Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[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 bullshit. 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/2016/01/02/breaking-militia-takes-over-federal-building-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...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

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-seizing-116-miles-ranchers-land-moving-texas-oklahoma-border/


http://www.americasfreedomfighters....-to-seize-90000-acres-of-texas-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 shit 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 shit 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 batshit 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 bullshit.

 

[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.

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

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.