going to be able to do that,” one CCF member (who declined to give his name) responded when asked about that possibility. “They would have to be on-site to cut the power unless they want to take down the grid supplying power to all of the local ranchers in the middle of winter, which wouldn’t exactly win their hearts and minds.”

Harney County Sheriff David Ward, who has appealed for help to the Oregon Sheriffs Association, told Oregon Public Radio that the FBI is preparing criminal charges against the CCF. For its part, the group claims that it is well-supplied and prepared for a lengthy standoff that it hopes will end peacefully.

----------


## XNavyNuke

> That vid is worth sharing. If you haven't watched it yet, you're missing out. 
> 
> 43,000 views, over 900 likes and 21 dislikes. It tells me that people are supportive of the cause even if not the methods, which gives me some hope.


Agreed.

XNN

----------


## XNavyNuke

> “We have an end game in mind — this isn’t merely a crybaby protest,” insisted controversial activist Jon Ritzheimer, who spoke to The Free Thought Project while acting as a security guard at the top of a long driveway leading to the administrative headquarters of the refuge.


And here I just assumed that they had no grand strategy and terrible OpSec. Thank goodness we now know that is merely a ruse. Probably trying to confuse the Federales.

XNN

----------


## Thor

> That vid is worth sharing. If you haven't watched it yet, you're missing out. 
> 
> 43,000 views, over 900 likes and 21 dislikes. It tells me that people are supportive of the cause even if not the methods, which gives me some hope.


Agreed on the video, very good, (but the quality was horrible - 360p)

As far as the methods...  if these methods were not used, nobody in the MSM, and maybe not even Rep Walden, would be talking about this...  So the method is what got the attention across the interwebs.  And for that, I take my hat off to them.  And hope this ends peacefully with the research they are performing or getting performed without some Waco styled "take down"

----------


## UWDude

I am convinced somebody is mole for CIA, agent provacteur.  If Payne gets away with a slap on the wrist, while everybody else pays, or if everybody is killed, he us in WPA.  Reading Bundy's last tweet... ...yeah.  They want the hatred, not the unity.  It may not be Payne, it may be somebody else, but somebody just convinced these poor souls it was a good idea to be martyrs for a cause nobody cares about, especially with the media arrayed against you.  But crying Obama will get his gun control.

My best advice... ...start fraternizing with all the armed forced and FBI NOW.  Your best uniter, (wait for the first deadly attack, and see who unites), get out, with white flag, and start talking to them.  Turn them.  Then the right wing revolution begins in earnst.  Then the destruction of America begins.  That's what you want, I have told you how to get it.

You can turn the law enforcement arrayed against you.  You must fraternize.

This is your life, play it paranoid.  You put yourself in this position.  Any division will tear you down.  Unite.

----------


## sparebulb

Boobus is getting aroused with anticipation of the "good guys" wiping out some terrrrists.

"Murika!!!!!

Number one!!!!!

----------


## JK/SEA

> I am convinced somebody is mole for CIA, agent provacteur.  If Payne gets away with a slap on the wrist, while everybody else pays, or if everybody is killed, he us in WPA.  Reading Bundy's last tweet... ...yeah.  They want the hatred, not the unity.  It may not be Payne, it may be somebody else, but somebody just convinced these poor souls it was a good idea to be martyrs for a cause nobody cares about, especially with the media arrayed against you.  But crying Obama will get his gun control.
> 
> My best advice... ...start fraternizing with all the armed forced and FBI NOW.  Your best uniter, (wait for the first deadly attack, and see who unites), get out, with white flag, and start talking to them.  Turn them.  Then the right wing revolution begins in earnst.  Then the destruction of America begins.  That's what you want, I have told you how to get it.
> 
> You can turn the law enforcement arrayed against you.  You must fraternize.
> 
> This is your life, play it paranoid.  You put yourself in this position.  Any division will tear you down.  Unite.


get your facts right before posting bull$#@! like this.

for starters, Bundy DOES NOT have a twitter account.

http://factually.gizmodo.com/no-ammo...rks-1751353105

you go right ahead and be the best boot licker you can. Post a tube. I want to see you on your knees slobbering over a size 14.

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Last August, when McCain visited the Navajo Nation Museum to honor World War II Code Talkers, *a group of protesters literally chased him* from the site in a dramatic illustration of the Proverb that The wicked flee where *none give pursuit*.


Huh? Wait. Wut? 




> As far as the methods...  if these methods were not used, nobody in the MSM, and maybe not even Rep Walden, would be talking about this...  So the method is what got the attention across the interwebs.


I have to agree. Give the CCF people that much, at least.

And if it hadn't been for this brouhaha, I'd not have heard of the Oak Flat land-grab shenanigans mentioned in AF's previous post, either.

----------


## JK/SEA

Short vid from the town hall in Burns, Oregon.

----------


## tod evans

That poor old guy really doesn't have a clue how deep this rabbit hole of fed-gov runs but he's starting to dig.....

"The Hammonds got a bad deal" ........

No sir they got $#@!ed just like lots of others have....

----------


## JK/SEA

Sheriff Mack weighs in on Oregon. Video at link.

http://truthinmedia.com/exclusive-sh...ndoff-hammond/

----------


## Thor

> Short vid from the town hall in Burns, Oregon.


I find it almost comical that everyone says "I don't agree with what they did, but..."  These guys, Rep Walden, etc.  Nobody wants to publicly paint themselves a target for the government to investigate them...  Point is, if they did not do what they did, no one would be talking about it all...  so I AGREE with what they did.  Otherwise NONE of this would have come out for discussion.  Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too...  "Oh they did a bad thing, but now let's talk about it."  No bad thing, no talk...  that simple.

----------


## JK/SEA

Oregon U.S. Attorney has something to say...

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Sattorney.html

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I find it almost comical that everyone says "I don't agree with what they did, but..."  These guys, Rep Walden, etc.  Nobody wants to publicly paint themselves a target for the government to investigate them...  Point is, if they did not do what they did, no one would be talking about it all...  so I AGREE with what they did.  Otherwise NONE of this would have come out for discussion.  Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too...  "Oh they did a bad thing, but now let's talk about it."  No bad thing, no talk...  that simple.


It doesn't even strike you as possible that they are simply being honest, that they really don't approve of what Ammon Bundy is doing, but still hate the BLM and what they did to the Hammonds and what they are doing to local ranchers?

----------


## tod evans

> Oregon U.S. Attorney has something to say...
> 
> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Sattorney.html


May I be the first in this thread to offer up a great big;

*$#@! YOU!* 

To U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.....



(Go read the last paragraph)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Just-Us system...

----------


## JK/SEA

> It doesn't even strike you as possible that they are simply being honest, that they really don't approve of what Ammon Bundy is doing, but still hate the BLM and what they did to the Hammonds and what they are doing to local ranchers?


these old guys aren't stupid. I think they're being coy and using stealth tactics to confuse the FEDS.

cops use the same tactics with mundanes, its called white lying. Reverse psy-ops. Pretty sure these old guys approve under their breathe.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> May I be the first in this thread to offer up a great big;
> 
> *$#@! YOU!* 
> 
> To U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.....
> 
> (Go read the last paragraph)


I would expect a government attorney to have nothing but good things to say about the government system.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> May I be the first in this thread to offer up a great big;
> 
> *$#@! YOU!* 
> 
> To U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.....
> 
> (Go read the last paragraph)


I would expect a government attorney to have nothing but good things to say about the government system.

----------


## JK/SEA

LIVE STREAM FROM OREGON.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvpqCo-hT30#t=11119

----------


## sparebulb

> LIVE STREAM FROM OREGON.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvpqCo-hT30#t=11119


"Video was interrupted"

----------


## JK/SEA

> "Video was interrupted"


yep...right after i posted the link. The stream i did get to see, they were talking about the 3% from Idaho showing up, then black...

Lori said in a posting they are working on getting it back up.

also, they are having a big meeting with Bundy right now.

Sheriff Ward went out and asked them to leave...they politly declined.

----------


## JK/SEA

NEW LINK...ITS BACK UP...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvpqCo-hT30#t=11119

----------


## Origanalist

Lol, who is the joker they have on the feed?

----------


## Thor

> I find it almost comical that everyone says "I don't  agree with what they did, but..."  These guys, Rep Walden, etc.  Nobody  wants to publicly paint themselves a target for the government to  investigate them...  Point is, if they did not do what they did, no one  would be talking about it all...  so I AGREE with what they did.   Otherwise NONE of this would have come out for discussion.  Everyone  wants their cake and to eat it too...  "Oh they did a bad thing, but now  let's talk about it."  No bad thing, no talk...  that simple.





> It doesn't even strike you as possible that they are simply being honest, that they really don't approve of what Ammon Bundy is doing, but still hate the BLM and what they did to the Hammonds and what they are doing to local ranchers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by JK/SEA
> 
> ...


Thank you JK/SEA.  Like I said, not many in the public eye have said....  "I agree with their standoff."  But everyone is talking about the BLM, and FWS, the treatment of the ranchers, the land grabs, the unjust laws they are being imprisoned under, and everything else _because_ of their standoff.  No standoff, no discussions. So someone needs to give credit for them getting the discussions to this point.  Ammon is smarter than he is being given credit for, as long as it does not go down Waco style.

Everyone in the public eye on camera is too scared to say, "Thanks to these guys holed up, we are having this talk."  Because if they didn't do what they did, there would be no talking about this.  Can't have the talk without the actions that created the environment for the talks to occur.  Everyone is just to afraid to stick their neck out and say "good for them for forcing the issue."  

Some might not agree with what they did; but some are too scare to say publicly they support it for fear of being painted as a militia sympathizer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Well I, for one, tend to take people at their word until they prove themselves untrustworthy.  Maybe I just come from a different era.

----------


## pcosmar

> Some might not agree with what they did; but some are too scare to say publicly they support it for fear of being painted as a militia sympathizer.


I am,, and have been such a "sympathizer" .

I am an observer. 
I do not buy the Sheriffs offer for a second,, that was a trap.

I also do not expect "waco".  though it may get real interesting if the Fed Goons try to bum rush the place.

----------


## Valli6

In the future, it will be recognized as civil disobedience.

----------


## dannno

> It doesn't even strike you as possible that they are simply being honest, that they really don't approve of what Ammon Bundy is doing, but still hate the BLM and what they did to the Hammonds and what they are doing to local ranchers?


Did you watch the videos? It sounds like you didn't but you seriously should.. The one guy said, paraphrasing, that he doesnt agree with what they did BUT HE WANTS THEM TO STAY THERE.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Did you watch the videos? It sounds like you didn't but you seriously should.. The one guy said, paraphrasing, that he doesn’t agree with what they did BUT HE WANTS THEM TO STAY THERE.


So, if they aren't saying what you want them to say, you would just assume they are lying?

----------


## dannno

> So, if they aren't saying what you want them to say, you would just assume they are lying?


Huh? I haven't come out in favor or against whether they should have carried this action out, I'm a bit torn - but - I do support them, hope for their safety and more importantly I support the cause they are fighting for. 

My only point was that you were saying they don't approve of what they did - they are saying they don't approve while also saying they are glad they are there and want them to stay. Take that however you want.

----------


## dannno

> Short vid from the town hall in Burns, Oregon.


Does anybody know who was at this town hall? Was it all or at least primarily local residents?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Huh? I haven't come out in favor or against whether they should have carried this action out, I'm a bit torn - but - I do support them, hope for their safety and more importantly I support the cause they are fighting for. 
> 
> My only point was that you were saying they don't approve of what they did - they are saying they don't approve while also saying they are glad they are there and want them to stay. Take that however you want.


I take it to mean that they don't approve of what they did, but that they are glad they are there and want them to stay.  

Why would anyone take it any differently?

----------


## idiom



----------


## dannno

> 


When was the last time the militia attacked innocent people?

----------


## dannno

> Does anybody know who was at this town hall? Was it all or at least primarily local residents?


I did some research - it looks like they were all 100% local residents. They did a straw poll at the beginning and the way the Sheriff worded the question was really confusing, it was like he worded 99% of it so that everybody could agree - we all want this to end safely with no body getting hurt, and the men at the complex go back home to their families.. so even if you wanted them to stay, you could answer "yes" to that question and nearly everybody raised their hand.. A lot of the media has spun that into them not supporting the men at the complex and wanting them to go home.. but one article I read actually did talk about how most of the people at the meeting seemed supportive of them and the cause they are fighting for.

There is a huge sentiment that the locals are angry at them, don't support them and want them to go home.. but it sounds more like they just want to prevent violence, but they are mostly pretty glad that someone is taking a stand and support what they are fighting for.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> When was the last time the militia attacked innocent people?


Timothy McVeigh?

----------


## dannno

> Timothy McVeigh?


Timothy McVeigh is an individual with a questionable background - as a group I don't think they've done anything... and I think I recall something about him not really being active in militias or being some kinda spook or something.

But I mean that's almost like saying the Boy Scouts of America are a terrorist organization because one time a Boy Scout was involved in a mass shooting or something.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Timothy McVeigh is an individual with a questionable background - as a group I don't think they've done anything... and I think I recall something about him not really being active in militias or being some kinda spook or something.
> 
> But I mean that's almost like saying the Boy Scouts of America are a terrorist organization because one time a Boy Scout was involved in a mass shooting or something.


I do not believe that militias are terrorists. I was just answering your question. McVeigh was almost certainly acting alone, but it was a militia minded retribution for Ruby Ridge he claimed as his motivation. I dunno if he was active or not, but he claimed militia, and innocent people did die. I for one do not believe militia are terrorists, but it's probably not an effective argument to say they've never hurt or attacked innocents, because someone will point to McVeigh or Eric Rudolph and you'll end up losing more ground than you gain.

----------


## UWDude

> I take it to mean that they don't approve of what they did, but that they are glad they are there and want them to stay.  
> 
> Why would anyone take it any differently?



Because they understand the effects of fear.  There would be millions of people saying what they thought, if they didn't think big brother was watching, or maybe their boss.  Instead they say they oppose the actions, but "maybe" support the cause.  Same thing with OWS.

----------


## idiom

> When was the last time the militia attacked innocent people?


General consensus is that people don't blow themselves up unless they have a serious $#@!ing grudge. Its possible you don't know why they have a grudge or what your country did, in that case it is called blowback.

----------


## Origanalist

> I did some research - it looks like they were all 100% local residents. They did a straw poll at the beginning and the way the Sheriff worded the question was really confusing, it was like he worded 99% of it so that everybody could agree - we all want this to end safely with no body getting hurt, and the men at the complex go back home to their families.. so even if you wanted them to stay, you could answer "yes" to that question and nearly everybody raised their hand.. A lot of the media has spun that into them not supporting the men at the complex and wanting them to go home.. but one article I read actually did talk about how most of the people at the meeting seemed supportive of them and the cause they are fighting for.
> 
> There is a huge sentiment that the locals are angry at them, don't support them and want them to go home.. but it sounds more like they just want to prevent violence, but they are mostly pretty glad that someone is taking a stand and support what they are fighting for.


That would make sense, leave it to media and LE to make anything confused and hard to understand.

----------


## UWDude

> get your facts right before posting bull$#@! like this.
> 
> for starters, Bundy DOES NOT have a twitter account.
> 
> http://factually.gizmodo.com/no-ammo...rks-1751353105
> 
> you go right ahead and be the best boot licker you can. Post a tube. I want to see you on your knees slobbering over a size 14.


Chill bitch!

Regardless of whether he has a twitter account or not, (and since it was a farce, I will retract this standoff is a historically big deal, it isn't, until I see a clear sign otherwise).  So his twitter account wasn't shut off after clarifying the difference between BLM and #BLM.  All that means is I am wrong about the gravity of this situation.

HOWEVER

Fraternizing with those who intend to kill you, especially in Oregon, is the best way to win.  If you befriend your enemy, it is TWICE AS GOOD as killing them.  The reserves are full of gun toting conservatives.  They empathize. Those being called up are going to question their mission.  MAKE THEM QUESTION IT.

----------


## Thor

> Timothy McVeigh?


Really?  Watch this movie and get back to me.... www.anoblelie.com

----------


## Ender

As usual, Grigg puts this all in amazing perspective.




> "This Is Government Land": The Eternal Refrain of the Federal Occupiers
> 
> By William Norman Grigg
> 
> Pro Libertate Blog
> 
> Without seeking permission, a small group of defiant armed men seized control of coveted property in Oregon. They werent welcomed by local residents, some of whom petitioned the government to evict the intruders from federally administered land.
> 
> Rather than sending in the troops to uproot the uninvited settlers, the U.S. government told the local residents to accommodate them even as they put up fences and started to run cattle on the land they had seized. This destroyed the local agricultural balance, leaving many of the locals near starvation.
> ...

----------


## TheNewYorker

Well the Indians are coming out against the Bundy crew, saying that the ranchers have no right to protest, because it's really Indian land anyway.

I think the Indians just lost all credibility.

If the Indians were smart they would be on the side of the ranchers. It wasn't the ranchers that took Indian land, it was the feds. And now they are allying themselves with the feds???

You better watch out, Indians. Next stop for the BLM will be your reservations.

----------


## Weston White

> Timothy McVeigh?


Really?




> After receiving Nichols sworn declaration that McVeigh was an undercover army operative, attorney Jesse Trentadue was prevented from gaining access to depose Nichols by a federal judge. The judge in McVeighs own case also placed sensitive documents obtained by the defense during discovery under seal, documents that the producer of Oklahoma City bombing documentary A Noble Lie claims prove these connections.


https://www.corbettreport.com/episod...mothy-mcveigh/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Really?  Watch this movie and get back to me.... www.anoblelie.com


Yeah, I was actually alive and adult when it happened.  I kinda know the details inside and out.  So, thanks anyway.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.corbettreport.com/episod...mothy-mcveigh/


Yeah, and 9/11 was done by radio controlled martians operated via a Sega console under the command of Dick Cheney.  

Sometimes a pile of $#@! is just a pile of $#@!.

----------


## Thor

> Yeah, I was actually alive and adult when it happened.  I kinda know the details inside and out.  So, thanks anyway.


So was I.  Are these details what you saw in and on the newz?  Or have you really done some digging.  But thanks for playing...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So was I.  Are these details what you saw in and on the newz?  Or have you really done some digging.  But thanks for playing...


I didn't trust the 'news' then either.  I always dig.  Every-$#@!ing-thing is not a conspiracy.

----------


## Thor

> I didn't trust the 'news' then either.  I always dig.  Every-$#@!ing-thing is not a conspiracy.


Agreed, but some thing are. And a whole lot of stuff from OKC does not add up.  So to answer your previous post: "Timothy McVeigh?"  Since it was a question, the answer is NO.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Agreed, but some thing are. And a whole lot of stuff from OKC does not add up.  So to answer your previous post: "Timothy McVeigh?"  Since it was a question, the answer is NO.


LOL okay.  Since you claim sure knowledge, I'm going to assume that you were his CIA handler.

----------


## Thor

> LOL okay.  Since you claim sure knowledge, I'm going to assume that you were his CIA handler.


Well, do share what you found in your digging... I would be interested to hear it...  And if you want to see what others doing digging found, check out the movie...  and then refute it.  In my view, a patsy is not a terrorist.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, do share what you found in your digging... I would be interested to hear it...  And if you want to see what others doing digging found, check out the movie...  and then refute it.  In my view, a patsy is not a terrorist.


I never said he was a terrorist.  He was an American militia guy who killed innocents.  That was the question, and that was the answer.  I totally sympathized with his cause, Ruby Ridge was the work of psychopaths, and most people didn't GAF.  Doesn't mean I'm okay with what he did.  Patsy or not he and Nichols built and loaded the explosives, and he set the charges, drove the truck, and lit the fuse.  Having someone cajoling you to do it (assuming for the sake of argument that actually happened) doesn't excuse what he did any more than "I was just following orders" excused the Nazis.

----------


## Thor

> I never said he was a terrorist.  He was an American militia guy who killed innocents.  That was the question, and that was the answer.  I totally sympathized with his cause, Ruby Ridge was the work of psychopaths, and most people didn't GAF.  Doesn't mean I'm okay with what he did.  Patsy or not he and Nichols built and loaded the explosives, and he set the charges, drove the truck, and lit the fuse.  Having someone cajoling you to do it (assuming for the sake of argument that actually happened) doesn't excuse what he did any more than "I was just following orders" excused the Nazis.


Ok, but I would still like to hear about the research you did....  as there was more to it than just cajoling...  again, watch the movie...

----------


## JK/SEA

LIVE STREAMING NOW...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGig2-e82EY

more local militia and resident ranchers coming into the area now.

----------


## Lucille

The testimony of Christian Yingling in the strange case of the sociopath/agent provocateur Ryan Payne
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...ngling-in.html




> 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 didn't turn into a blood bath. (Strangely enough all three are present at the refuge.)
> [...]
> 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.


Lots more at the link.

----------


## phill4paul

> LIVE STREAMING NOW...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGig2-e82EY
> 
> more local militia and resident ranchers coming into the area now.


  Do you know if this livestream and the news trucks in the background are up by the HQ or are they offsite? One thing that is different from the Branch Dividians is that technology has come a long way.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Do you know if this livestream and the news trucks in the background are up by the HQ or are they offsite? One thing that is different from the Branch Dividians is that technology has come a long way.


the live stream by Pete Santilli is directly from the  refuge visitor center

----------


## phill4paul

> the live stream by Pete Santilli is directly from the  refuge visitor center


  Excellent. It seems all this various communications equipment is a serious asset. Before the Feds attempted anything they would have to shut every bit of it down.

----------


## phill4paul

Couple of different things I've run across...take them how you will....




> URNS -- Violence broke out at the Bundy compound Wednesday night between its militant occupants and members of an outside group whose leader says he wants to get women and children out of the compound.
> 
> Lewis Arthur, who leads a group called Veterans on Patrol and calls himself an anti-violence patriot, arrived Wednesday afternoon with a small crew.
> 
> By Wednesday night, one of Arthur's three-person crew was in the hospital, his eye blackened from a punch to the face.
> 
> In an interview Thursday, Arthur blamed the injuries on Blaine Cooper, a prominent member of the group of militants who since Saturday have staged a standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group's members say they hope to exonerate two area ranchers imprisoned on arson charges and then turn over land on the federally owned refuge to private owners.
> 
> Arthur said those inside the refuge didn't agree with his mission to remove women and children -- as well as prominent militant Ryan Payne -- from the compound.
> ...


http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...utsider_s.html

Christian Yingling is with the PA Lightfoot Brigade




> 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)
> ...


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...00005521000276

----------


## phill4paul

Couple more articles describing some tensions in the camp.





> News	
> Morale at Oregon Standoff Collapses After Militia Member Goes AWOL, Drinks Away Donation Money
> Dylan Hock | January 7, 2016
> 
> The enemy within.
> 5723
> SHARES
> Facebook
> Twitter
> ...


http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-stand...onation-money/

You'll recognize the name Buddha Bear from the Bundy Ranch stando-off....



> As the two Reuters reporters arrived just after nightfall, the occupiers were moving into a state of high alert. The group's head of security, a man known as Booda Bear, had been out of touch since driving off-site hours earlier. Amid efforts to locate him, the Bundys talked at length about what had brought them into this wilderness - and what it would take for them to leave.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-or...0UL0DW20160107

----------


## phill4paul

> Two of the men involved in the armed standoff in Oregon have been caught falsely claiming to have served in the Marines. An investigation shows the two have committed stolen valor. One of the men, Brian Cavalier, is the personal bodyguard to Ammon Bundy and has told reporters that he served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Here’s the problem: the US Marine Corps has no record of his service. That’s because he was never enlisted. The other man, Blaine Cooper, also claimed to be a Marine, but he was only in the “Delayed Entry Program.” He dropped out before actually going to boot camp.
> 
> A more in-depth look reveals that Cavalier is just a tattoo artist, and not only that, but the only record he has is a rap sheet full of DUI’s and theft – nothing even affiliated with the military. That’s what police records show, anyhow. It appears he faked his military credentials so he would be more credible to serve in the Oregon gang and get more street cred.
> 
> Here was the encounter Brian Cavalier had with reporters, who hilariously goes by the nickname ‘Raging Unicorn:’
> 
>     “I’m a retired United States Marine, I can rage.”
> 
> He also tried to sound ex-military when one journalist asked to access the refuge building, stating boldly:
> ...


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/01...rine-veterans/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Christian Yingling is with the PA Lightfoot Brigade
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...00005521000276


This almost perfectly matches my feelings on the matter.  Ammon Bundy is a good, well meaning man, but this Payne character is a real piece of work.  God forbid anything bad happening here, but if it does you can bet Payne will be why it did.

----------


## Origanalist

The word cluster$#@! comes to mind.

----------


## JK/SEA

the tide is turning, the locals are supportive, no one broke any thing or any laws, no one was hurt other than the coward at the main entrance who tried to start some $#@!...

cluster$#@!?...yep...the BLM, and the rest of those bastards who couldn't squash this event deserve that title. 

so far so good thanks to the local militias and brave ranchers who helped out.

oh, and all those articles or blogs posted above...$#@!in' bull$#@!, brought to by the propaganda arm of the FBI...

----------


## nobody's_hero

My guess is that this Payne character is gonna get a lot of people killed and then probably be the first one to surrender. 

I wish Bundy's sons hadn't gotten involved with him. He wants a fight. I'm starting to get the same vibes from Blaine Cooper. 

This whole situation just doesn't seem to me to share the same black-and-white clear-as-day difference of an act of self defense as the Bundy stand. And the fact that they're refusing even local law enforcement pleas for them to leave is a bad sign. 

These men are gonna die there.

----------


## Slave Mentality

I don't know what to think about this whole thing.   So many things don't make sense and it is just soooo convenient.  It at least makes me wonder if they are waiting for enough Boobus support to burn them out and we will see the majority rejoice.  Not looking good from any angle really.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Schifference

> 


Was that the real response of the people or MSM propaganda?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Was that the real response of the people or MSM propaganda?


i watched the live stream for most of the morning, and there was pick up truck after pick up truck rolling in one after another filled with local ranchers and supporters. Counted at least 20 while Rick was on live. Also said militia from Idaho and Oregon were there with more on the way.

No one has broken ANY laws.

This Sheriff needs to be replaced.

----------


## Schifference

According to my recollection there is only like 1 person per square mile in that area. So if pickup after pickup was supportive, that news clip most likely was propaganda to get the rest of the country to demonize the holdouts.

----------


## JK/SEA

> According to my recollection there is only like 1 person per square mile in that area. So if pickup after pickup was supportive, that news clip most likely was propaganda to get the rest of the country to demonize the holdouts.


people brought their kids. Looked like a big camp out party. Someone had a drone. Flew right over Ricks head. 

They kept that stream cam pretty much fixed at one angle, but i counted at least 30 people cross in front of the cam...women, kids, ranchers, but i never saw anyone who i could say was militia.

----------


## phill4paul

> people brought their kids. Looked like a big camp out party. Someone had a drone. Flew right over Ricks head. 
> 
> They kept that stream cam pretty much fixed at one angle, but i counted at least 30 people cross in front of the cam...women, kids, ranchers, but i never saw anyone who i could say was militia.


  Getting the locals on their side is the first step to bringing a good resolve. They need these people and they need these people to impress upon the sheriff that his job is on the line wrt how he handles this situation. I'm sure the Feds have already impressed on him how theye intend for him to act.

----------


## CPUd

> Was that the real response of the people or MSM propaganda?


That's from a local news station.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's from a local news station.


You can't believe anything from tv, of course there are those opposed and that's what they are going to show you. Local news people aren't any better than national, they're all on the same team. I hope Hammond comes out of this intact and having accomplished what he came for, I think he's a good man. I just don't trust some of the people he has around him. They lied about what they were.

----------


## phill4paul

> 3% OF IDAHO OFFICIAL PRESS RELASE AND CALL TO ACTION
> 
> Pacific Patriots Network and 3% of Idaho
> 
> PRESS RELEASE - 08 January 2016
> 
> Immediate Call to Action
> 
> In response to concerns of Federal agencies intervening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, The Pacific Patriot Network (PPN) and its associated organizations are releasing an Immediate Call to Action to secure a perimeter around the Wildlife Refuge; it’s occupiers, and the citizens of Harney County. We wish to establish a safety perimeter of protection for the occupiers so as to prevent a Waco-style situation from unfolding during this peaceful occupation. The primary intention of this outer-ring is to bear witness to any aggressive action initiated by federal agencies or the occupiers, and to encourage an open dialogue towards a peaceful resolution. We will serve as a neutral third-party intermediary to prevent bloodshed. In congruence with the concerns of the citizens of Harney County, The PPN and its affiliated organizations will operate with respect and professionalism so as to not elevate fears within the community. As outsiders, we recognize our responsibility to maintain both peace and civility during our presence. To further demonstrate our non-aggressive posture, military style or tactical clothing will not be authorized for this operation. It is imperative that the Nation recognizes the importance and sanctity of all lives in this situation. While the PPN does not condone nor encourage the execution of the Wildlife Refuge occupation, we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that a peaceful resolution is reached.
> ...


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...00000481566435

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You can't believe anything from tv, of course there are those opposed and that's what they are going to show you. Local news people aren't any better than national, they're all on the same team. I hope Hammond comes out of this intact and having accomplished what he came for, I think he's a good man. I just don't trust some of the people he has around him. They lied about what they were.


Hammond and son are already in jail. I think you mean Ammon Bundy. 

And yes. it would be a tragic loss for such a well respected man to go down on account of hotheads who are committed to dying (probably in vain).

----------


## phill4paul

> Committee to Ammon Bundy: “We ask that you organize your people, explain that your point has been made, and leave in a peaceful, honorable fashion.”
> 
> During last night’s January 8, 2016 meeting of the Harney County Committee of Safety, in Burns, OR, Committee member Melodi Molt read aloud the Committee’s unanimous letter to Ammon Bundy, thanking him for bringing attention to the Hammond case and other important issues, and for stirring them to action, but also criticizing him for occupying the wildlife refuge without their knowledge “or any other local approval” in a way that hurt the Committee’s credibility in the community.
> 
> The letter ends by directly asking Ammon Bundy to end his occupation of the wildlife refuge and to leave peaceably.  (the full transcript of the letter is posted below the video). This is the same Committee that Ammon helped to create on December 15, 2015 and assured them that they, the people of Harney County, would be in charge:
> 
> Introduction to Letter, by Committee Member Melodi Molt:
> 
>     We’ve only been on this committee a couple weeks, and two weeks ago, I didn’t know what a committee of safety was.   So I looked up the definition and I ‘m going to read it to you before I read this letter from the Committee of Safety:
> ...


https://www.oathkeepers.org/harney-c...-him-to-leave/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> https://www.oathkeepers.org/harney-c...-him-to-leave/


Here come the charges of the Harney County Committee of Safety being FBI Propaganda and OK's being jackboot gov stooges.

----------


## phill4paul

> Here come the charges of the Harney County Committee of Safety being FBI Propaganda and OK's being jackboot gov stooges.


  At this point I'm going to put, on a scale of 1-10, Ryan Payne's chance of being a Fed provocateur at 7 and Blaine Cooper's chance of being a Fed informant at 10.

----------


## tod evans

From the link Gunny provided;

https://www.oathkeepers.org/harney-c...-him-to-leave/

NOTE FROM STEWART:

The Committee is essentially asking Ammon to take the same honorable exit that I recommended in my open letter to him on January 6, 2016, which you can read here.   Ammon promised this committee that they would be in charge and make the decisions on how best to proceed in defending their rights, and taking control of their land.  Now that the committee has made if very clear that they will continue the fight, Ammon should do as the committee asks and leave the wildlife refuge.

The Committee’s draft Resolution of the People of Harney County, which they also read aloud last night, was very strong, and ended with a demand that the federal government turn all lands currently under its control in Harney County, over to the people.   You can read it here: RESOLUTION OF THE PEOPLE OF HARNEY COUNTY final rev

It was an inspirational meeting.  And though the Committee expressed their anger at the way Ammon acted on his own, without telling them what he had planned, and without local consent, they still expressed their very real gratitude to him for bringing national attention to the gross injustices against the Hamonds and to the broader issues of the Federal dominance over the land that rightfully belongs to the people of the West.  Out of this can come great things if the follow-up is done right.

As for us, Oath Keepers has a standing offer out to the people of Harney County, OR to assist them with security if they chose to start working the land again, in defiance of unjust Federal edicts, and most importantly, a standing offer to help train and organize them so that they can provide for their own security, as the Founders intended (which is the core purpose of our Community Preparedness Teams (CPT)).   If the people will stand, we will stand with them, and we will train them, but they need to be in charge, and they have to make that momentous decision to take a stand.  We cannot do it for them.  Looks to us like they are well on their way, so long as the maintain momentum.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

MORE DETAILS ON OUR OFFER OF HELP TO TRAIN THEM

Here is what I wrote in the post linking to the live feed of the meeting last night:

This is exactly what needs to be done in every county in the West – the people coming together to take the bull by the horns and stand together with THEM in charge.

It was a very good meeting, and it was good to see the community come together and start to stand. Now that we DO support.

*The next step needs to be that at least one, but preferably several, ranchers need to turn their cattle out on the public land and then we (all groups, all patriots) can defend them, and most importantly, train and organize them to defend themselves and each other.   And it would be best if the Committee of Safety called for that action and fully supported it (yes, an individual rancher has the right to take that stand on his own, and we can defend him – that is what happened at Bundy Ranch, Sugar Pine Mine, and in Lincoln, MT, where we defended individuals who were willing to stand even if most of their neighbors were not – but it is best for the community to be directly involved and in full support. That is what is needed for a long term, lasting retaking of their land.

Also, we must train them to defend themselves and each other.  Outside security volunteers can only stay for so long, and if/when there is a national crisis, such volunteers will not be able to go anywhere, since they will be very busy in their own AO.   So, the people of Harney County must be trained and organized to provide their own security.   And that is what we will be happy to do for them so they can be their own security rather than having to rely on “sheepdogs” from outside their county.*

In fact, I hereby make this standing offer to the people of Harney County, OR, and to the Harney County Comittee of Safety.   Oath Keepers will train you and help you organize for your own security, so that,  whatever you do, you can provide your own local security teams made up of well trained locals, and those locals can serve as competent, effective local leadership for any outside volunteers you may consent to inviting in to assist you, under the command of local leaders you choose.   That is the best way for you to proceed so you, the locals, call the shots and are in charge, including of any security operations in defense of your rights, as Ammon Bundy himself said is the way this is supposed to go.

Stewart Rhodes

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Yeah, I didn't provide the link.  That would be phill4paul.  And he quoted the entire page when he did.  Interesting how you filtered that content.

----------


## tod evans

> *Yeah, I didn't provide the link.  That would be phill4paul.*  And he quoted the entire page when he did.  Interesting how you filtered that content.


Whoops......

Top of the page.....

----------


## phill4paul

> Whoops......
> 
> Top of the page.....


  No problems. It probably needed to be read twice.

----------


## tod evans

> No problems. It probably needed to be read twice.


I just hope people stand up.......

If Bundy proves to be the impetus that gets regular folks to thumb their noses at the feds I'll bet he says it's worth it....

----------


## Origanalist

> Hammond and son are already in jail. I think you mean Ammon Bundy. 
> 
> And yes. it would be a tragic loss for such a well respected man to go down on account of hotheads who are committed to dying (probably in vain).


Ya, That's what I meant. I noticed the mistake later but was too lazy to fix it...

----------


## PursuePeace

LIVE: Oregon militia leaders to address press on occupation - 1/9 - 1pm est

*ETA: Starts at about 9:55*

----------


## youngbuck

> LIVE: Oregon militia leaders to address press on occupation - 1/9 - 1pm est


Fast forward to 9:57 for the beginning.

ETA:  I'm 5 mins in and it's definitely worth watching so far...
 #2:  PPN (including Idaho 3%ers) arrive and establish neutral security buffer.  They talk to media and answer questions after some sort of community leader/liason addresses the media.  Interesting stuff.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## youngbuck

In case any of you missed it, here is an interesting video of the PPN meeting with the FBI:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5w9...ature=youtu.be

Sourced from goldenequity's thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Perimeter-%29

----------


## phill4paul

> In case any of you missed it, here is an interesting video of the PPN meeting with the FBI:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5w9...ature=youtu.be
> 
> Sourced from goldenequity's thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Perimeter-%29


  Yup. After watching the video I have a much better belief that this thing is gonna work out for the good. The Oregon III%'ers and the whole PPN are a very positive factor on scene.

----------


## youngbuck

> Yup. After watching the video I have a much better belief that this thing is gonna work out for the good. The Oregon III%'ers and the whole PPN are a very positive factor on scene.


  I totally agree.  It's good to see intelligent and cool heads entering the equation with the arrival of the PPN.  May God grant them all safety and grace.

----------


## youngbuck

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...hings-to-come/




> The nation's attention turned to Oregon this week when a group calling  itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom seized control of part of a  federal wildlife refuge. The citizens were protesting the harsh  sentences given to members of the Hammond ranching family. The Hammonds  were accused of allowing fires set on their property to spread onto  federal land.
> 
>  The Hammonds were prosecuted under a federal  terrorism statute. This may seem odd, but many prosecutors are  stretching the definition of terrorism in order to, as was the case  here, apply the mandatory minimum sentences or otherwise violate  defendants constitutional rights. The first judge to hear the case  refused to grant the governments sentencing request, saying his  conscience was shocked by the thought of applying the mandatory minimums  to the Hammonds. Fortunately for the government, it was able to appeal  the decision to judges whose consciences were not shocked by draconian  sentences.
> 
>  Sadly, but not surprisingly, some progressives who  normally support civil liberties have called for the government to use  deadly force to end the occupation at the refuge. These progressives are  the mirror image of conservatives who (properly) attack gun control and  the PATRIOT Act as tyrannical, yet support the use of police-state  tactics against unpopular groups such as Muslims.
> 
>  Even some  libertarians have joined the attacks on the ranchers. These libertarians  say ranchers like the Hammonds are corporate welfare queens because  they graze their cattle on federal lands. However, since the federal  government is the largest landholder in many western states, the  ranchers may not have other viable alternatives. As the Oregon standoff  shows, ranchers hardly have the same type of cozy relationship with the  government that is enjoyed by true corporate welfare queens like  military contractors and big banks. Many ranchers actually want control  of federally-held land returned to the states or sold to private owners.
> 
>  Situations like the one in Oregon could become commonplace as the  continued failure of Keynesian economics and militaristic foreign policy  is used to justify expanding government power. These new power grabs  will increase the threats to our personal and economic security. The  resulting chaos will cause many more Americans to resist government  policies, with some even turning to violence, while the burden of  government regulations and taxes will lead to a growing black market.  The government will respond by becoming even more authoritarian, which  will lead to further unrest.
> ...

----------


## PRB

> Yup. After watching the video I have a much better belief that this thing is gonna work out for the good. The Oregon III%'ers and the whole PPN are a very positive factor on scene.


Nobody wants anybody hurt. 

Obama doesn't want any blood on his hands right after lecturing Americans that he's gonna take our guns. 

So don't worry, in a few days this will all be over. 

Of course, there's a slight chance a trouble maker infiltrator will try to stir $#@! up, hopefully not.

----------


## phill4paul

> Oregon standoff: Roseburg state legislator ignores local warnings, visits protesters
> 
> BURNS — In the latest bizarre turn of events surrounding the ongoing armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, an Oregon state legislator from outside Harney County arrived here Saturday with out-of-state elected officials in tow and met with the protesters.
> 
> Oregon Rep. Cliff Bentz, a Republican from Ontario, and Harney County Judge Steven E. Grasty said that they tried to warn state Rep. Dallas Heard against traveling to Burns. But Heard, a Republican from Roseburg, arrived anyway, they said, and brought officials elected to state office in Washington, Idaho and Nevada with him.
> 
> "He had called me and indicated he was heading that direction, and I indicated that was inappropriate," said Bentz, whose district includes Harney County. "I think it's fair to say I was not enthusiastic about the idea." 
> 
> Heard arrived with five other out-of-state elected officials and met with Grasty, Harney County District Attorney Tim Colahan, Marion County Sheriff Jason Myers and representatives from the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Grasty said. Grasty as a county judge has a role similar to a county commissioner.
> ...


http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...burg_state.htm

----------


## goldenequity

Interview Yesterday w/ Ammon Bundy..
This is worth watching to get a grasp 
on the larger issues, i.e. *Economics/History of the purpose/fight/resistance*.
Good stuff here.




I'm starting to change my mind on wanting a 'local' settlement.
Like saying the Boston Tea Party should be settled by the Boston city council or something.

This is certainly multi-state and growing to this decades old battle with the Article 1 Section 8 Federal overreach.
*Robert "LaVoy" Finicum is an Arizona Rancher* (& the guy quoted in your Oregonian article)




I'm of the opinion that the longer this plays out... the better. 
*This is going to be an epic thread and deserves updates.*

*In my next post*
I'm going to get us connected (hopefully) to the encrypted Intel briefings
given by the III percenter/PPN group.
I've 'heard' there are now 2100 involved.
Like you said above...
'No more 'free Waco'... ain't gonna happen.

=================
btw...
A *followup/interview with Brandon-III Percenter finished just moments ago*...
again. Excellent stuff.

----------


## JK/SEA

RESOLUTION.

http://www.pacificpatriotsnetwork.co...e%20Refuge.pdf

----------


## youngbuck

> RESOLUTION.
> 
> http://www.pacificpatriotsnetwork.co...e%20Refuge.pdf


I hope that's just a rough draft because it contains a number of typos.

----------


## Schifference

Seems like lots of info at this site.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...-news-updates/

----------


## dannno

> I'm starting to change my mind on wanting a 'local' settlement.
> Like saying the Boston Tea Party should be settled by the Boston city council or something.



Right.. who wants the revolution fought in their own backyard? Not many... 

Well, tough nuggets. They are paying taxes to fund these leaches too and haven't done anything else to stop them. 

If they are fighting a true injustice, then the community should be supportive. If not, I don't have much sympathy for said community to begin with. Though it does seem much of the community supports them a lot more than the media is letting on.

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## goldenequity

Click the LIVE link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_EO5eBG94
*then..*
1. Change your setting to 144P or 240P
2. Drag the Cue to the beginning and start w/ the Press Conf.

3. Amazing intel coming from another embedded III percent reporter (not Santelli): (right at the beginning)
like...
*A COMMON LAW Judge is en route w/ several US Federal Marshalls who are ON TARGET
with the Constitutional issues at hand...*
Wow...
Listen for yourself.

Here's the link.. don't listen 'LIVE'... listen to what's
been recorded from beginning at low rez.

Then skip around...

----------


## goldenequity

*@47:15*

"There are local ranchers (now educated) that are unilaterally
going to be terminating their contracts with the BLM
and are give constructive NOTICE to the US Government that they
will once again begin to ranch their ranches using their original rights...
their generational/grandfathered resource rights." *-- Ammon Bundy*

*@ 43:20*
"We have video evidence regarding the 2006 fire at the Hammond ranch
being set by the BLM and have 2 eyewitnesses willing to testify... and that
this evidence WAS PRESENTED to the prosecuting Federal Attorney... ignored...
and NOT presented to the Defense attorneys as required by law"

*@ 57:00*

Press witnesses BLM block fence being demolished
and a gate installed allowing a local Rancher to now
graze the land and bring his ranch back to prosperity.

========================

Now that the livefeed has been uploaded here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_EO5eBG94

You can find the above episodes... but the time slots will be different.

----------


## youngbuck

Thanks for the updates goldenequity. 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldenequity again.

----------


## phill4paul

> Thanks for the updates goldenequity. 
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldenequity again.


  Covered.

----------


## dannno

> Covered.


x2

----------


## tod evans

> Covered.





> x2


What the hell, I hit him too......

----------


## Schifference

I think the people that took down that fence are susceptible to fines for not waring hard hat and or safety glasses.

----------


## youngbuck

> Now that the livefeed has been uploaded here
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_EO5eBG94
> 
> You can find the above episodes... but the time slots will be different.


@ 1:35:00 they claim to spot drones circling them in the sky...

@ 1:44:30 they confirm the drone.

----------


## goldenequity

Thank you all for the attaboys 
I don't really know how that all works yet on RPF
but I see the notifications so I will figure out how to thank back.
It makes me feel welcome being a PopLiberty refugee!!! Family again 
==============

I haven't got this 'wired' yet but here's what I'm working from:
from another thread I started on GLP...




> You can get in on nightly Intel briefs using this app...
> https://zello.com/
> 
> SPECIAL INTEL BRIEF
> Intel Brief is being moved up 30 min this evening.
> 2100 HeadCount in on III% SECURITY FORCE
> Password is 0341.
> We will be speaking with Joker J and Wesley Vance who at the Resource Center in Oregon


This would (I think) allow us to 'listen in' on the III Percenter Intel Briefings/Discussion being broadcast by them..

I haven't downloaded the app and began to hunt down the broadcasts yet... maybe tonight.
Feel free to help me unscramble this puzzle... let us know if you get somewhere w/ it.

----------


## youngbuck

Where did you get that info?  I found the "III% SECURITY FORCE" channel  on zello, but it mostly sounds like a bunch of rednecks and hillbillies  rambling on and cursing left and right.  Are you sure that's the  channel, because there are a few other III% channels.  Also, none of  them that I've seen require a password as of yet (perhaps that will  change for the 21:00 intel brief).

----------


## goldenequity

> Where did you get that info?  I found the "III% SECURITY FORCE" channel  on zello, but it mostly sounds like a bunch of rednecks and hillbillies  rambling on and cursing left and right.  Are you sure that's the  channel, because there are a few other III% channels.  Also, none of  them that I've seen require a password as of yet (perhaps that will  change for the 21:00 intel brief).


It was posted to a GLP thread for info/intel.
Thanks 4 checking it out YB... if there is anything of value let me know/thx for checking..

----------


## youngbuck

> It was posted to a GLP thread for info/intel.
> Thanks 4 checking it out YB... if there is anything of value let me know/thx for checking..


 There is no intel brief on that channel.  And searching for relevant channels on zello reveals nothing.  Nevertheless, thanks for the info.

----------


## tod evans

This is ridiculous! Installing a gate in a barbed wire fence is portrayed as $100,000.00 worth of damage....



*Oregon standoff: Bundy, militants destroy fence at federal refuge*

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta..._militant.html




Militants presiding over an armed occupation of a federal bird sanctuary destroyed a portion of a fence Monday afternoon that they said was installed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – using the agency's own equipment.

The stunt was perhaps the militants' boldest yet since overtaking the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge earlier this month. Arizona businessman Ammon Bundy and his band of protesters traveled about five miles south of refuge headquarters to a property where they said a local ranching family grazes cattle.

Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, said the Fish and Wildlife Service used a $100,000 grant to install the fence last year, preventing the family's 600 cattle from grazing on nearby public land.

"This will help them out, being able to run their ranch like they have in the past," Bundy said. The militants had permission from the family to destroy the fence, he added. "They actually showed us where they wanted it," Bundy said.

The militants removed barbed wire – Bundy with only his bare hands – and then used an excavator adorned with the Fish and Wildlife Service's logo to *pluck stakes* (metal T-posts) out of the ground. The group included Bundy's brother Ryan, Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, Blaine Cooper, Jason Patrick and Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.

"That's all that's needed for cows to go through," Finicum announced after the work was done. The militants removed about 25 or 30 yards of fence.

The Fish and Wildlife Service condemned the militants' actions in a written statement.

"In the century of [the] Malheur National Wildlife Refuge's existence, enormous effort has been displayed by partners, surrounding communities, ranchers and landowners to restore a devastated landscape," the statement reads. "Removing fences, damaging any refuge property, or unauthorized use of equipment would be additional unlawful actions by the illegal occupiers. Any movement of cattle onto the refuge or other activities that are not specifically authorized by [the Fish and Wildlife Service] constitutes trespassing.

"If they take down the fences, it hurts the refuge, but it also destroys the positive conservation impacts reaped from decades of direct collaboration and sweat equity paid by the Harney County (and surrounding) communities, ranchers, landowners, partners and friends."

The militants have advocated for the federal government to hand over public land in Harney County to local ranchers. The protesters destroyed the fence after Bundy announced in a morning press conference that they plan to continue the occupation until Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven, are free from federal prison.

The Hammonds were imprisoned last week after a judge ruled that they hadn't served long enough sentences for setting fires that spread to public land.

The Hammonds do not own the property where the militants destroyed the fence, Bundy said. It is not the same fence, Bundy said, that sparked a dispute between the Hammonds and the federal government in 1994.

Bundy seemed confident that the group's actions wouldn't result in any immediate response from law enforcement officials, who have remained low-profile and have adopted a "wait-them-out" approach to the situation.

"I don't think they want to do anything," Bundy said. "I think there's a lot of good people in the federal government who feel the same way as us."

Payne said the militants plan similar actions in the future.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Oregon standoff: Bundy, *militants* destroy fence at federal refuge
> 
> [...]
> 
> * Militants* presiding over an armed occupation [...]
> 
> The stunt was perhaps the *militants*' boldest yet [...]
> 
> Ammon Bundy and his band of protesters *militants* [...]
> ...


There are a couple of glaringly obvious mistakes in this story. Very sloppy work. I fixed it for them, though ...

----------


## goldenequity

*January 12 Update from Ammon Bundy & 'The Fence'*





Below is a good dialog regarding the Constitutional pivot (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17)
upon which Bundy et al are standing, i.e. the Federal Gov't cannot 'own' the Wildlife Refuge land.

----------


## JK/SEA

Anna von Reitz
January 7 at 12:41am · 



A Reply to Stewart Rhode's Recommended Honorable Exit Strategy For Ammon Bundy From Judge Anna

 This is certainly a principled argument that speaks well of Stewart Rhodes and his approach to self-government at the local level. 

 In our system of things, the true power stays with the individual who delegates to the county who delegates to the state who delegates to the federal government. 

 Not the other way around. 

 It is true that the local people have got to have the cajones to take a stand and until they do, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. 

 You can prove that their property rights are being violated by thugs----commercial mercenaries acting under color of law----and you can offer to stand with them, but until they find the courage and conviction to free themselves, nobody else can do that for them. All that is perfectly true. 

 However, there is a bone to pick with the Oathkeepers as an organization and with Stewart Rhodes; I have already picked it once and I shall pick it again. It does not remain for any one small group of people to determine whether our Constitution and our Law of the Land is respected or not. 

 That kind of thinking leads to "sanctuary cities" and armed bands of thugs holding mountain passes and robbing travelers while claiming that is okay because that is the "law" of Harney County. 

 Counties do not have the power to declare their own laws about everything. One of the things they do not have power to self-declare is to declare our national Organic Laws void in Harney County just because the people are too ignorant or too scared to stand up for them. 

 And anyone who is an Oathkeeper, including the leader of the Oathkeepers, should know that. 

 We are absolutely required to uphold our Organic Laws or our nation will be fractured like a crystal vase on a tile floor, cut up piecemeal and carted away. Divide and conquer and ignorance and wrong-thinking will set in and Americans will be reduced to arguing among themselves as we have argued for too many years already, 

 While we are wondering whether we have the right to assert jurisdiction over the land in Harney County when it is violated by federal agencies, those agencies given an inch will take ten miles, and take our seeming complacency as license to take more. When it comes to the Federales overreaching on any parcel of land anywhere in America,, it is a matter impacting all Americans from Florida to---- dare I say it? ----Alaska. 

 The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution for the united States of America are Organic Laws of the entire nation. We are all required to uphold them at all times and everywhere. That includes Harney County. When the "federal agencies" overreach themselves, it is our right AND our responsibility to oppose them in no uncertain terms. If the people of Harney County fail that sacred duty, the rest of us must not. 

 I never advocate bloodshed and I would not advocate that any of these brave men on either side of the firing line sacrifice their lives over a "misunderstanding". 

 The fact is that the "Federal Government" ---including its for-hire corporate subcontractor agencies--- has no right to claim any land within the borders of the organic states and never has had. The fact that we have allowed this to go on in the western states for over a hundred years is a national scandal of mismanagement, misrepresentation, and malfeasance. The resolution of the political status of these states and the formal release of their property is long, long overdue. 

 The Federales have mistaken our long-suffering of the matter as acquiescence. We allowed the Federales to arbitrarily declare "National Parks" because we thought it was good to set aside glorious places for future generations--- and it is; unfortunately, there is absolutely no lawful basis for it. We allowed the Federales to build massive Hydropower projects like the Hoover Dam, because we agreed that we needed electrical power; unfortunately, there is precious little excuse for that, either. 

 These and other acts have served over time to blur the hard line between where "Federal" duties and prerogatives begin and end, and have allowed a constant, slow, but increasingly terrifying usurpation of common sense and an equally profound overreach of government at all levels agains the private and public property rights of the people all across the nation. 

 It has gotten to the point where the Federales "assume" that they have rights that they don't have, that they have property interests that don't belong to them, and that they don't have to obey the Public Law or the Organic Law, either. We've let them get away with it so long that three generations have grown up, lived and died, since they were reminded forcefully of who they are and who we are. 

 Well, folks, it is time. 

 The good people of Harney County are sitting on a gold mine that has absolutely nothing to do with migratory bird habitat. They are sitting on a vast fortune of minerals and water that the Federales want. So they are moving in like the thugs they have become with a veritable army of hired commercial mercenaries masquerading as "FBI" agents long after the FBI has ceased to be a lawful unit of our government--- but still "trading" upon our images of J.Edgar Hoover nonetheless---- and they are bullying and proposing to steal land from innocent people and to jail them when they resist. 

 Let it be noted that the "crime" the Hammonds are accused of--- setting a backfire that damaged some property--- is routinely excused when any "agency" of the government does the same thing. Now, doesn't it seem a little bit crazy that the owners of the land are charged with a "crime" and jailed when their hired help does the same thing and skates away scot clean? 

 Wake up, Stewart Rhodes! Wake up Harney County! Daylight in the swamps! 

 We've notified the House Oversight Subcommittee--- the derelicts responsible for holding purse-strings over out of control "federal agencies"--- that they are liable for a commercial obligation lien of 200 billion ounces of fine silver per American killed by any "federal personnel" and we have the means at our disposal to make that lien stick like iron. So, boys, the "odds" are not really that hard to take. The first FBI agent that fires a shot and kills an American is going to be fried back home and not in butter. This whole land and resource grab by the BLM is about money and the "Federal Corporation" is going to take it in the shorts if they foment any range wars in Harney County.

 They will also be facing international war crimes charges to use the phrase from the Nuremburg Trials ----for "criminal aggression". Our Sheriffs are beginning to wake up. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the "law enforcement" agencies jerk awake---- and then the hunters will become the hunted, and the Bounty Hunter provisions of the vaunted 14th Amendment will spring to life. 

 Read it, Federales, and read it well. These are your rules, not ours, and they are still in effect. Just today I had a jackdaw from the passport agency lecture me about the 14th Amendment and I had to tell him that the 14th Amendment never applied to any American, ever. And still doesn't. But my point here tonight to all of you who can read, is that the 14th Amendment DOES apply to all federal employees, including agency subcontractors. 

 Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

----------


## goldenequity

*Judge Anna Maria Riezinger*...
*Is she the 'Common Law Judge'* that was being brought in to the 'Center'?
It was also said that 'several' US Marshalls were coming along with 'the Judge'.

----------


## JK/SEA

> *Judge Anna Maria Riezinger*...
> *Is she the 'Common Law Judge'* that was being brought in to the 'Center'?
> It was also said that 'several' US Marshalls were coming along with 'the Judge'.


i believe so. I read that as well.

----------


## goldenequity



----------


## osan

> This is ridiculous! Installing a gate in a barbed wire fence is portrayed as $100,000.00 worth of damage....


In a world where an allen wrench cost $17K back in ca. 1984 (not a joke), $100K seems very lowball.





> Militants... *destroyed* 
> 
> The stunt...  the militants'... *his* band of protesters ...
> 
> The militants... *pluck stakes* ...
> 
> *militants*' actions...
> 
> The militants... destroyed...
> ...


What dog-pile "journalism".  This low-rent hit piece doesn't rise to the standard of sixth-grade special-ed drivel.

Tie the author up, put a cane in my hand and I'd make him curse his whore of a mother for having opened her pestilent legs for daddy.  1/2

----------


## Mach

The Oregon Standoff is Only a Glimpse at Western Anger with the Feds




> Other states have gone further. Utah—63 percent owned by the federal government—passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act demanding the surrender of federal lands to the state. Arizona's Governor Doug Ducey (R) vetoed two bills seeking the surrender of public lands but agreed to a study committee on the issue.
> 
> In April 2014, representatives from Utah, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington met in Salt Lake City to discuss prying land from the federal government, even as the Bundy standoff over grazing rights simmered in national headlines. They were fueled by concerns about not just forests, but prosperity, going up in smoke.
> 
> "The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management lose $2 billion each year managing federal lands," wrote Shawn Regan in the pages of The Wall Street Journal in April 2015. A former National Park Service Ranger and current research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) based in Bozeman, Montana, Regan added, "For example, the feds are notorious for conducting 'below-cost' timber sales, in which they spend more selling the timber than they get in return."


https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/...y-a-glimpse-at

----------


## Weston White

Earlier yesterday, I came across a 24/7 live feed on YouTube, I think it was with Pete Santilli, he joined them up there as an Idaho III%.

That is some great reporting though by Oregon, their biggest concern is the "militants" removing--oh "destroying"--30-yards of bob-wire fencing and decades of direct collaboration, even though it was only put up last year, not that it cost taxpayers $100k.

----------


## Weston White

> I think they should take the safe passage offer and go home before they get swatted by the feds. I think the idea was ill conceived from the get go with no real goal was in sight. Despite that I will admit they have succeeded, they drew attention to and raised awareness of their cause. Now end it before somebody gets hurt.
> 
> I am not against armed militias or protests. What happened at the Bundy ranch was 100% ok with me. Even some of the stands that the general public considers "extremists" like Ruby Ridge are fine with me. Randy Weaver and the Bundys at their ranch did nothing wrong. Even the Branch Dividians, though I think they were odd, did nothing wrong. This protest to me was wrong, the aggrieved parties explicitly stated they did not want this.


They are not there for the "aggrieved parties", they are there to address unconstitutional federal over reach, misappropriation of public state lands, and to end the tyranny of the BLM.

----------


## Thor

'Mericuns are so brainwashed, that they not only bad mouth this on social media, they actually spend their own money to be a dick.

http://gawker.com/angry-militia-lead...dos-1752580458




> No one ever said its easy to take a stand against the federal government: its cold, there arent enough snacks, everyone is pissy, and a bunch of strangers wont stop sending you hate mail and dicks.
> 
> Oregon militia organizer Jon Ritzheimer really, really $#@!in hates  Uncle Sam. But what he hates even more is all of the obscene and  generally unhelpful emails and packages that strangers from around the  country and Gawker are sending to his band of armchair commandos. In a new Facebook post and accompanying video, Ritzheimer says hes sick of this garbage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


So jackholes are spending money because they have only heard what the media has told them and think it is funny to send them dildos...  

Ya America!

----------


## goldenequity

►*What the Oregon Standoff Is Really About*






> *Dwight Hammond and his wife Susan bought their ranch in 1964. The Hammond ranch consists of 6,000 acres, grazing rights in four areas on public land, and rights at three separate water sources. They live in a small ranch house—a beautiful structure of stone and hand-hewn wood—on the property.
> 
> The land sits in Oregon’s Harney Basin, an area first settled at the tail end of the 19th century. While the narrative we are getting in the media depicts the ranchers as despoilers of the land, implacable enemies of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge established by Teddy Roosevelt in 1908, the true history of the region shows that the “cowboys” who lived there and ran as many as 300,000 head of cattle were in fact its best defenders. Without them, there would be no Malheur Wildlife Refuge.*


*EXCELLENT READ* By Justin Raimondo • January 7, 2016

----------


## goldenequity

*Oregon Judge Plans to Bill the Bundy Militia $70,000 a Day to Cover County Security Costs*




> *“We’re going to send Mr. Bundy the bill,” Grasty said at a town hall meeting on Monday night, encouraging residents to let the militia dry up its own resources. “No matter how you feel, do not bring food and supplies up to the refuge.”
> 
> “There’s an hourglass, and it’s running out,” Sheriff Ward said. “Go home.”
> 
> Public schools in Harney County have finally re-opened, making it the first time the county’s students have returned to school since the occupation began on January 2nd.
> 
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife employees, whose personal information was inside the wildlife refuge and likely obtained by the Bundy gang, have been relocated for their safety.
> 
> Ammon Bundy has yet to respond to the county’s $70,000 per-day penalty.*


Hate and Fear are being sold by the pound from the local podiums in the town 'meetings'... 
they're more like mob rallys for crucifixion now.

Around town... there's more sympathy and education on the real issues
but they don't go to the meetings
from 'fear' of becoming local pariahs... they have to LIVE there after this comes to a close.
They're being told not to bring food to the refuge... (give no 'quarter' to the 'enemies'.)

So the 'message' is: You're a TRAITOR if you side with the protest/occupation.
(now we know how the 'Johnny Rebs' felt...)

----------


## phill4paul

> *Oregon Judge Plans to Bill the Bundy Militia $70,000 a Day to Cover County Security Costs*


  Sorry Gratzy, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Bundy is occupying the NATIONAL Wildlife Refuge HQ. You don't $#@!ing govern it. The FED does. That's kind of Bundy's point ya jack-wagon.

----------


## tod evans

> *Oregon Judge Plans to Bill the Bundy Militia $70,000 a Day to Cover County Security Costs*


I suppose they can tack it onto the pasture rent bill..........

$#@!in' $#@!s anyway.........

----------


## goldenequity

*January 13 Update from Ammon Bundy*

----------


## youngbuck

> 'Mericuns are so brainwashed, that they not only bad mouth this on social media, they actually spend their own money to be a dick.


 Here is the Facebook post that Blaine Cooper posted:

https://www.facebook.com/blaine.coop...23?pnref=story*
*



> December 31, 2015 at 9:13pm 
> · 
> ATTENTION...SHARE...ATTENTION...SHARE!!!!!!
> 
>  Anyone that wants to send any supplies can send them to: 
> 
> *General Mail                                                                                                                                
>  Jon Ritzheimer or Blaine Cooper
>  Burns, OR 97720*
> ...


I don't understand how a package would be delivered at the above "address."  Does the post office just hold it for them and they come and pick it up?

ETA:  http://starvinlarry.com/2016/01/10/f...ots-in-oregon/




> We have had many people ask where they can donate and/or send food and supplies for the Patriots in Oregon.
> 
>   Food and supplies can be sent to:
> 
>   36391 Sodhouse Lane
>  Princeton, Ore 97721
>  C/o shawna Cox
> 
>    And
> ...

----------


## Schifference

It would have been nice to show a video of the rodents and terrible conditions of the property that Bundy describes. Saying it and seeing it are two different things.

----------


## JK/SEA

> It would have been nice to show a video of the rodents and terrible conditions of the property that Bundy describes. Saying it and seeing it are two different things.


i saw it on the live stream from Santilli....rat $#@! everywhere. They were sweeping it up into piles. They moved equipment and assorted 'stuff' outside and cleaned the place up. Someone held up a rotted decomposed rat, and showed a rat nest on the shelving....

better arrest them for practicing sanitation without a license.

----------


## goldenequity

*BREAKING: Harney County Fire Chief Resigns. FBI Caught Posing As Militia At Local Armory
*



*BUSTED! FBI Caught recconing the Armory @ 8:30*

This is good news... though it might have been better had he stayed and reported the tactics & betrayals in real time.

(supposedly) Ammon Bundy was invited to speak with Hannity.
(careful Ammon...)

----------


## 69360

> They are not there for the "aggrieved parties", they are there to address unconstitutional federal over reach, misappropriation of public state lands, and to end the tyranny of the BLM.


Keep telling yourself that. Bundy and the others took advantage of the situation in Oregon when they took over the building. Granted it worked out ok, but they were not invited.

----------


## dannno

> Keep telling yourself that. Bundy and the others took advantage of the situation in Oregon when they took over the building. Granted it worked out ok, but they were not invited.


Dude you have been watching way too much mainstream media..

Took advantage? What exactly do you think they are getting out of this? One of my friends who is an MSM dittohead said they were acting out of selfishness.. that makes NO sense whatsoever, they are there helping the Hammond family as well as the surrounding community. They aren't doing ANYTHING to help themselves, this is an act of selfLESSness.. If SOME people in their community are too retarded to understand that they are there to help, or that the government has become tyrannical and needs to be stopped, then who cares about them? The fact is that a much larger segment of the community supports them than the media is letting on and a lot of that information is contained in this thread.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Keep telling yourself that. Bundy and the others took advantage of the situation in Oregon when they took over the building. Granted it worked out ok, but they were not invited.


They needed an invitation?

----------


## youngbuck

> Dude you have been watching way too much mainstream media..
> 
> Took advantage? What exactly do you think they are getting out of this? One of my friends who is an MSM dittohead said they were acting out of selfishness.. that makes NO sense whatsoever, they are there helping the Hammond family as well as the surrounding community. They aren't doing ANYTHING to help themselves, this is an act of selfLESSness.. If SOME people in their community are too retarded to understand that they are there too help, or that the government has become tyrannical and needs to be stopped, then who cares about them? The fact is that a much larger segment of the community supports them than the media is letting on and a lot of that information is contained in this thread.



Well put.  

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dannno again.

----------


## Ender

> Well put.  
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dannno again.


Agreed and done.

----------


## Weston White

> They needed an invitation?


Actually, yes this is a long realized historical fact:




> *Why Can't Vampires Enter A House Without Permission?*
> 
> *Best Answer:*  because there is believed to be a "Spiritual" or "Personal Power" oriented natural magic(occurs spontaneously) that protects what is within the threshold, it is a life sustaining force and the dead or evil are antagonistic to it. And the Vampire cannot cross a Threshold of a home. the people living there and the natural magic act as a circuit to make a force field-kind of, if the residence is abandoned or very rarely used the "Threshold" is not very strong, same with public places if the intimate personal connection is not there, then the non living or preternatural are not repulsed. this often applies to magic practitioners of various types as well(not illusionists or slight of hand artists)


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...2001158AAkDt5m

----------


## Mach

> *BREAKING: Harney County Fire Chief Resigns. FBI Caught Posing As Militia At Local Armory
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *BUSTED! FBI Caught recconing the Armory @ 8:30*
> 
> This is good news... though it might have been better had he stayed and reported the tactics & betrayals in real time.
> 
> ...


The Feds are not for the United States, that's for sure, this gets down to a local community leader making a stand, LITERALLY.

Good stuff, he sees undercover FBI snooping around and confronts them and will not stick his head in the sand.

----------


## goldenequity

> Wednesday/Jan. 13 - *A Review: Discovered Documents @ the Refuge show illegalities & collusion/conspiracy using 'permit' renewals
> to deny/withhold/re-direct grazing rights to insiders/bootlickers vs rightful ranchers to further impoverish them, the County
> and empower BLM takeover.
> 
> Bundy is recording the documents into public records; initiating legal filings calling for a Citizen Grand Jury review of the charges;
> and will be publicly speaking/updating the Committee of Safety on Friday night. Judge Grasti in panic/irrational mode.*

----------


## goldenequity

This fire reportedly killed more than 80 head of cattle and was set by the BLM in July
less than two weeks from the day the Hammonds received sentence 
for setting their fire in Fall/Winter 2006.

You DON'T set prescribed BURNS in the middle of SUMMER.
*It is evidence of BLM as ARSONISTS* to impoverish and pressure the surrounding Ranches by burning their feed.
It put ranchers trying to save their cattle in extreme danger, injured other cattle, 
burnt homes and structures, burnt fences and power poles and threatened the town of Frenchglen.

----------


## goldenequity

January 13 - *DAHBOO777*

*Clearing the Air...* 
The Idaho III Percenters are now on the ground... but: 
Why were the Oregon militia ordered to 'stand down' by their Leader? 
He is now accused of 'stealing valor' by misrepresenting his past military service record.
Did he 'sell out'? Has he lied? Daboo777 has invited him to speak this Friday night to 'clear the air'.

----------


## goldenequity

*besides DAHBOO777*...

We have another outspoken follower of events
*Professor Doom* 
(both are good. Neither is insitu/onsite. Sometimes they disagree.)

----------


## goldenequity

*It's not 'their' land* 




Not withstanding the Native claims, Woodie Guthrie and 'all' the other competing historical issues...
one thing I know:
It's not 'their' land.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.
Put 'em back in their cage.

----------


## 69360

> Dude you have been watching way too much mainstream media..
> 
> Took advantage? What exactly do you think they are getting out of this? One of my friends who is an MSM dittohead said they were acting out of selfishness.. that makes NO sense whatsoever, they are there helping the Hammond family as well as the surrounding community. They aren't doing ANYTHING to help themselves, this is an act of selfLESSness.. If SOME people in their community are too retarded to understand that they are there to help, or that the government has become tyrannical and needs to be stopped, then who cares about them? The fact is that a much larger segment of the community supports them than the media is letting on and a lot of that information is contained in this thread.


I don't even have cable and we only get one TV station out here.

Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 

Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.

----------


## TheTexan

> They needed an invitation?


Yes, and the proper permits, which they also didn't have

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't even have cable and we only get one TV station out here.
> 
> Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 
> 
> Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.


well Bosco, that one station you 'listen' to is full of lies. Anything else?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I don't even have cable and we only get one TV station out here.
> 
> Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 
> 
> Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.


Who are they imposing anything on, other than the federal workers that can't occupy the refuge every day?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I don't even have cable and we only get one TV station out here.
> 
> Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 
> 
> Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.


The Hammonds do not own that building and it has been used to oppress many others besides the Hammonds. And as has been explained since near page one, this is about more than the Hammonds.

Not to mention, aren't the Hammonds in Southern California? Perhaps their opinion on the matter was influenced by not wanting to go to Colorado? Or Kansas.

Why don't you actually follow what is going on out there instead of parroting propagandist lies? Next you'll be saying they caused $100,000 in structural damage.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Yes, and the proper permits, which they also didn't have


This is how I read most of the loyalist/apologist sentiment here.

----------


## dannno

> Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 
> 
> Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.


That is inaccurate - it was after the federal govt. threatened the Hammond family with an inferior prison environment if they became involved with the Bundy crew that *Hammond's lawyer* made a statement that the Hammond family is not involved with the Bundy crew. 

See, that's the problem, you anti-conspiracy folks often have the wrong facts at hand. It's really important to understand both sides of the narrative before drawing a conclusion, some day you might learn that.

Truthers and birthers supporting political candidates may not help their campaign in the short run, but the fact of the matter is the truthers are right and if people took some time to research it for themselves and learn the truth about 9/11, no doubt a candidate who is calling out the military industrial complex for their actions would sound attractive whether the candidate understood the truth about what happened or not. I am personally of the opinion that most politicians have learned not to touch 9/11 truth with a 50 foot pole if they want to stay in politics, so to presume what politicians say about the subject is always what they actually believe would be erroneous.

----------


## Mach

> Yes, and the proper permits, which they also didn't have


You're not in trouble the day they refuse to issue the permit, you are in trouble the day that you psychologically accepted the idea that the government had the authority to give you the permit in the first place. 
- Michael Badnarik

----------


## goldenequity

*Constitutional Attorney KrisAnne Hall* 
*Will Speak on Friday to Committee of Safety Meeting in Burns* and through the weekend
(If Judge Grasti will 'let' them use a building.... )

Here's a sample of KrisAnne



============

*In other news...*

►Besides the Fire Marshall, three more officials (from the School District)
have now resigned and are taking a stand against the local corruption.

►Tomorrow's meeting promises to expose and document improprieties and misconduct
by Judge Grasti and other officials.

----------


## Weston White

> I don't even have cable and we only get one TV station out here.
> 
> Bundy and co went to Oregon and took over that building after the were told not too by the Oregon family. They imposed their issue on people who didn't want it. 
> 
> Seem familiar? Kind of the same as the birthers, thruthers and conspiracy theorists did to Ron and continue to do to Rand. I'm sure they all will get butthurt and neg rep me. I don't care.


Imagine if America's Founders had just such a mawkish attitude whenever challenged by the Loyalists?  You would be sipping tea right about now, while chanting "God save the Queen!"

----------


## goldenequity

*Professor Doom
Oregon: Harney County the secret they don't want you to know*

►*Recommend you clik these vids @ the Full Screen icon lower right to read document text* 




====================

*Dutchsinse*

----------


## phill4paul

Just wanted to say you are doing an excellent job of keeping this thread updated goldeneqyity.

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldenequity again._

----------


## goldenequity

> Just wanted to say you are doing an excellent job of keeping this thread updated goldenequity.


Thanks Phill4... as you can see w/ the last 2 vids... the plot thickens.

*A few things I know:* 
Grazing 'rights' are not Mineral 'rights'. 
Mineral rights are portioned as Mining claims; either Placer claims or Lode claims.
*Placer* (surface/alluvial sands/earth) claims are 1/4 section (160 acres)
*Lode* (hard rock/deep mine) claims are 20 acres
In order to gain 'fee title' to a mining claim, you must 'Patent' the claim (part of THAT process is to prove VALUE)

Do the Bundys and/or the Hammonds own the mineral rights? idk.

*A Liberty question would be:* 
What's the best way (in 2016) for the STATES to apportion THEIR mineral wealth?
Like Alaska? Every citizen gets a check... idk.
One thing I DO know: It must be De-Centralized and the first step would be re-asserting State authority.

----------


## youngbuck

> *Professor Doom
> Oregon: Harney County the secret they don't want you to know*
> 
> ►*Recommend you clik these vids @ the Full Screen icon lower right to read document text*


Wow, those facebook posts by Uranium One strongly suggest an ulterior motive!

----------


## dannno

> Wow, those facebook posts by Uranium One strongly suggest an ulterior motive!


Are you talking about that video or the one that was posted below it? Or are they related? I saw the one on the bottom a while ago.. I wouldn't be surprised if they have gotten some gold off of their property, but I don't think these ranchers are lifting vast amounts gold out of the ground.. They are barely staying afloat after making a half a payment on a $400k court fee or something, and apparently they may lose the ranch if they end up serving their term in jail. I think they just want to be justly compensated for the land they own and be able to sell it on their own accord or simply continue to ranch. I think the ulterior motive applies strongly to the government, considering the uranium, diamonds and gold. 

Personally, I'd rather see the gold go to the Hammond's than the government anyway.

----------


## youngbuck

> Are you talking about that video or the one that was posted below it? Or are they related? I saw the one on the bottom a while ago.. I wouldn't be surprised if they have gotten some gold off of their property, but I don't think these ranchers are lifting vast amounts gold out of the ground.. They are barely staying afloat after making a half a payment on a $400k court fee or something, and apparently they may lose the ranch if they end up serving their term in jail. I think they just want to be justly compensated for the land they own and be able to sell it on their own accord or simply continue to ranch. I think the ulterior motive applies strongly to the government, considering the uranium, diamonds and gold. 
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see the gold go to the Hammond's than the government anyway.


Yeah, that video I quoted.  The facebook posts start at about 5:00.  And at the end of the video, he credits the author of the second vid for some of his information.

----------


## phill4paul

Interesting read....




> "You can't tell me that geese, wild birds, cows, lizards, snakes have priority over a taxpaying American citizen."





> The group's anger was a slow burn.
> 
> But after decades of being ignored by federal authorities, its members decided to take a very public stand against what they saw as an unjust land grab by the U.S. government.
> 
> Without warning, they started an occupation of a sprawling national wildlife refuge.
> 
> The year: 1979.




http://www.oregonlive.com/history/20...art_river_home

----------


## phill4paul

Will the Occupation of Malhuer State Park be seen upon the pages of the National Park System website?




> ...the occupation gave birth to a political movement which continues to today.


http://www.nps.gov/alca/learn/histor...d-the-rock.htm

----------


## youngbuck

I heard, but have not had time to research and confirm, that a militiaman was arrested.

----------


## Origanalist

> Just wanted to say you are doing an excellent job of keeping this thread updated goldeneqyity.
> 
> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldenequity again._


Covered

----------


## Origanalist

Don't know if this has been presented or not so...

Letter to U.S. Military and Federal LEOs From 1st Sgt. Mack: “Do not become the very enemy that you swore to defend this nation against” in OR

 30   0   0   2  by Stewart Rhodes	,	 January 15, 2016

(The below letter comes from an old American Army Airborne warrior, 1st Sgt. Mack (just “1st Sgt.” to us), who is very well respected by all here at Oath Keepers.  I asked him to write what he would want to say to active duty military and current serving federal LEOs (many of whom are military veterans) in regards to possible orders to “drop the hammer” on Ammon Bundy and his followers at the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.  This is what he wrote – Stewart Rhodes):

We would implore you, no we would beseech you, not to step over a line that there is no coming back across.  You must not allow yourselves to disregard your own moral values.

There is no job, no amount of money, no position that is worth risking the loss of one American citizens life if you choose to violate your oaths.

The American people are NOT terrorists, they are NOT insurgents, they are NOT the enemies from a foreign land, they are citizens, and as citizens they are GUARANTEED rights by the Constitution that you swore to uphold and defend.  Yes, they make mistakes, they make foolish decisions, they become frustrated and often feel they have lost their voice.

That does NOT make them enemies.  You, as military personnel and government employees have a Sworn Duty to uphold their rights and protect them.   And you have the ability to restore their voices, to ensure that they are heard.  You do not have the right, legal or otherwise, to silence them.  They have the right to freedom, liberty, and LIFE.

So again I ask that you stop and consider every consequence of any action that you may take going forward from this point.

more...https://www.oathkeepers.org/letter-t...-1st-sgt-mack/

----------


## AngryCanadian

Oregon militia standoff: man arrested driving stolen government vehicle 

More Updates.
Apparently Kenneth Medenbach stole a government vehicle.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Oregon militia standoff: man arrested driving stolen government vehicle 
> 
> More Updates.
> Apparently Kenneth Medenbach stole a government vehicle.


so the FEDS hired this guy to be an agent provacateur. This 'miltiaman' has priors, therefore makes an excellent candidate for a 'deal' to perhaps make his 'priors' go away....just a thought. I could be wrong. Kenneth could actually be a moron.

meh...stole a  white truck with gubermint logos on the side...yeah, and drives into a safeway...i smell a rat.

----------


## goldenequity

*Some 'Inside Malheur' Updates:*
Hearts and Minds inside 'ground zero' Friday/Sat. morning





*Take Down FBI Surveillance Equipment / Recommissioning/Renaming Fed Assets* 





*January 15 News Presser* Part 1 & 2 LaVoy Finicum

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Double post

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> so the FEDS hired this guy to be an agent provacateur. This 'miltiaman' has priors, therefore makes an excellent candidate for a 'deal' to perhaps make his 'priors' go away....just a thought. I could be wrong. Kenneth could actually be a moron.
> 
> meh...stole a  white truck with gubermint logos on the side...yeah, and drives into a safeway...i smell a rat.


From article:



> It is unclear how central a figure Medenbach was to the occupation at the refuge, or how long he had been staying there. However, his commitment to the extreme ideology of rightwing constitutionalists is not in doubt.


..

----------


## Schifference

I think in these situations time is our enemy. We had like 20 pages in a couple of days then very few posts. Look at the Waco Biker incident. Hardly a peep anymore. Maybe the government has learned to keep things quiet for a period of time to let the media direct their resources elsewhere.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Oregon militia standoff: man arrested driving stolen government vehicle
> 
> More Updates.
> Apparently Kenneth Medenbach stole a government vehicle.





> From article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				It is unclear how central a figure Medenbach was to the occupation at the refuge, or how long he had been staying there. However, his commitment to the extreme ideology of rightwing constitutionalists is not in doubt.


Whenever a "journalist" ventures away from reciting externally verifiable facts and starts editorializing about how some person's internal mental states are "not in doubt," then you might have a reason to start doubting ...

Also from the article:



> Medenbach spoke with The Guardian on the 2nd of January at the public rally in support of the Hammonds, held in the same Safeway car park where he was arrested. When asked why he was attending, he offered similar constitutional theories as those offered by other militia members. *He claimed to have been involved in this stand-off as a member of the Oath Keepers militia*.


My understanding is that the Oath Keepers have disavowed any involvement in "this stand-off."

If that is so, then why might Medenbach be talking out of place like this?

And why might a "journalist" fail to take or make note of it?

A couple of other gems:




> [Medenbach] was extensively profiled in the 1999 book Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat, by retired Indiana police captain Robert L Snow. At the time, Snow wrote, Medenbach was building his own home on five acres of land in Crescent, Oregon, out of “discarded refrigerators, water heaters, and other such material.” Medenbach, according to Snow, subscribed to the legal theory that state bar associations are unconstitutional, and so courts have no authority over him.


LMAO. "_Ermagerd!!_ Houses built out of old 'frigerators and water heaters! Claims of the unconstitutionality of bar associations! _It's terrism!!_"  ... 




> Harney County judge Steve Grasty said he was grateful that officials have made an arrest. “At some point, criminal actions become so blatant that they just can’t be ignored,” he said. “At some point, criminal actions become so blatant that they just can’t be ignored.”


I guess it was so important that it had to be said twice ...

----------


## goldenequity

Too bad there's no 'venue' for a weekend meeting of the Committee of Safety.
I wonder if *KrisAnne Hall* will 'stay' or... if she even flew in?? idk.

Here's a good dialog just published yesterday: *Relevant issues discussed @ 13:00*




====================




> I think in these situations time is our enemy. We had like 20 pages in a couple of days then very few posts. Look at the Waco Biker incident. Hardly a peep anymore. Maybe the government has learned to keep things quiet for a period of time to let the media direct their resources elsewhere.


That's tough to say... there's another 'clock' ticking in the background of all this..
which would be other legislators/counties showing solidarity with an anti-Fed stance.
It truly is a 'now or never' thing... in which case 'time' is your 'ally'... in fact it's Bundy's only hope. (imo)
If time 'runs out'... they accomplished nothing.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Whenever a "journalist" ventures away from reciting externally verifiable facts and starts editorializing about how some person's internal mental states are "not in doubt," then you might have a reason to start doubting ...
> 
> Also from the article:
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the Oath Keepers have disavowed any involvement in "this stand-off."
> 
> If that is so, then why might Medenbach be talking out of place like this?
> 
> ...


Excellent analysis.

My point of posting, of course, was to illustrate that if you believe that the government should abide by the Constitution, which they themselves took an oath to uphold and which they themselves tout as the authority under which they operate, then you are an extremist in the eyes of shoddy, so-called journalists.

If that is the extremist view, that is, that the government operates within the confines of the document it itself holds up and swears an oath to, then perhaps they should get rid of their faggy rituals and ceremonial theatrics and openly declare themselves as what they are--robbers, murderers, and thieves.

----------


## goldenequity

*AUCTION!* (Saturday Nite Fun  )

The Patriots (having TOO much fun in the Burns motel) have decided to hold an auction via Paypal tomorrow
for the top five bidders to receive an autographed 'Heat Seeking Moisture Missile' of their choice.
What better way to 'mock the mockers' who sent them? Turn them into cash... 
all proceeds to generate food supplies to the new Harney County Resource Center.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

These guys are kinda of goofy. They stole the electric companies cameras used to monitor the electrical substation, and act like it was "guberment" surveillance. Nope it was the power company watching their property to protect against vandals and or equipment failure.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> These guys are kinda of goofy. They stole the electric companies cameras used to monitor the electrical substation, and act like it was "guberment" surveillance. Nope it was the power company watching their property to protect against vandals and or equipment failure.


If that is what they were, and I'll concede that point for argument's sake, I am sure that no government agency would consider using them for collecting evidence and/or spying.

It's not as if they openly admit to wanting access to thousands of private cameras for the purposes of investigation or anything. Or that they do not already commandeer as much.

----------


## Thor

> These guys are kinda of goofy. They stole the electric companies cameras used to monitor the electrical substation, and act like it was "guberment" surveillance. Nope it was the power company watching their property to protect against vandals and or equipment failure.





> If that is what they were, and I'll concede that point for argument's sake, I am sure that no government agency would consider using them for collecting evidence and/or spying.
> 
> It's not as if they openly admit to wanting access to thousands of private cameras for the purposes of investigation or anything. Or that they do not already commandeer as much.



Thanks KCChief...  it is very naive to think the government would not tap those cameras... with permission or without....

----------


## goldenequity

A Sunday morning update / *Santilli & Brandon Curtiss*

A chat about the role of PPN (Pacific Patriot Network) as *'Constitutional Security'* (vs. stigmatized 'Militia')
a critical analysis of the local 'Sheriff Ward' failures/'dereliction of duty'
and the failure to establish a 'Point of Command' structure by either the County OR the FBI for dialog/resolution of issues.
and an appeal to the Paiute tribe and environmentalists to understand the benefits of local control not Federal.

----------


## goldenequity

*While you were gone... we took your kids.*
*The short story:* Blaine and Melissa Cooper's 'sacrifice' at Malheur
is portrayed to the police as 'neglect' by the grand parents.
CPS came and took their kids from sympathetic relatives;
Placed them with accusatory relatives. Melissa took them back.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Someone won't be getting the grandkids next Thanksgiving.

----------


## goldenequity

*Sunday Services at the Harney County Refuge*

----------


## JohnCifelli1

They are good people but please Lord make the singing stop. Yikes!

----------


## goldenequity

> They are good people but please Lord make the singing stop. Yikes!


lol  Just plain folk. Brave. True... with a ring of a couple thousand guard around them.
*No More Free Wacos.*

*Here's 17* that the Oregonian chose to focus on one day last week. There's more... plus visitors come and go.

----------


## pcosmar

hotheads

----------


## goldenequity



----------


## goldenequity



----------


## goldenequity

> hotheads


Yeah. Let's all just stay calm.

----------


## goldenequity

*KrisAnne Hall* Constitutional Speaker/Attorney spoke to a local gathering last night in Burns.
She'll speak again tonight.

----------


## goldenequity

*Northern Nevada Oathkeepers* 
Emergency Medical Triage Center Setup By & For Patriots about 6mi from Wilderness Center
and 
*From Burns to Malheur Center* (30miles in 2 minutes)

----------


## goldenequity

Tuesday - 1/19/16 - *Presser w/ Ammon Bundy & Lavoy Finicum*
Good solid dialog/talking points Q&A (mostly audio only  ) Anyone feel like making a transcript?

----------


## goldenequity

*Empire Strikes Back*

----------


## dannno

> *Empire Strikes Back*


lol what a douche...

----------


## goldenequity

*UPDATE* (not good)

FBI CONFIRMS TRIAGE SET UP @ LOCAL HOSPITAL W/SPECIAL SURGICAL TEAM AND CALL FOR BLOOD





====================

*Yesterday's Lou Dobbs Interview* w/ *Susan Hammond* (Wife)
Susan Hammond on the Oregon rancher case
(*Gag Order: NO ONE* is talking to her.. no media speaking up / politicians stonewalling... just like Santilli above said: NO COMMUNICATION. NONE.)

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/47107...#sp=show-clips

----------


## pcosmar

I wonder who has volunteered for a suicidal assault?

Because they are expecting wounded FBI. And they are expecting to recover the wounded.

Why else take over a hospital?

----------


## sparebulb

> *UPDATE* (not good)
> 
> FBI CONFIRMS TRIAGE SET UP @ LOCAL HOSPITAL W/SPECIAL SURGICAL TEAM AND CALL FOR BLOOD


Psy-op?

----------


## goldenequity

> I wonder who has volunteered for a suicidal assault? Because they are expecting wounded FBI. And they are expecting to recover the wounded.
> Why else take over a hospital?


I suspect this would be 'normal' protocols for FBI assessment/management scenarios...
Preparing for a 'just in case' scenario is rational. (Their 'history' however includes precipitating/creating the crises as well.)
In this case.. Santilli is going to use it against them, PAINT them as bullies and POUND them with their lack of communication.
A good chess move in the psyop war for local hearts and minds.
Here's hoping they get a bigger venue than 300 seats for tonight's KrisAnne Hall meeting.

=====================

*Meanwhile...* some internet hype... or not? IDK 




> All this has been confirmed...
> 
> Harney County hospital has ordered double to triple of blood and plasma supplies to be brought in by the FBI
> 
> Extra medical staff has been brought on duty from outlying counties
> 
> FBI brought in their own combat surgical team to be stationed at hospital
> 
> Confirmation that newly arrived war assets is sitting in Boise,Idaho at the Airforce base, specifically two helicopters newly arrived under tight security
> ...

----------


## goldenequity

*Brandon Curtiss Update* (Idaho III Percent Founder/PPN)




*Harney County Sheriff Dept*
(541) 573-6156

----------


## goldenequity

*Turning Down the Fear*
A dialog (finally) with some Deputies *begins around 18:00*
No longer 'just' Santilli...
This is (now) another Live Streamer on site: *Revolution Radio*  HERE

----------


## goldenequity

Judge Grasti held a 'Community Meeting'... it was WAY different than last week... 
people are speaking out for Liberty... last week was just a hate mob... tonight was more like 50/50
plus (MANY would be supporters) i.e., some 400 locals were concurrently attending the KrisAnne Hall meeting tonight.
also...
Ammon Bundy showed up to the meeting. Was a silent 'target' for Grasti's bravado/blustering.
He remained silent.. left peacefully with III Percenter escorts/weaponless.
The word 'Constitution' was not ever mentioned nor discussed.




Next Community meeting is Monday night 7pm PST.

----------


## jth_ttu

Why has the gov not cut off utilities and supplies? I honestly don't think they would stay there very long if those two things were done. Makes me wonder if this isn't working in the governments favor

----------


## pcosmar

> Why has the gov not cut off utilities and supplies? I honestly don't think they would stay there very long if those two things were done. Makes me wonder if this isn't working in the governments favor


What makes you think they need utilities?

----------


## Weston White

> Why has the gov not cut off utilities and supplies? I honestly don't think they would stay there very long if those two things were done. Makes me wonder if this isn't working in the governments favor


Was pondering this as well… Seems that at best the federal government wants this to escalate into something much more serious, meanwhile biding their time.  Why have they not cut power, closed the surrounding roads, sought court orders to intercept their mail, seize their donation funds, blocked their YouTube streams, shut down wireless communications, assembled multiple police lines and issued dispersal orders, etc?

----------


## goldenequity

> Why has the gov not cut off utilities and supplies? I honestly don't think they would stay there very long if those two things were done. Makes me wonder if this isn't working in the governments favor


III Percenter security has made the 'difference' (imo) 
plus daily Press briefings 
plus livestream/transparency - public watchdogs...
No more 'free' Wacos. Lessons learned on both sides.

----------


## goldenequity

*Tony DeMeo Knows How Thugs Work.* (He's from Brooklyn  )

The story starts here: *Nye County, Nevada* *Meet Tony*







►That was his legacy. Tony retired and transferred the command in January, 2015. 
He continues to live in Nye County w/ his wife Linda.

----------


## goldenequity

*A Reminder:* *WACO* Now almost *23* years ago 




History is not teaching us anything if we don't remind ourselves of it once in a while.

----------


## pcosmar

> Was pondering this as well… Seems that at best the federal government wants this to escalate into something much more serious, meanwhile biding their time.  Why have they not cut power, closed the surrounding roads, sought court orders to intercept their mail, seize their donation funds, blocked their YouTube streams, shut down wireless communications, assembled multiple police lines and issued dispersal orders, etc?


How would they do that without affecting the entire area and residents? (pissing off more people)

And what about the reverse effect of having it backfire? 

And some,, asking these questions do not understand that most of the folks there are outdoors-men, Farmers,, Hunters, etc.
they have no problem with no utilities,, and many have survival means of their own.

It is an empty threat.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Mass OK's email this AM, making it unequivocal “Do Not Follow Orders to “Waco” Ammon Bundy Occupation, or Risk Civil War” plus a documentary on Waco.  Linked and copied in full here:

https://www.oathkeepers.org/waco-a-new-revelation/




> While the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is taking it on the chin in the western States the current occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon has prompted Oath Keepers Founder and President Stewart Rhodes to issue a cautionary warning which is going viral across America:
> 
> “Warning to U.S. Military and Federal LEOs: Do Not Follow Orders to “Waco” Ammon Bundy Occupation, or Risk Civil War”
> 
> Of particular interest to me is Stewart’s use of the name “Waco”.
> 
> On April 19 in 2016 the nation will reflect once again on Waco. The date will mark the twenty-third anniversary of one of the most cruel, insane, and even demonic actions ever perpetrated by the U.S. government upon its own citizens. It is not the only cruel and insane event done by government to the governed, but it is one of the most horrendous.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## jth_ttu

[QUOTE=pcosmar;6103931]How would they do that without affecting the entire area and residents? (pissing off more people)

And what about the reverse effect of having it backfire? 

And some,, asking these questions do not understand that most of the folks there are outdoors-men, Farmers,, Hunters, etc.
they have no problem with no utilities,, and many have survival means of their own.

outdoorsman or not if they set up a blockade around the facility and cut off power it would cripple them. It's the dead of winter. They have limited food,  fuel,  and water.  Even if you find enough wood to burn on the property the buildings probably don't have stoves,  so it's just camp fires.  You could eat insects and Jack rabbits once your food ran out. They probably have a well but would have to pull the electric pump and rig up a manual method for their water. Morale would deteriorate fast. And yes utilities can be cut off to a single property without affecting other residents,  they do it everyday

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> outdoorsman or not if they set up a blockade around the facility and cut off power it would cripple them. It's the dead of winter. They have limited food,  fuel,  and water.  Even if you find enough wood to burn on the property the buildings probably don't have stoves,  so it's just camp fires.  You could eat insects and Jack rabbits once your food ran out. They probably have a well but would have to pull the electric pump and rig up a manual method for their water. Morale would deteriorate fast. And yes utilities can be cut off to a single property without affecting other residents,  they do it everyday


Army and Marine units can and do go for months in the field without such infrastructure.  I don't know why you would think these guys are so much softer.

----------


## pcosmar

> outdoorsman or not if they set up a blockade around the facility and cut off power it would cripple them. It's the dead of winter. They have limited food,  fuel,  and water.  Even if you find enough wood to burn on the property the buildings probably don't have stoves,  so it's just camp fires.  You could eat insects and Jack rabbits once your food ran out. They probably have a well but would have to pull the electric pump and rig up a manual method for their water. Morale would deteriorate fast. And yes utilities can be cut off to a single property without affecting other residents,  they do it everyday


Obviously you know nothing of basic survival.

Deer are plentiful,, and some of them own cattle.
eating insects indeed.

----------


## jth_ttu

> Obviously you know nothing of basic survival.
> Deer are plentiful,, and some of them own cattle.
> eating insects indeed.


I backcountry elk hunt so I know a little about survival.  If you're confined to a few acres and buildings it will be difficult to find game. And you're assuming theyre in an area that holds big game.  I'm not saying survival there without utilities and fresh supplies  is impossible,  it's just going to be very extreme and hard to do for an extended period.

----------


## pcosmar

> I backcountry elk hunt so I know a little about survival.  If you're confined to a few acres and buildings it will be difficult to find game. And you're assuming theyre in an area that holds big game.  I'm not saying survival there without utilities and fresh supplies  is impossible,  it's just going to be very extreme and hard to do for an extended period.


you know very little.

see post #733. for a view of the vastness of the area.

----------


## jth_ttu

> you know very little.
> 
> see post #733. for a view of the vastness of the area.


You obviously didn't read all my posts.  I said if the government cut utilities and imposed a blockade around the property. They wouldn't have an option to leave the buildings (maybe a few acres around them),  they would be arrested or would be prevented from returning to the buildings if they left.  The government could easily separate them from the vast hunting area you speak of. This is completely different than bundy ranch. They have voluntarily chosen to make their stand in a modern day Alamo. I see no way this ends good.

----------


## pcosmar

> You obviously didn't read all my posts.  I said if the government cut utilities and imposed a blockade around the property. They wouldn't have an option to leave the buildings (maybe a few acres around them),  they would be arrested or would be prevented from returning to the buildings if they left.  The government could easily separate them from the vast hunting area you speak of. This is completely different than bundy ranch. They have voluntarily chosen to make their stand in a modern day Alamo. I see no way this ends good.


No.. They could cut electricity.

and the Patriots would run on batteries and generators for any electrical needs.

I don't think you fully understand the situation,,
The Government is in no position to dictate anything.

the government has two options.

Concede or Assert Authority.
I hope for concession,, but have low expectations
I expect violence to come from the government (as usual)
then we see what happens.

----------


## goldenequity

If you've watched the latest Community Meeting video (*post #743*) and compare it
with the previous Community Meeting 
(where Santilli tried/failed to engage on the 'Law of the Land/Constitution' 
then got shouted down/removed by deputies)
*you can begin to see PROGRESS* 
of people/liberty questioning/criticizing local leadership.

Visually you can easily see how local 'leadership' has 'circled the wagons'/sitting together
including Grasti/Sheriff with the Paiute female 'Chief' and a few Pastors thrown in to imitate 'solidarity'
on a 'don't rock the boat'... 'they need to go home'.... 'we'll straighten it out later'... 'we're all just family' political flattering.

*Post #742* shows the gains on respect/friendliness of local leo deputies.

*They're gaining ground.*

========================

*Video 1:* * Bundy/Finicum are resolute* about *never* giving the buildings/resource center back to Federal control.
In that respect it IS 'the Alamo'. Lot's of information here if you can tolerate the film quality.

*Video 2:*  is a *GAUNTLET* to the Paiute grassroots and their leader.
It clearly shows the DISRESPECT and neglect given to the Paiute people by the BLM. 
*'She' has NO CHOICE* but to dialog and APPRECIATE the outreach 
by jointly expressing 'outrage' at the discovery/disrespect.
*This is a smart move by Finicum.*

----------


## goldenequity

►AP: *Oregon Governor calls on feds to act against armed group occupying wildlife refuge*



> SALEM, Ore. (AP) – Oregon’s governor expressed anger Wednesday over federal authorities’ handling of the occupation of a national wildlife refuge by an armed group and said she intends to bill the U.S. government for what the occupation is costing state taxpayers.
> Gov. Kate Brown said federal officials “must move quickly to end the occupation and hold all of the wrongdoers accountable.”
> 
> “The residents of Harney County have been overlooked and underserved by federal officials’ response thus far. I have conveyed these very grave concerns directly to our leaders at the highest levels of our government: the U.S. Department of Justice and the White House,” she said at a news conference.
> Exasperated by a tense situation that has caused fear among local residents since it began Jan. 2, Brown said, “This spectacle of lawlessness must end, and until Harney County is free of it, I will not stop insisting that federal officials enforce the law.”
> 
> She said the occupation has cost Oregon taxpayers nearly half a million dollars.



Pictures are worth a thousand words.

----------


## Weston White

> How would they do that without affecting the entire area and residents? (pissing off more people)
> 
> And what about the reverse effect of having it backfire? 
> 
> And some,, asking these questions do not understand that most of the folks there are outdoors-men, Farmers,, Hunters, etc.
> they have no problem with no utilities,, and many have survival means of their own.
> 
> It is an empty threat.


Please now, they are streaming from hotel/motel rooms.

The point is the feds are failing to conduct an appropriate show of force, so much so that even the governor is getting frustrated.

Recall Waco, they were not permitted to come and go as they pleased, meanwhile communicating with outside world, enjoying daily mail-calls, and the like.

----------


## Thor

> Deer are plentiful,, and some of them own cattle.


Do the deer need to register the cattle they own, or is it a gentleman's agreement?

Sorry, couldn't resist...  LOL.

Glad this thread is keeping up with what is going on out there...  Thx!

----------


## goldenequity

*Professor Doom*
Breaking Burns Oregon: Here is what is going on
(*INTEL:* 'Rapid Deployment' Assets via C-130's/'Troop' accommodations booked now observed/reported in Portland)

----------


## pcosmar

> Please now, they are streaming from hotel/motel rooms.
> 
> The point is the feds are failing to conduct an appropriate show of force, so much so that even the governor is getting frustrated.
> 
> Recall Waco, they were not permitted to come and go as they pleased, meanwhile communicating with outside world, enjoying daily mail-calls, and the like.


Please now..
The folks at Waco were alone and outnumbered from the start. as many of these folks have been in the past.

The folks at Waco did not have 500 rifles  outside the compound on over watch.

What happened at Waco will not be allowed to be repeated.

And I have no idea how many are actually there,,  but the last time most were never seen.
And they won't be seen this time.. Those you see are the few that for their own reasons allow it.. They want to be seen and heard.

They are guarded by the unseen.

----------


## goldenequity

*Oath Keepers* Interview with LaVoy Finicum
Published on Jan 20, 2016
and
*Ron Paul* on Burns Oregon Standoff and Jury Nullification for the Hammond Family (Recorded January 6th 2016)

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> *Professor Doom*
> Breaking Burns Oregon: Here is what is going on
> (*INTEL:* 'Rapid Deployment' Assets via C-130's/'Troop' accommodations booked now observed/reported in Portland)


Doesn't sound like this will end well...

----------


## pcosmar

> Doesn't sound like this will end well...


Ye of little faith,,

----------


## Stateofmind

https://youtu.be/Cjwonvar-3g

----------


## phill4paul

> Doesn't sound like this will end well...


  It will end how it ends. "Well" is subjective. One thing that can be assured of is that it will not end how the Feds think it will end up killing anyone while hut-hutting about.

----------


## goldenequity

*Ammon Bundy dialoging with (local) FBI boss* (by cell phone)

*Great stuff!* "Well if that's it then.... I've got some other stuff to do... I'm meeting with some legislators on their way from New Mexico.." *- - Ammon Bundy*
*Hard Copy: Today, about 1 Hour Old*




==========================

The host took the link down under pressure from the 'livestreamer' Pete Santilli.
Here's the original Santilli link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_jK0IKYpp8
actual dialog starts @ 8:15 and runs about 40 minutes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I have lost track.  Since the Hammonds turned themselves in and have said they want nothing to do with the protesters- what are their demands?  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/ore...armed-protest/




> Throughout the siege, Bundy has claimed the two ranchers were targeted for not selling land to the government.
> 
> *But the father-and-son ranchers have distanced themselves from the group.*
> 
> *"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family," the Hammonds' attorney, W. Alan Schroeder, wrote* to Harney County Sheriff David Ward.
> 
> *On Monday, the Hammonds turned themselves in to prison to serve their five-year sentences.
> *
> Now, it's time for the protesters to end the siege, the sheriff said.
> ...


One of them goes by the name "Fluffy Unicorn?" From report on today's FBI call: 

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...gin-bundy-fbi/




> “The only ones that are going to make this a non-peaceful event will be you guys — the FBI or other law enforcement,” Bundy told the negotiator by phone.
> 
> “I want to keep the dialogue going. We want to work together with you,” the negotiator said to Bundy.
> 
> The negotiator did not say his name, but other FBI agents present confirmed his role as a mediator.  
> 
> Several other militants, including Ryan Payne and Brian Cavalier (*who goes by the pseudonym “Fluffy Unicorn”)*, accompanied Bundy to the FBI base.
> 
> Three plainclothes FBI agents and a few sheriff’s deputies were also on the scene. In a conversational tone, the negotiator told Bundy that they are dealing with some significant issues that could take some time to work through.





> Bundy said the negotiator contacted him for the first time Wednesday by phone.
> 
> He was hoping to talk with him in person at the FBI base. The two ended the conversation with a promise to speak again Friday.
> 
> Bundy asked to talk with the negotiator face to face next time.  
> 
> Before they hung up, Bundy asked the negotiator if he’s LDS — a member of the church of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  
> 
> The negotiator said he is not.
> ...


Looks like Fluffy Unicorn lied about being in the military:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edentials.html

----------


## dannno

> I have lost track.  Since the Hammonds turned themselves in and have said they *want* nothing to do with the protesters- what are their demands?


They actually never said that - the Hammonds I assure you are very pleased and thankful someone is standing up for them, but due to the threats they received that they would find themselves in inferior prisons if they communicated in any way with the Bundy group, their lawyers essentially made a statement that they had nothing to do with them - there was NEVER a statement made that they WANTED nothing to do with them. You are quite the deception artist sometimes, zippo.

And to answer your question, they want them released from jail and they are also trying to stop the government takeover of some other land in the area.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Thanks for the info.  They will leave after the government does not take somebody's land?  How do they determine when that has occurred? 

So their lawyer never made that statement?

http://www.capitalpress.com/apps/pbc...=2015151239985




> Bundy’s son, Ammon, posted a Facebook video asking Bundy Ranch supporters to come Saturday to Burns, the county seat of Harney County, where the Hammonds live. Bundy said the Hammonds are being persecuted by a land-grabbing federal government and that their case was “in many ways more important than the Bundy Ranch.”
> 
> In an earlier video, Ammon Bundy said, “I feel justified in defending the Hammonds, even they don’t have the strength and courage right now to stand for themselves.”
> 
> The Hammonds’ attorney, Alan Schroeder, said Wednesday that the Hammonds *appreciate the support they’ve received* from groups and individuals,* but reaffirmed that militia members do not speak for them and that they intend to serve their time.*
> 
> Montana resident Ryan Payne, *an associate of Bundy’s* and who participated in the standoff with federal officials at the Bundy Ranch, *said Wednesday he hoped the Hammonds will reconsider and accept “protection.”
> *
> “They’re not in prison yet,” Payne said.

----------


## dannno

> Thanks for the info.  They will leave after the government does not take somebody's land?  How do they determine when that has occurred?


When they declare it belongs who it rightly belongs to.




> So their lawyer never made that statement?


Look at the word I bolded - the laywer made the statement that the government forced them to make. You insinuated that was the statement they wanted to make and what they wanted to happen. 

If you are in prison unjustly and somebody is fighting to get you out, you are $#@!ing thankful for them numnutz.

----------


## Zippyjuan

(see my update above yours)

----------


## goldenequity

> In a conversational tone, the negotiator told Bundy that *they are dealing with some significant issues that could take some time to work through*.


That's gotta be the understatement of the year.

----------


## dannno

> (see my update above yours)


I already told you why the lawyer made the statement distancing themselves from the group.

----------


## goldenequity

*Hard Copy of FIRST FBI chat posted above.*
===================

*Earlier Today:* 01/21/2016 Ammon Bundy Interview

----------


## goldenequity

*OREGON Governor Kate 'Bootlicker' Brown DEMANDING "WACO" (and money) from the Feds*
and
*Nevada Tards want Cliven Arrested*

----------


## Schifference

Costs could be near zero if they just ignored the occupation. Basically they spent a huge sum and have done nothing so far. Par use of government funds.

----------


## youngbuck

> Ehh, KrisAnne is great, but she's technically wrong here.  Art 1 §8 includes an "and other needful buildings" proviso, and Art 4 §3 Para 2 contains an "and other properties" proviso.  In this particular case she's letting her emotions run away with her reason.  Still, a pretty girl on the verge of crying claiming to be an expert, most people are going to believe her, just because.


  I'd like further explanation on this because I'm not entirely confident who's right here.  Here is Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2:




> The 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*; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so  construed as to *prejudice any claims* of the United States, or *of any  particular state.*


What property can belong to the United States?  Well, let's refer back to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:




> To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction 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, dockyards and other needful buildings*


  So how on earth can huge swaths of land in the western United States be even remotely considered "needful buildings?"  And, while I haven't looked into it yet, I can almost guarantee that few (probably none) of the legislatures of the affected states consented to the original and continuing land grabs of the BLM.  

Also, it does indeed appear that the government is misconstruing the Constitution to prejudice claims of all affected states.  Not only is this a direct violation of Article 4 Section 3 paragraph 2, but also probably a violation of the 10th amendment.

It appears to me that KrisAnne Hall is correct in her assertions that the vast majority, if not all, of BLM land is unconstitutionally "owned" by the federal government.  But I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, and would love to be shown otherwise.

----------


## goldenequity

*Rick Koerber* http://www.freecapitalist.com/
(Married Jewel Skousen (daughter) Fellow Mormon, Liberty lover and 'included' in the circle of advisers for legal strategies being employed/developed)
Part 1: The Legacy of W. Cleon Skousen, 
Part 2: Civil Disobedience & the Cause of Liberty *(Starts @ 45:30)*

----------


## Thor

So here is some interesting fodder from the pro-Waco wack'em side:




> *Oregon ranchers who sparked standoff threatened to wrap official’s son in barbed wire and drown him*
> 
> With the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge almost  three weeks old and tempers fraying at a community meeting in the nearby  town of Burns, Oregon, one voice has been absent from the drama: the  Fish and Wildlife Service employees whose work has been disrupted and  offices turned into an armed camp by anti-government militants.
> 
>  In a Raw Story exclusive, former and current employees of the Malheur  Refuge have provided new revelations on the conflict between Dwight and  Steve Hammond, two local ranchers who have clashed with federal  government agencies for decades. The employees claim the Hammonds  illegal grazing was damaging the refuge that’s home to 320 bird and 58  mammal species. They allege the Hammonds lawbreaking ranged from aerial  hunting of animals in the refuge to death threats against employees and  their families to cattle grazing that was altering the entire species  composition of critical ecosystems.
> 
>  The Fish and Wildlife Service did not return a request for comment.  Sources say there is a gag order on employees now that the FBI is in  charge of monitoring the occupation by Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada  rancher Cliven Bundy, and his supporters. 
> 
>  The beef the Hammonds currently have with the feds is over access to  land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. More than  20 years ago the Hammonds also had a permit for grazing on the Malheur  Wildlife Refuge. That was canceled in the mid-90s because of what  officials say was the Hammonds’ constant violation of the permit’s  terms. Today, the FWS is still caught in the middle because the Hammonds  need to cross the 187,700 acres of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to  access the BLM land on which their cattle are allowed to graze.
> ...


Continued:  http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oreg...and-drown-him/




> *“At the refuge headquarters, one of the Hammonds said they would tear my  head off and $#@! down the hole.* One of the Hammonds told my Deputy  Manager, Dan Walsworth, they were going to ‘put a chain around his neck  and drag him behind a pickup.’” Cameron says it became practice “never  to meet with the Hammonds alone and usually to have a law enforcement  officer present.”

----------


## Zippyjuan

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-s...-chants-of-go/




> The leader of an armed group who took over a national wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon weeks ago joined hundreds of area residents at a tense community meeting - listening quietly as many loudly chanted at him to "go!"
> 
> Ammon Bundy, who has been trying to drum up support for his cause, didn't speak at Tuesday night's meeting in Burns where residents discussed the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge which began earlier this month.
> 
> Some of the several hundred community members spoke to Bundy directly. *One woman thanked him for raising awareness around issues of public lands, but told him it's time to go home to his family.
> 
> "Ammon, you need to go home to your family; thank you," said local resident Jennifer Williams. "I've heard so many things I didn't know before. Now I'm aware."*
> 
> Other speakers were less congenial and at times angry and emotional in comments directed at the armed group as well as at local government officials and federal government, in part for not doing more to end the occupation.
> ...





> Rallies also were held in Portland and in Boise, Idaho, Tuesday, with hundreds of people calling for Bundy to end the occupation and pointing out that federal management allows all kinds of people to enjoy public lands.
> 
> The group Bundy leads has said repeatedly that local people should control federal lands. *Bundy has told reporters the group would leave when there was a plan in place to turn over federal lands to locals - a common refrain in a decades-long fight over public lands in the West.* At a Tuesday news conference, Bundy said "we're not going anywhere" until his group gets its goals accomplished.


So they want free land from the Government.  I had inquired earlier what their demands were.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'd like further explanation on this because I'm not entirely confident who's right here.  Here is Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2:
> 
> 
> 
> What property can belong to the United States?  Well, let's refer back to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:
> 
>   So how on earth can huge swaths of land in the western United States be even remotely considered "needful buildings?"  And, while I haven't looked into it yet, I can almost guarantee that few (probably none) of the legislatures of the affected states consented to the original and continuing land grabs of the BLM.  
> 
> Also, it does indeed appear that the government is misconstruing the Constitution to prejudice claims of all affected states.  Not only is this a direct violation of Article 4 Section 3 paragraph 2, but also probably a violation of the 10th amendment.
> ...


I'm not saying that a wildlife resource building is a "needful building," I'm saying that "needful building" is undefined.  So long as the term remains undefined then if 50% +1 of Congress decides something is "needful," then it fulfills that clause.  Because it was left undefined, the definition is left to Congress.  If a majority of Congress decided that a gingerbread house containing a Japanese massage parlor was "needful," then voila.  

I in no way, shape, or form agree with Congress's definition of a "needful building" here, but the way this is written it is not up to you, me, Webster's, Samuel Johnson, or anybody else to decide what is needful, it is up to Congress.

----------


## Lucille

Time to Privatize Federal Public Land
http://blog.independent.org/2016/01/...l-public-land/




> In a recent New York Times commentary titled Give States Control Over Public Land Out West, Robert H. Nelson wrote: The federal government owns almost half the land in the American Westeven California is some 46 percent federal land. Here is what surface and subsurface federal ownership looks like on a map.
> 
> 
> [...]
> The best approach is to privatize all federal public land, with the exception of land ownership authorized by the U.S. Constitution for such things as military forts and ports. Private land ownership best accommodates competing interests such as ranching, farming, hunting, fishing, conservation, and residential and commercial use. Private ownership provides the correct incentives for wise stewardship of land, striking a proper balance between multiple uses. Government ownership, in contrast, often locks land into less valuable uses.
> 
> If you doubt that private land ownership can work for parks, visit the High Lonesome Ranch in De Beque, Colorado, essentially a 300-square-mile private national park. Private land trusts have worked well in California. There are more than 150 land trusts in California managing more than 2.5 million acres, an area larger than the size of Californias state park system of 1.6 million acres. Land trusts raise money voluntarily through foundation support and private individuals.
> [...]
> Its past time to auction federal public land so its in private hands not under federal or state government control.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So they want free land from the Government.  I had inquired earlier what their demands were.


I doubt they are going to claim it. They want the government to stop occupying unowned land that could be used by the locals. The government has no legitimate right to control it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I would like to see an Amendment that defines "needful buildings" as being "Only those properties and structures required to carry out the powers explicitly enumerated in this Constitution."  Voila, no more BS loophole.

----------


## TheTexan

> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-s...-chants-of-go/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they want free land from the Government.  I had inquired earlier what their demands were.


I know right?  Coming up in there with guns, just taking the land, that doesn't belong to them, what are they thinking?

Its a good thing we have Government, to prevent that kind of stuff.

----------


## youngbuck

> I'm not saying that a wildlife resource building is a "needful building," I'm saying that "needful building" is undefined.  So long as the term remains undefined then if 50% +1 of Congress decides something is "needful," then it fulfills that clause.  Because it was left undefined, the definition is left to Congress.  If a majority of Congress decided that a gingerbread house containing a Japanese massage parlor was "needful," then voila.  
> 
> I in no way, shape, or form agree with Congress's definition of a "needful building" here, but the way this is written it is not up to you, me, Webster's, Samuel Johnson, or anybody else to decide what is needful, it is up to Congress.


  Gotcha, I think you're most likely right then.  But do you know if the land was purchased with the consent of the state legislatures?

----------


## youngbuck

> So they want free land from the Government.  I had inquired earlier what their demands were.


 So if you stole something from me and I demanded it back, would I be getting it for "free?"

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> I doubt they are going to claim it. They want the government to stop occupying unowned land that could be used by the locals. The government has no legitimate right to control it.


I wish you people would all learn proper spelling... it's "goonerment"!

----------


## goldenequity

*Friday:* *FBI was a 'no show'* today for the 11:00am chat

►Early Morning Update:
*Brandon Curtiss Update*: (ll yrs in law enforcement)
'Uptick' in harassment behavior by leo/State Police (a further video will document)

----------


## goldenequity

*Don't Believe the Oregonian/KOIN TV Narrative. The 'local' support is GROWING!*
Harney County Oregon's Judge Steve Grasty strutting like a peacock
at Wednesday night's Community Meeting trying bluster tactics
did not deter a growing number of locals speaking out.

Meanwhile (as Brandon above references) the III Percenters and Resource Center
are methodically putting together damning documentation showing the corruption
which will result in a call for the arrest of Grasty and other local officials.

----------


## Krugminator2

https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/civil-disobedience




> The forcible occupation of another mans property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a sit-in in the home or office of a person he disagrees with  and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers  and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
> 
>  The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes  the _physical_ intimidation of some men or groups by others  loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

----------


## goldenequity

http://www.patriotortraitor.com/category/traitors/




> *THE HAMMOND CASE HISTORY:* 
> 
> The Harney Basin (where 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”. 
> ...

----------


## sparebulb

> https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/civil-disobedience


Small note:

This was not an occupation of "another man's" property.  It is property claimed by the State.

Nor is the wildlife refuge a "public thoroughfare" is the sense that its occupation hinders the travel of unrelated parties.

Rand hated hippies and their sit-ins.

----------


## goldenequity

*Regarding the FBI 'No Show'* (more information... they wanted 'no media'... Bundy said no.)
*The Latest: Armed group's leader refuses private FBI talk*
http://www.chron.com/news/science/ar...te-6777492.php



> Ammon Bundy arrived Friday at the airport in Burns, where the FBI has been monitoring the occupation, but left shortly afterward because federal authorities wanted the conversation to be private.



*Ammon Bundy, left, speaks with FBI agents Friday, Jan. 22, 2016 at the Burns, Oregon, airport.*

----------


## goldenequity

*Powerful Moment for Ammon Bundy*

----------


## goldenequity

*Focus IN or Focus way OUT... either way it's vile and corruption is overflowing.*

*Making the Connections Between the Bundy and Hammond Ranches and the Presence of Coveted Uranium* (Let's not forget this one)

►*Connect the dots with this article:* http://christianpatriots.org/2016/01...tial-campaign/




and the *Dutchinsense* analysis

----------


## Zippyjuan

> http://www.patriotortraitor.com/category/traitors/


Thanks for the info.

----------


## Weston White

> pointing out that federal management allows all kinds of people to enjoy public lands.


Que pasa, como asi?

----------


## Weston White

> I'd like further explanation on this because I'm not entirely confident who's right here.  Here is Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2:
> ...
> 
> What property can belong to the United States?  Well, let's refer back to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:
> ...
> 
> So how on earth can huge swaths of land in the western United States be even remotely considered "needful buildings?"  And, while I haven't looked into it yet, I can almost guarantee that few (probably none) of the legislatures of the affected states consented to the original and continuing land grabs of the BLM.  
> 
> Also, it does indeed appear that the government is misconstruing the Constitution to prejudice claims of all affected states.  Not only is this a direct violation of Article 4 Section 3 paragraph 2, but also probably a violation of the 10th amendment.
> ...


I concur.

----------


## Weston White

Geez, they cannot even get the narrative correct:




> The beef the Hammonds currently have with the feds is over access to land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.





> Bundy has told reporters the group would leave when there was a plan in place to turn over federal lands to locals - a common refrain in a decades-long fight over public lands in the West.





> So they want free land from the Government.  I had inquired earlier what their demands were.


No, they want the lands returned to the states to which it properly belongs.  Then it can be provisioned, sold and purchased and taxed as applicable.

----------


## Weston White

> I'm not saying that a wildlife resource building is a "needful building," I'm saying that "needful building" is undefined.  So long as the term remains undefined then if 50% +1 of Congress decides something is "needful," then it fulfills that clause.  Because it was left undefined, the definition is left to Congress.  If a majority of Congress decided that a gingerbread house containing a Japanese massage parlor was "needful," then voila.  
> 
> I in no way, shape, or form agree with Congress's definition of a "needful building" here, but the way this is written it is not up to you, me, Webster's, Samuel Johnson, or anybody else to decide what is needful, it is up to Congress.


I partially disagree, "other needful buildings" stipulation still needs to qualify under Congress's constitutionally prescribed powers and will ultimately be defined by SCOTUS or by future Article V amendments.

ETA:




> I would like to see an Amendment that defines "needful buildings" as being "Only those properties and structures required to carry out the powers explicitly enumerated in this Constitution."  Voila, no more BS loophole.


OIC However, this is already implied.  Just as is the Bill of Rights, as provided within its Preamble and our national Charter.

----------


## Weston White

> I wish you people would all learn proper spelling... it's "goonerment"!


Deriving from the Latin _ebil gumberment_.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I partially disagree, "other needful buildings" stipulation still needs to qualify under Congress's constitutionally prescribed powers and will ultimately be defined by SCOTUS or by future Article V amendments.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> OIC However, this is already implied.  Just as is the Bill of Rights, as provided within its Preamble and our national Charter.


I have a fair bit of expertise in the English language, and nothing currently in Article 1 Section 8 syntactically constrains "needful buildings" to the 19 enumerated powers in that section.

Here is the full section:




> Section. 8.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> ...


Note that there is no indicator in the actual language itself connecting the "and other needful Buildings" clause to the preceding enumerated powers.

Here, I will quote the relevant clause:




> 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;—And


If "and other needful Buildings" is connected to ANY declaration of power, then it would be the "in all Cases whatsoever" at the beginning of this clause, not the 19 preceding enumerated powers.

I don't _want_ Congress to have this power.  They are clearly abusing it, but as much as I love her, KrisAnne Hall and others are displaying some amount of wishful thinking here.

----------


## Weston White

> I have a fair bit of expertise in the English language, and nothing currently in Article 1 Section 8 syntactically constrains "needful buildings" to the 19 enumerated powers in that section.


United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 69-70 (1936):




> 'Said the court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 17 U.S. 421: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
> ...
> “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.”  Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U.S. 199.  “There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself.  It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the [taxing] power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States or if exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.”'


Justice Scalia’s DISSENTING opinion in O’Gilvie Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 90 (1996): 


> “We add that, in any event, the view of a later Congress cannot control the interpretation of an earlier enacted statute.”


Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920): 


> “…  Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”  See also: Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 346-347 (1935).


ETA:

Alexander Hamilton’s further statements in Federalist Paper No. 84, Para. 7, 11:


> “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.  ‘WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’  . . .  The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.”


Also within Federalist Paper No. 83, Para. 7: 


> “The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases.  This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.”

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 69-70 (1936):
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Scalia’s DISSENTING opinion in O’Gilvie Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 90 (1996): 
> 
> Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920): 
> 
> ETA:
> ...


You do realize that not a single one of your quotes addresses "and other needful buildings" right?

----------


## Weston White

> You do realize that not a single one of your quotes addresses "and other needful buildings" right?


As I stated it is implied by contextual underpinning of the Constitution itself.  Congress CANNOT exceed the powers therein prescribed and remain with its established grant of authority.

Videlicet, Congress may only authorize legislation, buildings and lands for purposes strictly enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As I stated it is implied by contextual underpinning of the Constitution itself.  Congress CANNOT exceed the powers therein prescribed and remain with its established grant of authority.
> 
> Videlicet, Congress may only authorize legislation, buildings and lands for purposes strictly enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.


You don't get to just make up whatever rules of language you want to justify a given philosophy.  This Constitution _implies nothing_.  What it says, it says directly.  The most direct statement of power connected to "and other needful buildings"  is the phrase "in all Cases whatsoever."  For what you are saying to have merit, one would have to assume that Congress only had 19 enumerated powers in DC, when in fact the Constitution says the exact opposite.

The Constitution says what it says.  The language is blatantly clear.  You don't get to make up your own language just to make the Constitution say what you want it to say.  It says what it says even when we don't like it.

----------


## Weston White

> You don't get to just make up whatever rules of language you want to justify a given philosophy.  This Constitution _implies nothing_.  What it says, it says directly.  The most direct statement of power connected to "and other needful buildings"  is the phrase "in all Cases whatsoever."  For what you are saying to have merit, one would have to assume that Congress only had 19 enumerated powers in DC, when in fact the Constitution says the exact opposite.
> 
> The Constitution says what it says.  The language is blatantly clear.  You don't get to make up your own language just to make the Constitution say what you want it to say.  It says what it says even when we don't like it.


There are additional grants of powers outside of those enumerated in Article I.

The scope of the U.S. Government defined within our Constitution's Preamble:




> We the people of the United States, in order* to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


And as in our Bill of Rights Preamble, in part:



> THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


Article VI:



> This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which *shall be made in pursuance thereof*; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, *under the authority of the United States*, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


...And I realize that you really want to patronize one, but sadly, Congress has been granted no such constitutionally relative powers to build gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There are additional grants of powers outside of those enumerated in Article I.
> 
> The scope of the U.S. Government defined within our Constitution's Preamble:
> 
> 
> 
> And as in our Bill of Rights Preamble, in part:
> 
> 
> Article VI:


Again, the Constitution says what it says, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

You can talk about how it _implies_ this, or how it _really means_ that, or how we have to _assume_ it means the other, but the Constitution is written in basic English.  The meaning of that English is clear.  It doesn't _imply_ anything.  There are no meanings that are _opposite_ to what the language itself says.  You do not have to _assume_ contrary syntax grammar or vocabulary.  It means what it says.




> ...And I realize that you really want to patronize one, but sadly, Congress has been granted no such constitutionally relative powers to build gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors.


What *exactly* are you trying to claim that I want to patronize?

Since you are adding meaning to the Constitution that is simply not there, I shouldn't be surprised that you are likewise adding meaning to things that I say that also just isn't there.

Again, you don't get to just invent meanings out of thin air that are not contained in the actual language, to justify whatever conclusions you want to reach.

The Constitution says what it means and it means what it says, even when you and I don't like it.

I don't defend just the parts I like, I defend the WHOLE Constitution, and work to amend the parts I disagree with.  This was the process set out by our Framers.

If attacking the plain language of the Constitution were not enough, now you are going to attack me for defending a strict and originalist reading of it?

SMDH.

----------


## goldenequity

*Bundy Confirms: Sheriff Has Surrendered Constitutional Power to The Feds* @ 2:00




=============================

*This is what you will be met with if you want to visit the County court house.* (did you want to file/record something?)



This is how the Sheriff's Dept says they are not escalating the situation.

----------


## goldenequity

*ALERT: 200+ FBI Vehicles On The Ground* (they just rolled in to town)




*Brandon Curtiss/III Percenter Harney County Updates* (New Facebook Page)
https://www.facebook.com/hcmallcops/

----------


## goldenequity

*Latest Update: The 'Live Show' is being recorded right now* (until 8am PST, then is re-broadcast throughout the day)
**It's livestreamed as *'audio only'* (video hogs limited bandwidth and distorts/interrupts broadcasting) audio = better quality streaming info 

(*The Youtube 'chat' feature is 'live' ALL DAY*... to view go to Youtube page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obtfR5Fito )
(going to be a busy weekend... stay tuned  )




================

To Participate in the Live Show/Call in.. (everyday 5am-8am PST)
*LIVE show* requires a call in (if you have free weekend minutes?) 605-562-3140 (enter caller code 407265). 
Do not dial the call-in line any time other than 5am-8am PST

----------


## Weston White

> Again, the Constitution says what it says, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
> 
> You can talk about how it _implies_ this, or how it _really means_ that, or how we have to _assume_ it means the other, but the Constitution is written in basic English.  The meaning of that English is clear.  It doesn't _imply_ anything.  There are no meanings that are _opposite_ to what the language itself says.  You do not have to _assume_ contrary syntax grammar or vocabulary.  It means what it says.


No, although speaking of adding meaning to what was earlier stated... Yea, whatever.  I was not addressing meaning or assumption in basic English or grammar or vocabulary, only to constitutional breadth.  At any rate, you are entirely missing or avoiding the point.  To appreciate constitutionality, the U.S. Constitution is to be read and applied as a whole, not cherry picked one clause at a time or picked apart sentence by sentence, comma by comma, semicolon by semicolon, period by period, proper noun by proper noun, or by plurals and singulars.  To imply is to indicate or to be understood--or more aptly the prior point is inferred.

To clarify, further, I am not asserting that our Constitution implies things that are not clearly contained therein, but that Congress's authority to establish "other needful buildings" is limited by our Constitution's enumerated grant of powers--a truth that is implied by this very document.  The logic you are arguing is the precise reason as to why imbeciles in government argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes Obamacare or permits them to establish federal felonies on the matter of intrastate bearing, transferring and selling firearms.




> What *exactly* are you trying to claim that I want to patronize?


It's a joke dude, it was a joke pertaining to your reply a couple of pages back.  You know you wrote that hypothetical and that what I was claiming exactly, was implied, basically and applying clear English, it means what it means, and it is not to be assumed to mean the opposite.  (See what I did there?)




> The Constitution says what it means and it means what it says, even when you and I don't like it.


If that were actually the case there would be no use of common law or judicial review existent within the United States.




> If attacking the plain language of the Constitution were not enough, now you are going to attack me for defending a strict and originalist reading of it?


If that were truly the case, you would not be making the argument that you are making, see:




> The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. *Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies*, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.  ...any effort to use the Property Clause to sustain *legislation that goes beyond protecting federal proprietary interests would seemingly be inconsistent with the original design of the Constitution.*


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...roperty-clause

Congress would, for example, be acting unconstitutionally if it were to establish police stations, hospitals, and public or private schools--including but not limited to gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors--upon federal lands.  (Similarly, as an act of Congress outlawing assault weapons would be unconstitutional being that the 2nd Amendment has been established by common law to apply specifically to military class weaponry.)

Here the question really is, what defines what is a needful building.




> SMDH.


Yes sir, indeed.

----------


## Weston White

> *Bundy Confirms: Sheriff Has Surrendered Constitutional Power to The Feds* @ 2:00


Regarding this video, the local sheriff, depending on the whole of circumstances and land history, may be in dereliction of public office or duty and negligent:




> The Northwest Ordinance included a number of provisions respecting the governance of the new territory that would have to be described as pure police-power measures. These include clauses preserving the freedom of religion, prohibiting uncompensated takings of property, and outlawing slavery. Other provisions of the Ordinance addressed the status of federal land once new states were formed from the territory and admitted to the Union. Such states were prospectively prohibited from interfering with the disposal of lands by the United States or with regulations adopted by Congress to secure title to bona fide purchasers, and they were barred from imposing any tax on federal lands.
> 
> Taking the structural and historical evidence together, we can infer what may plausibly have been the original understanding of the Property Clause. The Property Clause authorized Congress to exercise a general police power within the territories before they were formed into states. Once states were admitted to the union, however, Congress could exercise full police powers over federal land located in a state only in accordance with the Enclave Clause, that is, only when the land was acquired with the consent of the state in question. As to what "needful Rules and Regulations" Congress could enact respecting federal lands in a state not located in an enclave, the Northwest Ordinance suggests that at least some preemptive federal legislation was contemplated, but only if designed to protect the proprietary interests of the United States. In short, the Framers intended that the police-power theory would apply to federal land located in territories, but that the protective theory would apply to non-enclave federal land located in states.


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...roperty-clause

----------


## goldenequity

*New Dictatorial Controls: (Judge Grasty) Rules for the next 'Community' Meeting* (Monday, Jan. 25)
(aka Stuffing the Ballot Box)

*Attendance at this 'public' meeting (now at the senior center) requires:* 
(1) to have one of the 120 tickets available at the (sheriff barricaded) courthouse 
(2) must be a resident 
(3) no guns
(4) Oregon NPR (National Pentagon Radio) will film and mediate

----------


## goldenequity

*Obama Signs Executive Order To Legalize BLM's Land Grabs* 
Obama 2014 Fed plans vastly expanded the power, reach and control of federal land managers (BLM)

----------


## Noob

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russian’s along with one-fifth of our uranium ore

https://www.intellihub.com/clinton-f...-lands-russia/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9qZI4W70W8

----------


## goldenequity

*U.S. Fish & Wildlife Document shows the Law is stacked against us*

----------


## goldenequity

*Sunday morning Breaking..* to be confirmed

End of Live broadcast a phone call from local watchdogs:
*Hwy. 205/78 now 'closed'*... will update.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> The Constitution says what it says.  The language is blatantly clear.  You don't get to make up your own language just to make the Constitution say what you want it to say.  It says what it says even when we don't like it.


Not unless you put on some black robes first...

----------


## Dr.3D

> Not unless you put on some black robes first...


Plenty of those left around after a high school graduation ceremony.

----------


## goldenequity

*Stefan Molyneux*

*US Federal Government vs Oregon Ranchers: Cruel and Unusual Punishments*

----------


## Weston White

Is there a full size image of the document available, that one is too small?  Also, can whoever that is making these videos stop using death images?  Not really appropriate for this application.

----------


## youngbuck

Is there any video or picture evidence of the "200" FBI vehicles that rolled into Burns?

----------


## pcosmar

> Is there any video or picture evidence of the "200" FBI vehicles that rolled into Burns?


Haven't  seen.. I do remember the ones that rolled out of Nevada last year..

I would expect some of the same.

----------


## goldenequity

> Is there any video or picture evidence of the "200" FBI vehicles that rolled into Burns?


No photos of 'all 200' together... 
the number was a cumulative 'count' done by the III Percenter ground intel watching/recording
license plates/vehicles/occupants and is a quote from leader Brandon Curtiss about 4 days ago
when the FBI/Airport began to ramp up with tents and agents.




> Is there a full size image of the document available, that one is too small?  Also, can whoever that is making these videos stop using death images?  Not really appropriate for this application.


*Full size Document here*... 
*VIDEO:* the 'skull icon' is the logo of analyst 'Professor Doom1'... his choice. 

===================

A *Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer* interview (contiguous County due North of Harney County)
(has a staff of 17 people and 2 Million acres of 'Managed' Federal Land) http://grantcountysherifforegon.com/

----------


## goldenequity

*UTAH: Eight Utah ranchers join other ranchers in the West to sign letters of intent to withdraw consent to be governed by the BLM
*

*
Utah Ranchers gather to consider joining ranchers throughout the West to withdraw consent to be governed by BLM.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Plenty of those left around after a high school graduation ceremony.


My HS graduation robes were purple..



We kept singing "Heard it through the grapevine" over and over on graduation day...

----------


## goldenequity

With just a little more effort... I finally figured out where this is headed...
and it depresses me. (sigh)
I probably won't be posting anymore 'updates' to the Bundy/Malheur sitrep.

----------


## ghengis86

> With just a little more effort... I finally figured out where this is headed...
> and it depresses me. (sigh)
> I probably won't be posting anymore 'updates' to the Bundy/Malheur sitrep.


Care to share a synopsis for the layman?

----------


## sparebulb

> Care to share a synopsis for the layman?


I second this.

Please explain.

----------


## goldenequity

We're headed where the Montana Freemen have already been. (the longest FBI standoff ever... 81 days)



> "The BLM is a private corporation, not a government agency, and the federal government ceased operating under the Constitution in the 1860s".
> 
> "Members of Congress, the president and the U.S. treasury secretary all committed crimes and directed U.S. marshals and FBI agents to arrest them." *- Anna Maria Riezinger* (Alaska woman who claims to be Judge Anna von Rietz)
> 
> "The Hammonds and the Bundy Family are Priority Creditors of all the (government agencies) which are now or which have operated in this country in the past. ...They and their countrymen are owed the patent to all land within the geographically defined boundaries of their respective states, free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or other presumptions." *- Anna Maria Riezinger* (Alaska woman who claims to be Judge Anna von Rietz)
> 
> Hundreds of people who have used similar sovereign citizen arguments to justify failing to pay federal income taxes, getting drivers licenses or other government requirements have never prevailed in any court.
> 
> There is no evidence to date that a legal determination by a self-styled judge associated with the sovereign citizen movement would have any effect, other than to excite people already allied with that fringe view.


Trying to 'validate' the 'credentials' of a separate legal system aka 'Sovereign Citizen' movement.
The 'fringe' stigma is hopelessly embedded into the public perception...

Add to it unrecognized, unelected and self-appointed Judges like *Bruce Doucette*
declaring himself 'Superior' and presiding over it. (54 yo retired Computer repairman)

If you've ever tried to read through Sovereign Citizen posts..
even by 'believers'... you know what I'm talking about.
My eyes start to glaze over and I get brain freeze.
Proponents argue and disagree even amongst themselves.
It makes my head hurt just thinking that this is where all this effort is headed.

The 'Constitution' is just a 'launchpoint' for what will become a complete clusterf*ck. (Santilli's mania not withstanding)
I believe in the 'cause' but this is headed for the theatre of the absurd. (imo) Can't take it anymore. 
Peace. out.

----------


## sparebulb

> We're headed where the Montana Freemen have already been. (the longest FBI standoff ever... 81 days)
> Trying to 'validate' the 'credentials' of a separate legal system aka 'Sovereign Citizen' movement.
> The 'fringe' stigma is hopelessly embedded into the public perception...
> 
> Add to it unrecognized, unelected and self-appointed Judges like *Bruce Deucette*
> declaring himself 'Superior' and presiding over it. (54 yo retired Computer repairman)
> 
> If you've ever tried to read through Sovereign Citizen posts..
> even by 'believers'... you know what I'm talking about. 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation.

I have never before seen a group of people for whom I agree and support, yet can't stand to watch or listen.

I pray that these guys can save face and pull out.

----------


## ghengis86

> We're headed where the Montana Freemen have already been. (the longest FBI standoff ever... 81 days)
> Trying to 'validate' the 'credentials' of a separate legal system aka 'Sovereign Citizen' movement.
> The 'fringe' stigma is hopelessly embedded into the public perception...
> 
> Add to it unrecognized, unelected and self-appointed Judges like *Bruce Deucette*
> declaring himself 'Superior' and presiding over it. (54 yo retired Computer repairman)
> 
> If you've ever tried to read through Sovereign Citizen posts..
> even by 'believers'... you know what I'm talking about.
> ...





> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> I have never before seen a group of people for whom I agree and support, yet can't stand to watch or listen.
> 
> I pray that these guys can save face and pull out.


Likewise, thank you. 

But, sovereign or not, there has been good to come of this, and will lead to more good. Don't get too down. I hear what you're saying and agree, but it isn't over yet.

----------


## dannno

> Proponents argue and disagree even amongst themselves.


Probably not as bad as OWS...

----------


## phill4paul

This OK sitrep explains why there were so many Fed vehicles. Seems like it was a simple duty change out with a new crew coming in and the other heading out after turn over.




> Situation Report (SITREP) for 2200L 24 JAN 2016
> 
> – Local reports indicate a possible decrease in federal vehicles in the vicinity (IVO) Burns, OR, which may be due to a recent FBI shift change. Sources also reported a decrease in the number of law enforcement vehicles in the area.
> 
> – There’s been no change in the FBI’s posture IVO Burns, OR.
> 
> – Pacific Patriots Network leadership were introduced to two new FBI agents who are replacing the previous two FBI contacts. The new FBI agents desired continued communications with the PPN, and wanted the PPN to continue to communicate with Ammon Bundy. Each party also reiterated a desire for a peaceful resolution.
> 
> – Lavoy Finicum renewed his commitment to the Malheur cause, denying rumors that the group was attempting to negotiate their way out of the Refuge. “All of those of you who are worried that we are about to negotiate a withdrawal with the FBI, that is not the case. We are not going anywhere. We are here to do a job,” he recently told reporters.
> ...


https://www.oathkeepers.org/malheur-...l-24-jan-2016/

----------


## youngbuck

> This OK sitrep explains why there were so many Fed vehicles. Seems like it was a simple duty change out with a new crew coming in and the other heading out after turn over.
> 
> https://www.oathkeepers.org/malheur-...l-24-jan-2016/


That's some good news!  The whole "200 vehicles" thing had me a bit worried.

----------


## Weston White

> We're headed where the Montana Freemen have already been. (the longest FBI standoff ever... 81 days)
> 
> 
> Trying to 'validate' the 'credentials' of a separate legal system aka 'Sovereign Citizen' movement.
> The 'fringe' stigma is hopelessly embedded into the public perception...
> 
> Add to it unrecognized, unelected and self-appointed Judges like *Bruce Doucette*
> declaring himself 'Superior' and presiding over it. (54 yo retired Computer repairman)
> 
> ...


Just stick to the facts, and avoid all the sovereign and anarchist mumbo-jumbo.  Otherwise, I have found it more productive to repeatedly slam your head into the wall.

----------


## Weston White

> This OK sitrep explains why there were so many Fed vehicles. Seems like it was a simple duty change out with a new crew coming in and the other heading out after turn over.


*  Note for future reference in FBI tactics, the FBI was staging in preparation to go tactical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Bundy-arrested

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I heard a rumor someone was killed.  Anyone know anything about that?

----------


## CPUd

> I heard a rumor someone was killed.  Anyone know anything about that?


Lavoy Finicum.

----------


## tod evans

Teh Newz says;





> Propaganda worded very carefully;
> 
> *Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy, 7 others arrested after gunfight kills 1, injures 1*
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27...injures-1.html
> 
> The leader of a group of armed protesters who had occupied a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon for 24 days was arrested along with four others Tuesday after a traffic stop prompted gunfire that left one person dead and another injured.
> 
> The FBI and Oregon State Police arrested Ammon Bundy, 40, his brother Ryan, 43, Brian Cavalier, 44, Shawna Cox, 59, and Ryan Payne, 32, at around 4:25 p.m. local time on U.S. Highway 395.
> ...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

It sounds like unarmed peaceful protesters were stopped for a bogus "warrant" and then shot up by the goons...

----------


## Badger Paul

_"Then it can be provisioned, sold and purchased and taxed as applicable. "
_
Yeah to the corporations and rich man resort developers who will buy it all up. Who the hell do you think your kidding? Mom and pop ranchers can't afford what the Koch brothers and or Ted Turner will pay to states and counties to control that land. And if they could, whose to stop them from selling out if their cattle is wiped out by disease, drought, blizzards or they need money to pay the bills? 

The bottom line is people didn't start getting pissed about federal control until new rules came along that dealt with the environment that ranchers didn't like. But that wasn't the BLM or FWS's fault. They just enforce what Congress or the Executive Branch comes up with. Just remember this, the amount of Federal land in the West is still the same as it was after Ronald Reagan was President, Bush I and Bush II and Republican controlled Congresses and Republican dominance of the Mountain States of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. You think it a coincidence?  The bottom line is the states and counties are not interested in becoming landlords and would sell their land off in heartbeat to the highest bidder to surplus their budgets. And if ranchers think they have it bad now, wait until their cattle trespass on Koch owned land and some cattle baron's land and armed guards force them off (just like in the Old West), not just the FBI who have to read them their Miranda Rights.

----------


## youngbuck

> _"Then it can be provisioned, sold and purchased and taxed as applicable. "
> _
> Yeah to the corporations and rich man resort developers who will buy it all up. Who the hell do you think your kidding? Mom and pop ranchers can't afford what the Koch brothers and or Ted Turner will pay to states and counties to control that land. And if they could, whose to stop them from selling out if their cattle is wiped out by disease, drought, blizzards or they need money to pay the bills? 
> 
> The bottom line is people didn't start getting pissed about federal control until new rules came along that dealt with the environment that ranchers didn't like. But that wasn't the BLM or FWS's fault. They just enforce what Congress or the Executive Branch comes up with. Just remember this, the amount of Federal land in the West is still the same as it was after Ronald Reagan was President, Bush I and Bush II and Republican controlled Congresses and Republican dominance of the Mountain States of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. You think it a coincidence?  The bottom line is the states and counties are not interested in becoming landlords and would sell their land off in heartbeat to the highest bidder to surplus their budgets. And if ranchers think they have it bad now, wait until their cattle trespass on Koch owned land and some cattle baron's land and armed guards force them off (just like in the Old West), not just the FBI who have to read them their Miranda Rights.


  So are you saying you think should remain as it is now, with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?  Because, umm, rancher's cattle might trespass on someone's land or be affected by disease, drought or blizzards?  Help me understand you.

----------


## Badger Paul

_" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_

As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.

You act as though the BLM is its own entity. You're the one who owns it pal, you pay for it. You, me, everyone who pays taxes. It's a federal agency. Help me understand you if you please.

----------


## Origanalist

> _" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_
> 
> As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.
> 
> You act as though the BLM is its own entity. You're the one who owns it pal, you pay for it. You, me, everyone who pays taxes. It's a federal agency. Help me understand you if you please.


Ha ha ha, you may pay for it but you sure as hell don't own it.

----------


## pcosmar

> _" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_
> 
> As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.


No,
As opposed to it being controlled and used by the people that live there.. the state and county..

not some unelected bureaucrat in DC

----------


## Badger Paul

"not some unelected bureaucrat in DC"

Who are directed and watched over by the elected bureaucrats in D.C. including two U.S. Senators for each state in the West plus all their House members. All these over the BLM did occur to you to ask what Congress is doing to try and "reign" them in?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "not some unelected bureaucrat in DC"
> 
> Who are directed and watched over by the elected bureaucrats in D.C. including two U.S. Senators for each state in the West plus all their House members. All these over the BLM did occur to you to ask what Congress is doing to try and "reign" them in?


If you think elections or the elected have anything whatsoever to do with the will of the people, then you have lost your mind.  They have made it abundantly clear that they can violate the will of the people with impunity and continue to get reelected.  Our government is broken.  Utterly and completely broken.

----------


## Badger Paul

"They have made it abundantly clear that they can violate the will of the people with impunity and continue to get reelected."

And  whose fault is that? The people get what they deserve until they wise up but you can't say at least they didn't have a chance to make the right decision.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> _" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_
> 
> As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.
> 
> You act as though the BLM is its own entity. You're the one who owns it pal, you pay for it. You, me, everyone who pays taxes. It's a federal agency. Help me understand you if you please.


Goons!  You are talking about goons!  You don't "own" anything... The goons steal it from you and then make you think you have a "say" in how it's used (unless you disagree with them, of course)...

----------


## youngbuck

> _" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_
> 
> As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.
> 
> You act as though the BLM is its own entity. You're the one who owns it pal, you pay for it. You, me, everyone who pays taxes. It's a federal agency. Help me understand you if you please.


 I'm not your pal, you clueless dumb$#@!.  You did nothing to actually explain your position, prick.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> "not some unelected bureaucrat in DC"
> 
> Who are directed and watched over by the elected bureaucrats in D.C. including two U.S. Senators for each state in the West plus all their House members. All these over the BLM did occur to you to ask what Congress is doing to try and "reign" them in?


Have you ever thought about being a productive member of society? You know, instead of some $#@! spewing tapeworm...

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> "not some unelected bureaucrat in DC"
> 
> Who are directed and watched over by the elected bureaucrats in D.C. including two U.S. Senators for each state in the West plus all their House members. All these over the BLM did occur to you to ask what Congress is doing to try and "reign" them in?


Have you ever thought about being a productive member of society? You know, instead of some $#@! spewing tapeworm...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "They have made it abundantly clear that they can violate the will of the people with impunity and continue to get reelected."
> 
> And  whose fault is that? The people get what they deserve until they wise up but you can't say at least they didn't have a chance to make the right decision.


People do not stab themselves in the eye on purpose.  Can a brainwashed person be held responsible for carrying out their programming?  The brainwash may not have worked on you and me, but it's clearly worked on them.  The guilty party is not the victim of the brainwash, but the perpetrators of it.  And who is doing the brainwashing?  The media? Are they the primary actor, are they complicit, or are they just the tool of the oligarchs?

Regardless, the idiots in the streets who oppose us are not the enemies, they are the victims.  Just like in The Matrix, they are the very people we are trying to save, and yet we have to deal with them *as though they were* enemies.  But they are not really the enemy.  The enemies are the media interests which are brainwashing the people, and the oligarchs which control them.  Focusing on the brainwash victims is useless and counterproductive since that will only reinforce the brainwash.

What we have to do is break down the brainwash.  How to do that exactly I do not know, but what i do know is what we have been doing up to this point has not been effective.  

As for myself, I would be inclined to learn the syntactic mechanism whereby the brainwash is operating, and break it down at the molecular level without trying to attack "FoxNews" and so on because this just creates a defensive reaction amongst the brainwashed.

----------


## Mach

> People do not stab themselves in the eye on purpose.  Can a brainwashed person be held responsible for carrying out their programming?  The brainwash may not have worked on you and me, but it's clearly worked on them.  The guilty party is not the victim of the brainwash, but the perpetrators of it.  And who is doing the brainwashing?  The media? Are they the primary actor, are they complicit, or are they just the tool of the oligarchs?
> 
> Regardless, the idiots in the streets who oppose us are not the enemies, they are the victims.  Just like in The Matrix, they are the very people we are trying to save, and yet we have to deal with them *as though they were* enemies.  But they are not really the enemy.  The enemies are the media interests which are brainwashing the people, and the oligarchs which control them.  Focusing on the brainwash victims is useless and counterproductive since that will only reinforce the brainwash.
> 
> *What we have to do is break down the brainwash.  How to do that* exactly I do not know, but what i do know is what we have been doing up to this point has not been effective.  
> 
> As for myself, I would be inclined to learn the syntactic mechanism whereby the brainwash is operating, and break it down at the molecular level without trying to attack "FoxNews" and so on because this just creates a defensive reaction amongst the brainwashed.



A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow


A new scientific _SOCIAL_ truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck 

*Repetition breeds habit.*


.
.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> _"Then it can be provisioned, sold and purchased and taxed as applicable."_
> 
> Yeah to the corporations and rich man resort developers who will buy it all up. Who the hell do you think your kidding? Mom and pop ranchers can't afford what the Koch brothers and or Ted Turner will pay to states and counties to control that land. And if they could, whose to stop them from selling out if their cattle is wiped out by disease, drought, blizzards or they need money to pay the bills? 
> 
> The bottom line is people didn't start getting pissed about federal control until new rules came along that dealt with the environment that ranchers didn't like. But that wasn't the BLM or FWS's fault. They just enforce what Congress or the Executive Branch comes up with. Just remember this, the amount of Federal land in the West is still the same as it was after Ronald Reagan was President, Bush I and Bush II and Republican controlled Congresses and Republican dominance of the Mountain States of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. You think it a coincidence?  The bottom line is the states and counties are not interested in becoming landlords and would sell their land off in heartbeat to the highest bidder to surplus their budgets. And if ranchers think they have it bad now, wait until their cattle trespass on Koch owned land and some cattle baron's land and armed guards force them off (just like in the Old West), not just the FBI who have to read them their Miranda Rights.





> _" with the BLM controlling monstrous swaths of land in the west?"_
> 
> As opposed to say, a Chinese corporation with billions to spend as chump change to buy up American land.


This is just a bunch of "Bill Gates will buy up all the bread!" bull$#@! ...

----------


## Weston White

> Yeah to the corporations and rich man resort developers who will buy it all up. Who the hell do you think your kidding? Mom and pop ranchers can't afford what the Koch brothers and or Ted Turner will pay to states and counties to control that land. And if they could, whose to stop them from selling out if their cattle is wiped out by disease, drought, blizzards or they need money to pay the bills? 
> 
> The bottom line is people didn't start getting pissed about federal control until new rules came along that dealt with the environment that ranchers didn't like. But that wasn't the BLM or FWS's fault. They just enforce what Congress or the Executive Branch comes up with. Just remember this, the amount of Federal land in the West is still the same as it was after Ronald Reagan was President, Bush I and Bush II and Republican controlled Congresses and Republican dominance of the Mountain States of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. You think it a coincidence?  The bottom line is the states and counties are not interested in becoming landlords and would sell their land off in heartbeat to the highest bidder to surplus their budgets. And if ranchers think they have it bad now, wait until their cattle trespass on Koch owned land and some cattle baron's land and armed guards force them off (just like in the Old West), not just the FBI who have to read them their Miranda Rights.


It is called 'mission-creep' and it is very much the fault of these agencies, who create their own policies, rules, and publish their own regulations--which more often than not exceed the statutes granting them specific scope.  The issue of the robber-barons is distinct to the issue of governmental despotism.

The federal government is not creating rules to deal with the environment, they are creating rules to overburden the small business that cannot compete under mounds of paperwork, cannot keep up with the ever changing and new rules being created and can get busted and fined for literally any ambiguously misapplied statute--meanwhile, those favored businesses are granted exemptions or are conveniently overlooked.

The longer this process continues, the tighter its grasp is felt and the more its pain is reckoned.

----------


## Weston White

> "not some unelected bureaucrat in DC"
> 
> Who are directed and watched over by the elected bureaucrats in D.C. including two U.S. Senators for each state in the West plus all their House members. All these over the BLM did occur to you to ask what Congress is doing to try and "reign" them in?


And where are they in all of this?  They are rooting, they are tooting, they are hooting, for who, who, who?  Justice? Ethics? Constituents?  FBI?  Bingo, Bobo! That is right, isn't it!  The FBI.  The F-B-I.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And where are they in all of this?  They are rooting, they are tooting, they are hooting, for who, who, who?  Justice? Ethics? Constituents?  FBI?  Bingo, Bobo! That is right, isn't it!  The FBI.  The F-B-I.

----------


## Weston White

> "They have made it abundantly clear that they can violate the will of the people with impunity and continue to get reelected."
> 
> And  whose fault is that? The people get what they deserve until they wise up but you can't say at least they didn't have a chance to make the right decision.


Until what, they wise up and make a stand on federal lands, so then you, the media, their representatives, and the FBI can punch them down?

----------


## UWDude

> Until what, they wise up and make a stand on federal lands, so then you, the media, their representatives, and the FBI can punch them down?



Where else should you protest, but public lands?

----------


## Weston White

> Where else should you protest, but public lands?

----------


## Deborah K

> What we have to do is break down the brainwash.  How to do that exactly I do not know, but what i do know is what we have been doing up to this point has not been effective.


God, how I miss Aaron Russo.  He was so, so good at rallying the troops, getting us to coordinate mass emails to the media, which forced them to respond.  At the time, when he was alive, (circa '06 - '07) we were trying to get Fox to acknowledge Dr. Paul because they were completely ignoring him.  We succeeded. After that, he started getting more news coverage and we finally started hearing more debates about "Constitutional law".  Before that time, no pundit ever mentioned the Constitution.  Ron changed all that. 

Then there's stories like the battle of Athens, TN., where the local people overthrew their local government.

I think the solution lies somewhere within these two actions.

----------


## pcosmar

> God, how I miss Aaron Russo.  He was so, so good at rallying the troops, getting us to coordinate mass emails to the media, which forced them to respond.  At the time, when he was alive, (circa '06 - '07) we were trying to get Fox to acknowledge Dr. Paul because they were completely ignoring him.  We succeeded. After that, he started getting more news coverage and we finally started hearing more debates about "Constitutional law".  Before that time, no pundit ever mentioned the Constitution.  Ron changed all that. 
> 
> Then there's stories like the battle of Athens, TN., where the local people overthrew their local government.
> 
> I think the solution lies somewhere within these two actions.


Needs both.
History shows that events like our revolution,, and the Battle of Athens are effective,, for a time.

unless people hold on to liberty they lose it.

any other resistance is met by nearly immediate violence.

Government violence is a hard reality. and ours is getting worse.

----------


## Thor

So Santilli was the rat, or stooge, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...127-story.html




> ....
> 
> On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman  unsealed the governments criminal complaint against two brothers, Ammon  and Ryan Bundy, and Jon Ritzheimer, as well as five others arrested in  connection with the occupation.
> 
> All stand accused of conspiring to  use threats, intimidation or force to stop federal officers from doing  their duty, a charge also used against tax protesters Edward and Elaine  Brown, a New Hampshire couple who holed up in their home in 2007 and  engaged in an armed standoff with federal agents for months. It  eventually ended peacefully with their arrest.
> 
> *A significant  amount of the FBIs information used to charge Ammon Bundy came from an  activist named Pete Santilli, who was living inside the refuge and  broadcasting live his conversations with fellow activists.*
> 
> To  demonstrate a conspiracy, the government has a lower burden than it  would with similar charges, such as aiding and abetting, or  solicitation. A conspiracy charge in federal court does not require the  underlying offense to have taken place, so prosecutors can charge the  defendants based on their statements, without proving they actually  committed a crime.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So Santilli was the rat, or stooge, eh?
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...127-story.html


No, his naivete got taken advantage of.

----------


## Thor

> No, his naivete got taken advantage of.


That would be a stooge then...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That would be a stooge then...


That's not what "stooge" means.  A stooge is an obedient subordinate lackey.  If he were a stooge, then he'd have to be doing it on purpose.

----------


## Thor

> That's not what "stooge" means.  A stooge is an obedient subordinate lackey.  If he were a stooge, then he'd have to be doing it on purpose.


Stooge:

pushover - someone who is easily taken advantage of
dupe, victim - a person who is tricked or swindled

----------


## Uriel999

I've now posted this in all Burns, Oregon threads. 




> OFFICIAL CALL TO ACTION
> 
> Update: January 29, 2016
> 
> In light of the events that have taken place in Harney County, Oregon over the last two days, the official Pacific Patriots Network statement is as follows:
> 
> PPN condemns the violent action taken by the Harney County Sheriff's Department along with the FBI in the shooting death of Mr. Lavoy Finicum.
> 
> PPN condemns the violent action taken by the Harney County Sheriff's Department along with the FBI in the execution of arrests associated with the people at the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
> ...

----------


## sparebulb

As far as I'm concerned, Burns, OR is a city predominantly populated with feckless, spineless, cowards who have no self-respect.

If I happen to travel that way in the future, I'm not stopping.

I might spit out the window, though.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Stooge:
> 
> pushover - someone who is easily taken advantage of
> dupe, victim - a person who is tricked or swindled


No.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stooge




> Stooge | Definition of Stooge by Merriam-Webster
> Simple Definition of stooge
> Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
> : *a weak or unimportant person who is controlled by a powerful person, organization, etc.*
> : a performer in a show who says and does foolish things that other performers make jokes about
> 
> Full Definition of stooge
> 1
> a :  *one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal*
> ...


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/stooge



> stooge
> See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
> Syllabification: stooge
> Pronunciation: /sto͞oj/ 
> Definition of stooge in English:
> noun
> 
> 1 derogatory *A person who serves merely to support or assist others,* particularly in doing unpleasant work:
> you fell for that helpless-female act and let her make you a stooge
> ...


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...english/stooge



> Definition of stooge - English Dictionary
> 
> English
> "stooge" in British English
> See all translations
> stooge
> noun [C] UK    US    /stuːdʒ/ disapproving        
>  *a ​person who is ​forced or ​paid by someone in ​authority* to do an ​unpleasant or ​secret ​job for them:
> The ​newly ​appointed ​mayor is ​widely ​regarded as a ​government stooge.
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stooge



> stooge
> [stooj] 
> Spell Syllables
> Examples Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> an entertainer who feeds lines to the main comedian and usually serves as the butt of his or her jokes.
> 2.
> *any underling, assistant, or accomplice.*
> ...


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stooge



> stooge  (sto͞oj)
> n.
> 1. The partner in a comedy team who feeds lines to the other comedian; a straight man.
> 2. *One who allows oneself to be used* for another's profit or advantage; a puppet.
> 3. Slang A stool pigeon.
> intr.v. stooged, stoog·ing, stoog·es
> To be a stooge or behave like one.
> [Origin unknown.]

----------


## Occam's Banana

The mighty Will Grigg:

*Tyranny, Defiance, and the Death of LaVoy Finicum*
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...-of-lavoy.html
_William Norman Grigg (28 January 2016)_

LaVoy Finicum, who was shot at a roadblock by Oregon State Troopers and  left to bleed to death in the snow, was not a violent criminal. He and  his colleagues from the group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional  Freedom were traveling to John Day, Oregon to organize political resistance to federal control over lands in the western United States.

After trying to run the roadblock, Finicum plowed his vehicle into a  snowbank. He exited with his hands in the air, staggering in the snow  before making a motion with his right hand that the FBI claims was an  effort to grab a handgun. Another possibility is that Finicum, as some  witnesses claim, was shot while his hands were raised in a posture of  surrender, and that his subsequent movements were involuntary. 

The carefully planned ambush, which displayed detailed intelligence  regarding the plans of Finicum and his friends, was a joint operation  between the FBI and the Oregon State Police. It was was not carried out  in defense of persons or property, but to enforce the will of those in  control of the Regime. Finicum, a 55-year-old rancher from Arizona, had  become the subject of a federal warrant after renouncing his grazing contract with the Washington-based usurpers who control range lands in that state. 

The night before he was killed on Oregon’s Highway 395 in an  FBI-orchestrated ambush, Finicum had denounced the “escalation” he had  seen on the part of government officials seeking to end the CCF’s  occupation of the Malheur National Refuge. On several previous occasions  Finicum – who had raised cattle and scores of foster children -- made it clear that he would rather die than spend the balance of his life immured in a government cage.

Reasonable people can contend that the occupation was an imprudent  provocation. That criticism can apply with equal validity to many  similarly imprudent acts carried out by idealistic but obnoxious men  during the 1760s and early 1770s, and now celebrated (in sanitized form)  by inmates of the government-operated school system. Many of the same  people who numbly absorb annual recitations of Patrick Henry’s oration at the Old South Church  will see Finicum as a fanatic who committed “suicide by cop,” rather  than someone for whom “Give me liberty, or give me death” was a credo,  rather than a cliché. 

After being shot multiple times, Finicum fell on his back – but he  didn’t die instantly. The video captured by an FBI surveillance aircraft  showed him lifting his hand imploringly, and holding it up for several  seconds before he lost consciousness.

None of the officers on the scene approached Finicum to disarm him and  render medical assistance while there was still a chance to save his  life. In the press conference that served as a debut for the FBI’s snuff film,  Greg Bretzing, a spokesman for the American Cheka, explained that  potentially life-saving aid was withheld while the officers took Ammon  Bundy and four others into custody.

This emphasis on “force protection” reflects the wartime priorities of  an occupying army. Fallen enemy combatants are not owed the same  consideration as criminal suspects. Thus Finicum’s mortal remains were  left sprawled on the frozen ground, in a posture eerily reminiscent of  the body of Lakota Chief Bigfoot following the vengeful Seventh  Cavalry’s massacre at Wounded Knee.

The federal statute under which Ammon Bundy and six other members of the  CCF have been charged, 18 USC section 372, offers no protection  whatsoever to the persons and property of U.S. citizens. That measure,  enacted in 1861, is designed to protect “officers” of the federal  government (including administrative personnel and other bureaucrats) as  they prey upon the Regime’s subjects.  It originally targeted actual  and suspected sympathizers with the Confederacy, which in practice meant  anybody who respected and defended the right of states to withdraw from  the Union, even if motivated by an ignoble cause.

After the Confederacy was defeated and the once-voluntary Union was  repurposed into a Soyuz, the same measure was frequently pressed into  service during the thirteen-year military occupation of the South. A Justice Department memo written in 1977  noted that “although this provision is more than 100 years old, it has  been infrequently used. Most recorded cases have involved internal  revenue agents whose efforts to track down tax-evading operators of  illegal stills met with resistance.” 

Those anti-Bootlegger operations, significantly, continued for decades  after the Regime ended the exercise in authoritarian derangement called  alcohol prohibition: The 1977 memo cited three cases that occurred over  the previous twelve years, the latest reaching the Supreme Court in  1971. The purpose of the memo, significantly, was to provide the FBI  with a legal rationale for investigating and prosecuting, under the  rubric of “conspiracy to impede federal officers,” acts that were not  explicitly criminalized by other federal statutes. 

The “conspiracy to impede” statute “did not even contain a requirement  that an overt act be done in furtherance of the conspiracy before the  conspiratorial conduct would become actionable,” pointed out Assistant  Attorney General John M. Harmon.  “The broad purpose of protecting the  Federal presence as fully as possible supports a broad, rather than  narrow, reading of the word `officer,’” he continued. Thus it was the  Justice Department’s opinion that “the term `officer’… includes both  permanent and temporary, full- and part-time officers and employees of  the United States.”

Sixteen federal tax-consumers are usually stationed in the cluster of  buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They act as a salient  representing an unaccountable federal bureaucracy that has usurped local jurisdictions by seizing land that was not theirs by right or constitutional mandate. Indeed, the  federal claim to the land in Harney County, Oregon rests entirely on  illegal settlement by white ranchers in violation of treaty obligations  with the Paiute Indians.

Unlike the peaceful protest by the CCF, the illegal occupation of what  would become Harney County in the 1870s did involve violence and  extensive property damage – and it was actively encouraged by the Feds  as a way of consolidating control over territory to which they were not  entitled. That act of land larceny was “legitimized” in the fashion described by St. Augustine.  A “government,” he explained in The City of God, is simply a gang that  "acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues  peoples," and then achieves legitimacy "not by the renouncing of  aggression but by the attainment of impunity."

Although the CCF did express its intention to use force in self-defense,  the “occupation” of the vacant headquarters buildings – which would be  considered trespassing, if they were legitimately owned by a definable  victim – was not achieved by violence. But because the action undermined  the local franchise of a Regime claiming a universal monopoly on  violence, it was treated as an act of terrorism. 

In her sophomoric screed called a “criminal complaint,” FBI Special Agent (she is, to be certain,  a _very_  “special” agent) Katherine Armstrong uses quadruple hearsay to depict  the “occupiers” as a nest of terrorists bent on wreaking bloody havoc in  Harney County.  After the “occupation” of the refuge began, “BLM was  notified … by a Harney County Sheriff’s Officer that a source informed  him that the group … had explosives, night vision goggles, and weapons  and that if they didn’t get the fight they wanted out there they would  bring the fight to town.” 

None of this was true, of course, and the conveniently anonymous  “source” is hidden beneath redundant layers of official deniability. The  only “fight” conducted by the CCF was a quixotic campaign “to restore  and defend the Constitution,” as Armstrong’s criminal complaint observes.   This kind of seditious talk was enough to cause Harney County Sheriff  Dave Ward, who displayed canine docility in doing the bidding of his  federal masters, to irrigate his skivvies. 

The CCF, quavered Ward in a January 27 press conference,  “have chosen to threaten and intimidate the America they profess to  love.” No being in whom we can find even a faint flicker of rationality  could genuinely believe that _anybody_ -- let alone _the entire country_  -- was threatened and intimidated by the “occupiers.” But people whose  position in society depends on the threat and exercise of lethal  violence are intimidated by those who are prepared to call their bluff. 

This, more than anything else, explains why LaVoy Finicum was left to  die in the snow while his killers hurled flash-bang grenades at the  terrified survivors in his vehicle. State-inflicted death is the last  argument of tyrants, particularly those who fear that defiance may  become contagious.

----------


## Thor

> No.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stooge
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/stooge
> 
> 
> ...


As you pointed out, there are many definitions of the word, and whether he was unwittingly tricked, or a paid accomplice, in either regard he can correctly be defined as being a stooge.  Some may even argue he was part of a comedy routine.

So yes.

----------


## osan

> No.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stooge
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...english/stooge
> 
> 
> ...


No no no... I am surprised at you.  Here we have what are real stooges.  Three of them, in fact:



What are they teaching you youngins these days?

----------


## Weston White

Didn't all the government's "officials" say the "anti-government" terrorists have zero support and that everybody just wants them to go away?


Approximately twenty local protesters gathered to voice their opposition against law enforcement actions related to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation on Friday.

----------


## osan

> God, how I miss Aaron Russo.  He was so, so good at rallying the troops, getting us to coordinate mass emails to the media, which forced them to respond.  At the time, when he was alive, (circa '06 - '07) we were trying to get Fox to acknowledge Dr. Paul because they were completely ignoring him.  We succeeded. After that, he started getting more news coverage and we finally started hearing more debates about "Constitutional law".  Before that time, no pundit ever mentioned the Constitution.  Ron changed all that. 
> 
> Then there's stories like the battle of Athens, TN., where the local people overthrew their local government.
> 
> *I think the solution lies somewhere within these two actions.*


But with every passing new outrage, that envelope narrows toward the latter.

----------


## osan

> Didn't all the government's "officials" say the "anti-government" terrorists have zero support and that everybody just wants them to go away?
> 
> 
> Approximately twenty local protesters gathered to voice their opposition against law enforcement actions related to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation on Friday.


As if Theye could give the least damn about such gestures.

It astounds me how people cling to nonsense, even unto their own destruction.

We are well past the less extreme measures for correcting that which needs correction.  

Firstly, the nation as a sufficiently proportioned subset of the whole has no basis for moving forward.  At the very least, we need to have in hand a strong understanding of the principles of proper human relations.  We do not.  Without it, we can fight and "win", but where will that leave us?  Nowhere good.

Secondly, as such a population we need to adopt the correct attitude for being free men living among our fellows.  We have not.  We still know precious little about minding our own damned business.

Thirdly, we have to understand that no circumstance likely to become real will shake loose the minds of the remaining population from their self-willed idiocy.  We do not.

Finally, we need to recognize that, given point the third, it is approaching impossibility to deliver this land into a state of freedom through the normal channels that would yet succeed, were the critical mass of will to do so in evidence, which it is not. 

This leaves material action, starting with mass civil disobedience and most likely leading to open warfare.  That is the hand we have dealt ourselves and for which we should all be in full rue for our woeful failure in responsibility to ourselves and our fellows.

We can banter all day in the world of theory and fairy dust.  But when one breaks out their inner statistician, it becomes evident that what is required for imbuing the land with freedom cannot by any practical means be counted upon to become real.  The time for working within the so-called "system" is well past us because the vast majority of those whose responsibility it is to make things happen (that would be "the people") do not even believe there is a problem.  Furthermore, they perceive those around them who see the trouble as being mentally unsound, fit for being ignored at the very least, caged and killed at the other extreme.

I repeat unto nausea that we are now almost certainly being corralled into a dichotomous choice: lay down and surrender, or fight to the death.  I have no basis for surmising that Theye would allow anything else or that the people of America are going to suddenly feel the hand of God's enlightenment upon their brows and adopt a sane position on the scheme of life in this nation and take the more gentle Constitutional paths toward those ends.  That leaves the narrow path of live action.  The sooner people accept this, the less likely our already marginal chances for success will be further diminished.

There is no peaceful solution on the practical horizon, so far as I can see.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, his naivete got taken advantage of.


Actually,, there was an open transparency.. an honesty,, that was taken advantage of..

They wanted open and recorded conversations,, dishonest people used that against them.
*
Anything* you say, *Can* and *WILL*,,, be used *against you.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As you pointed out, there are many definitions of the word, and whether he was unwittingly tricked, or a paid accomplice, in either regard he can correctly be defined as being a stooge.  Some may even argue he was part of a comedy routine.
> 
> So yes.


They all said the same fkng thing.  "I don't care how wrong I am, I am still going to insist that I'm right until the day I die because my freaking ego is too sensitive to take correction." SMDH

----------


## erowe1

> So Santilli was the rat, or stooge, eh?


I don't know. It seems to me that the whole group was confused about what they wanted to accomplish. I thought that they wanted to be open about what they were up to and face the repercussions that were bound to arise publicly. It wasn't the sort of thing that would have any purpose if done in secret. I don't really see any plan here that had some way of leading to a positive outcome, unless allowing themselves to become victims of federal injustice while keeping themselves above reproach was it. But to do that, they couldn't approach it as people who have anything to hide about what they're doing.

----------


## phill4paul

> They all said the same fkng thing.  "I don't care how wrong I am, I am still going to insist that I'm right until the day I die because my freaking ego is too sensitive to take correction." SMDH


  He's a freaking Thunder-god, dude. Afford him a bit of leniency. Now both y'all shaddup.

----------


## pcosmar

> So Santilli was the rat, or stooge, eh?


No. He was a journalist.. He was documenting the event.  

That transparency and honesty were tools for the FEDs , and that should give a clue about who you are disparaging.. and who you are therefore supporting.

And this is something I have not seen addressed by any.

since when is the arrest of a journalist acceptable? freedom of the press something, something?

----------


## PRB

> No. He was a journalist.. He was documenting the event.  
> 
> That transparency and honesty were tools for the FEDs , and that should give a clue about who you are disparaging.. and who you are therefore supporting.
> 
> And this is something I have not seen addressed by any.
> 
> since when is the arrest of a journalist acceptable? freedom of the press something, something?


After NDAA, everybody is a terrrrrist unless proven otherwise.

----------


## Thor

> No no no... I am surprised at you.  Here we have what are real stooges.  Three of them, in fact:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they teaching you youngins these days?


Thanks.  Glad not everyone is nitpicking and there is still some common sense around here...

----------

