Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[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 fuck 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.

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

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/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/

 

[goldenequity]

Interview with Ammon Bundy this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-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/oregon-wildlife-refuge-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.