If the Oregon militiamen were Muslim or black, they'd probably be dead by now

[kscarbel2]

Associated Press / January 6, 2016

The leader of an American Indian tribe that regards an Oregon nature preserve as sacred issued a rebuke Wednesday to the armed men who are occupying the property, saying they are not welcome at the snowy bird sanctuary and must leave.

The Burns Paiute tribe was the latest group to speak out against the men, who have taken several buildings at the preserve to protest policies governing the use of federal land in the West.

"The protesters have no right to this land. It belongs to the native people who live here," tribal leader Charlotte Rodrique said.

She spoke at a news conference at the tribe's cultural center, about half-hour drive from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is being occupied by some 20 men led by Ammon Bundy.

Ammon Bundy is demanding that the refuge be handed over to locals.

Rodrique said she "had to laugh" at the demand, because she knew Bundy was not talking about giving the land to the tribe.

The 13,700-acre Burns Paiute Reservation is north of this remote town in Oregon sagebrush country. The reservation is separate from the wildlife refuge, but tribal members consider it part of their ancestral land.

As with other tribes, the Burns' Paiute's link to the land is marked by a history of conflict with white settlers and the U.S. government. In the late 1800s, they were forced off a sprawling reservation created by an 1872 treaty that was never ratified. Some later returned and purchased property in the Burns area, where about 200 tribal members now live.

The Burns Paiute tribe has guaranteed access to the refuge for activities that are important to their culture, including gathering a plant used for making traditional baskets and seeds that are used for making bread. The tribe also hunts and fishes there.

Rodrique said the armed occupiers are "desecrating one of our sacred sites" with their presence at refuge.

Jarvis Kennedy, a tribal council member, said: "We don't need these guys here. They need to go home and get out of here."

[HeavyGunner]

I'm referring to Paul's post number 22 here.

I don't trust the government, Feds or any of the others based on MY experiences with what they've done and the info they twist to get it done in my home state.

I don't buy the tortoise was as bad off as the fish and game said. I base this off of what the fish and game has done in my state. They have literally closed well over a 100 lumber mills since the 1980's (there used to be a trailer with this info painted on it to raise awareness) with flat out lies. First we were disturbing the Grizzlies which were "endangered" and the Grizzlies according to the "biologists" were too frightened to cross any road or be near any logging job. Then it was the spotted owl which supposedly loggers were ruining their habitat but later found that a bird of prey (I think it was the bald eagle) had moved into the area and was eating them. Then it was dust from the dirt roads could get into the creeks and kill the bull trout (which the fish and game here tried eradicating them in the 40's) but when natural uninhibited forest fires burned in those same areas and filled th creek with ash until the point they were sludge that didn't hurt the trout because this is natural.

As for the wild horse advocates watch Unbranded and listen to the statistics of how ridiculously overpopulated the herds have become and how overgrazed the land they inhabit is. Did you know we tax payer pay over $43 million a year to capture and feed these horses in pens until they die since that is the only population control method since they no longer let the government cull the herds? Second point on the "wild horses" how can a NON NATIVE animal be protected and take precedence over everything else on OUR public lands? Horses came here with the Spaniards.

I really could go on with (in my opinion) lies and injustices from the government to squeeze us off of public land but I won't bore you anymore. remember it's OUR land NOT the governments.

[genco]

i see there are getting to be too many liberals on this sight.

[41chevy]

I'm referring to Paul's post number 22 here.

I don't trust the government, Feds or any of the others based on MY experiences with what they've done and the info they twist to get it done in my home state.

I don't buy the tortoise was as bad off as the fish and game said. I base this off of what the fish and game has done in my state. They have literally closed well over a 100 lumber mills since the 1980's (there used to be a trailer with this info painted on it to raise awareness) with flat out lies. First we were disturbing the Grizzlies which were "endangered" and the Grizzlies according to the "biologists" were too frightened to cross any road or be near any logging job. Then it was the spotted owl which supposedly loggers were ruining their habitat but later found that a bird of prey (I think it was the bald eagle) had moved into the area and was eating them. Then it was dust from the dirt roads could get into the creeks and kill the bull trout (which the fish and game here tried eradicating them in the 40's) but when natural uninhibited forest fires burned in those same areas and filled th creek with ash until the point they were sludge that didn't hurt the trout because this is natural.

As for the wild horse advocates watch Unbranded and listen to the statistics of how ridiculously overpopulated the herds have become and how overgrazed the land they inhabit is. Did you know we tax payer pay over $43 million a year to capture and feed these horses in pens until they die since that is the only population control method since they no longer let the government cull the herds? Second point on the "wild horses" how can a NON NATIVE animal be protected and take precedence over everything else on OUR public lands? Horses came here with the Spaniards.

I really could go on with (in my opinion) lies and injustices from the government to squeeze us off of public land but I won't bore you anymore. remember it's OUR land NOT the governments.

5 Paiute cattle ranchers are with the "occupation" group because their grazing land was taken away by the BLM. One Paiute interviewed showed the reporter his "weapons to fight. A copy of the Constitution and a copy of the AMENDMENTS.

The Grummans / Naval weapons site was closed down in 1980, 2/3's was given. . . GIVEN to Riverhead Township and the County of Suffolk including 2 runways, hangers,aircraft assembly buildings an Aneonic Testing hanger and the large hanger that Flight 800 was reassembled in. The deal was to use the facilities to provide manufacturing businesses to make up for the Grumman and Navy taxes in contributions to the local economy. It is 80% vacant and probably always will be. Why? This!

[david wild]

BS BS If a Muslim or Black did this Obama would be over there having lunch with them. That is the truth

[HeavyGunner]

5 Paiute cattle ranchers are with the "occupation" group because their grazing land was taken away by the BLM. One Paiute interviewed showed the reporter his "weapons to fight. A copy of the Constitution and a copy of the AMENDMENTS.

The Grummans / Naval weapons site was closed down in 1980, 2/3's was given. . . GIVEN to Riverhead Township and the County of Suffolk including 2 runways, hangers,aircraft assembly buildings an Aneonic Testing hanger and the large hanger that Flight 800 was reassembled in. The deal was to use the facilities to provide manufacturing businesses to make up for the Grumman and Navy taxes in contributions to the local economy. It is 80% vacant and probably always will be. Why? This!

DSC_0335-1024x682.jpg

Fiddle head fern?

[david wild]

I am angry everyday, I wake up, check the news and see Obama still here.

[41chevy]

Fiddle head fern?

Yup a fern!!

Now come spring the powers that be are going to punch drainage holes in the 5000 and 7200 foot runways, cover them with soil so "native grass" can cover them.

Course that now eliminated the Long Island Sky Dive School and the Long Island War Bird Tours. No runways no businesses.

[HeavyGunner]

Yup a fern!!

Now come spring the powers that be are going to punch drainage holes in the 5000 and 7200 foot runways, cover them with soil so "native grass" can cover them.

Course that now eliminated the Long Island Sky Dive School and the Long Island War Bird Tours. No runways no businesses.

That's so sad that we can't use our heads and see how over zealous "conservation" coupled with the EPA and other special interest groups are literally handcuffing business's or flat out putting them out of business. The BLM is supposedly letting buffalo go soon in eastern Montana and after they release them they are taking public comments. Sort of a we're releasing the buffalo whether you like it or not move I think.

[RowdyRebel]

Whatever happened to the whole "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," that I seem to remember reading somewhere? Something about self-evident truths and unalienable rights, too. Yet, we have a president who forces unpopular mandates upon the people, bureaucracies which act on the demands of a few powerful ($$$) groups completely ignoring the wants/needs/desires of the vast majority, a Supreme Court that has essentially wiped the 10th Amendment from the Constitution, and a Congress without the balls to stand up for their own co-equalness of their branch in government. Do we even HAVE a Constitution anymore? Government needs to be reigned in, but that isn't going to happen at the ballot box. Do you honestly believe Obama LEGITIMATELY received +99% of the vote in 100 different precincts in Ohio? Don't even TRY to tell me there was no funny business going on there. This president is (and always has been) illegitimate. He has governed without and in many cases AGAINST the "consent of the governed". Whoever comes into office next has quite the mess to clean up. The good news is that anything that has been implemented with Obama's pen can be eliminated with the next guy's pen. The GOP has shown they CAN put an Obamacare repeal bill on the president's desk, so the next president can sign it. Obama's term WILL be undone, and this once great nation WILL recover and be great once again.

[41chevy]

Whatever happened to the whole "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," that I seem to remember reading somewhere? Something about self-evident truths and unalienable rights, too. Yet, we have a president who forces unpopular mandates upon the people, bureaucracies which act on the demands of a few powerful ($$$) groups completely ignoring the wants/needs/desires of the vast majority, a Supreme Court that has essentially wiped the 10th Amendment from the Constitution, and a Congress without the balls to stand up for their own co-equalness of their branch in government. Do we even HAVE a Constitution anymore? Government needs to be reigned in, but that isn't going to happen at the ballot box. Do you honestly believe Obama LEGITIMATELY received +99% of the vote in 100 different precincts in Ohio? Don't even TRY to tell me there was no funny business going on there. This president is (and always has been) illegitimate. He has governed without and in many cases AGAINST the "consent of the governed". Whoever comes into office next has quite the mess to clean up. The good news is that anything that has been implemented with Obama's pen can be eliminated with the next guy's pen. The GOP has shown they CAN put an Obamacare repeal bill on the president's desk, so the next president can sign it. Obama's term WILL be undone, and this once great nation WILL recover and be great once again.

Like the Republicans were going to defund O Care and cut off monies to the Syrian Refugees in the latest budget? . . I see that went well. I do not believe any politician from the dog catcher to the president.

[kscarbel2]

Whatever happened to the whole "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," that I seem to remember reading somewhere? Something about self-evident truths and unalienable rights, too. Yet, we have a president who forces unpopular mandates upon the people, bureaucracies which act on the demands of a few powerful ($$$) groups completely ignoring the wants/needs/desires of the vast majority, a Supreme Court that has essentially wiped the 10th Amendment from the Constitution, and a Congress without the balls to stand up for their own co-equalness of their branch in government. Do we even HAVE a Constitution anymore? Government needs to be reigned in, but that isn't going to happen at the ballot box. Do you honestly believe Obama LEGITIMATELY received +99% of the vote in 100 different precincts in Ohio? Don't even TRY to tell me there was no funny business going on there. This president is (and always has been) illegitimate. He has governed without and in many cases AGAINST the "consent of the governed". Whoever comes into office next has quite the mess to clean up. The good news is that anything that has been implemented with Obama's pen can be eliminated with the next guy's pen. The GOP has shown they CAN put an Obamacare repeal bill on the president's desk, so the next president can sign it. Obama's term WILL be undone, and this once great nation WILL recover and be great once again.

So, you're suggesting that the promises made by the founding fathers (the aristocracy) to the masses of the thirteen colonies was a fraud, and the electoral college system is a sham?

[41chevy]

So, you're suggesting that the promises made by the founding fathers (the aristocracy) to the masses of the thirteen colonies was a fraud, and the electoral college system is a sham?

Nope the system and promises by the Founding Fathers works exactly as was planned to this day.

[kscarbel2]

Not punishing the Bundys for the Nevada standoff led to the occupation in Oregon

The Washington Post / January 7, 2016

If authorities let anti-government protesters get away with breaking the law, they'll keep doing it.

It has become a familiar scene: a cluster of armed “patriots” gathered at a rural locale in the West, protesting federal land-use policies and disputing the legitimacy of the government back in Washington, while nearby, law enforcement officers act stunned into submission.

That all unfolded again this past week in Burns, Ore., as a group of activists with guns seized a federal building on a wildlife refuge and demanded freedom for a couple of ranchers convicted of arson and sentenced to mandatory minimum prison terms, in what they claim is another example of extreme federal overreach.

The local school district shut down, since it couldn’t guarantee the safety of children traveling to and from school. Burns residents expressed agitation and exasperation with the standoff, since most, if not all, of the participants appear to live outside Harney County. The sheriff requested that the two dozen or so men holed up at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge pack up and leave town.

If the news from Oregon seemed like deja vu all over again, that’s because it was: At the head of the protest were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Back in April 2014, Cliven grabbed headlines by holding Bureau of Land Management officials at bay in an armed standoff on his ranch in which bloodshed was, by all accounts, only narrowly averted.

So why do federal officials once again find themselves in this position — awkwardly wringing their hands in hopes that the radicals’ demands and willpower will erode with a little time and cold weather? And facing the same cast of characters who humiliated law enforcement officials less than two years ago?

The answer, to a large extent, lies in that Nevada canyon where Bundy’s compatriots aimed their weapons at the federal agents and police officers who had come to enforce a court order requiring the confiscation of the ranch’s cattle, after Bundy refused for years to pay federal grazing fees for using public lands. When those guns were brandished, multiple violations of federal and state law occurred: It is a felony to point a weapon at a law enforcement officer and a federal felony to take aim at a U.S. government agent.

And yet there were no arrests that day. Moreover, despite the FBI’s assumption shortly afterward of the investigation into weapons use at the Bundy ranch — along with vows to hold the people responsible for the standoff fully accountable — no meaningful action has yet been taken against anyone involved.

That includes, of course, Cliven Bundy himself (who still hasn’t paid the fees and fines he owes the government) and his sons — who have now turned up in Oregon, threatening again to take over public lands, in defiance of the local community and the wishes of the people on whose behalf they’re ostensibly protesting, all in pursuit of their campaign to destroy the federal government’s ability to administer land policies.

Bundy explained his rationale, such as it is, in a press release shortly before the occupation began: “The United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch management. These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited power.”

The men leading the protest believe in an arcane interpretation of the Constitution that radically limits the reach and scope of the federal government — in their alternate universe, the county sheriff is the highest authority, while the feds are limited to regulating overseas trade and waging war. Derived from the racist swamplands of far-right extremism, their version of “constitutionalism” reflects a paranoid culture in which government officials are believed to be trading away Americans’ freedom on behalf of a nefarious New World Order that seeks to enslave all mankind.

If federal law enforcement authorities had taken their roles as stewards of the rule of law seriously, many of these players would be facing justice in federal courts right now, instead of opportunistically raising hell out in poverty-stricken rural areas. Certainly, there is no small irony in the fact that the tepid response from federal authorities demonstrates how little resemblance they have to the tyrannical thugs the Bundys say they are. But it also shows how just that accusation, when wielded by white conservatives, can cause federal law enforcement to back down.

Ever since their April 2014 standoff, Bundy and his associated “patriots” in such movements as the far-right Oath Keepers have been attempting to force further armed showdowns over Western land policies. Last spring, they tried to organize a confrontation with BLM officials in southwestern Oregon over mining rights, but that effort eventually fizzled out. Another attempted showdown in Montana with the U.S. Forest Service, also over mining rights, wound up being overshadowed by the massive forest fires that hit the state this summer.

None of that should have been possible: There should have been a number of arrests after the nonsense at the Bundy ranch. That there were none not only emboldened these right-wing radicals — and encouraged them to believe that their bizarre misinterpretation of the Constitution has some legitimacy — but, in the case of the Bundy brothers, directly empowered them to carry on as they did before.

“We believe these armed extremists have been emboldened by what they saw as a clear victory at the Cliven Bundy ranch and the fact that no one was held accountable for taking up arms against agents of the federal government,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project.

The failure of federal law enforcement to adequately respond to this kind of threatening behavior has also become a source of low morale in agencies the Bundys and their ilk like to demonize, such as the BLM and the Forest Service. This is particularly the case among federal field employees, who, according to those I’ve spoken with, are encountering increasing incidents of radicalized (and armed) “patriots” claiming that the agencies have no jurisdiction on federal lands.

That’s not to suggest that federal law enforcement should respond immediately with tactical units and guns blazing. That approach was attempted in the 1990s at two armed standoffs with far-right extremists — at Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho and at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex. — to disastrous effect. Those incidents inspired a fresh wave of far-right radicalism (including the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995) and were seen by many on the right as omens of looming government oppression.

It’s understandable that federal law enforcement might be reluctant to act precipitously after those disasters. A failure to act in any way whatsoever, though, invites more of the same and certain escalation, as the Oregon standoff demonstrates.

The brass back in Washington and agents in field offices throughout the West should look back to a different, less infamous siege from 20 years ago, one that offers a more helpful model for responding to these situations. In 1996, a group calling itself the Montana Freemen — which operated a number of money-making scams and made armed threats against county officials in Jordan, Mont. — similarly defied the federal government in an attempt to create its own homeland out on the prairie.

It took 81 days to wait them out, during the harsh Montana winter and into the muddy Montana spring, but rather than rush in, as in Waco and Ruby Ridge, FBI negotiators eventually persuaded all the people inside the Freemen compound to surrender peacefully. Several of the chief perpetrators wound up doing extensive federal prison time for a variety of bank, wire and mail fraud charges, as well as for making threats against county and federal officials.

There can be a middle ground between the bloodshed of Ruby Ridge and Waco and the tacit acceptance of what’s going on in Burns. We know from how the FBI handled the Freemen that federal authorities are perfectly capable of bringing extremists who brandish weapons and threaten government employees to justice without creating martyrs or worsening the situation. Somehow, in the intervening 20 years — and amid the changes in administrations along the way, not to mention personnel and law enforcement philosophies — that lesson got lost.

Federal authorities in the Justice Department and elsewhere have seemingly made a tactical decision to avoid confronting right-wing radicals, though their rationale has never been made clear. Maybe they fear backlash from a conservative media pack that has made efforts to track and confront right-wing extremist terrorism difficult, if not impossible, for federal law enforcement agencies (thanks in no small part to the nonsensical uproar that arose in 2009 over a Department of Homeland Security bulletin regarding recruitment and terrorist violence among right-wing extremists). But no one from any federal agency has come forward to explain their inaction, and in the meantime, people like the Bundys are taking exactly the wrong lessons from it.

What’s become abundantly clear in Oregon is that federal agents made a horrific mistake in failing to enforce the law after the Bundy ranch showdown. They are paying the price for that failure now. Maybe it’s time they remembered that it’s possible to stand up for the rule of law without breaking it.

[RowdyRebel]

No, the system works when all play by the rules. The problem is, the left doesn't play by the rules. You need an ID to open a bank account, cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, board a plane, drive a car, and hundreds of other daily activities...but to vote? Nah...no need to verify that you are who you say you are or live in the precinct in which you're trying to vote. To ask for ID from potential voters is RACIST! Voter fraud doesn't exist, even where it is obvious to even a casual observer we're told what we saw isn't really what we saw. New Black Panthers standing guard outside of polling places armed and intimidating anyone who might not vote for Obama? NO PROBLEM! Hundreds of precincts in a swing state turn up 99-100% for Obama? NOTHING TO SEE HERE! IRS systematically prohibiting conservative groups from being recognized as tax exempt organizations? NO BIG DEAL! Get rid of the fraud and hand out harsh penalties to those who abuse their power and the system would work.

[gearhead204]

Rowdy, I think you pretty well nailed it, those of us out west are just sick and tired of gubberment over reach, they are the steam roller and us rural land owners are the asphalt, every week it seems that another choking regulation is being discussed, a farmer or rancher now needs 3 people to to keep him in business, 1 to do the paper work, 1 to fight with the regulations and the environmentalists and 1 to do the daily work of making a living. I don't agree with the Bundy's but throwing the 2 guys back into prison is horse shit! and I'm glad some one is making some noise about it, just wish that story was getting more exposure.

[RowdyRebel]

I'd like to know what ever happened to the whole "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." clause in the 5th Amendment. Seems to me, if they were tried and convicted, sentenced, SERVED THEIR TIME and were released, to lock them up AGAIN for the same offense violates the Constitution. They served their time. The government should leave them the hell alone.

[carlotpilot]

if you guts have`nt noticed all the talk about the folks back in the slammer has been shifted to the group occupying the site now . i say lets get the focus back to the victims as much as possible

[kscarbel2]

if you guts have`nt noticed all the talk about the folks back in the slammer has been shifted to the group occupying the site now . i say lets get the focus back to the victims as much as possible

How did the two lawbreakers become victims? Based on the information below, they belong in jail. As for the militias, the only one I recognize in the year 2016 is the National Guard. Though we don't live in a perfect world, the task of "keeping the peace" in the United States of America belongs to state and local police, and sheriff's departments. The assistance of "colorful" gun-wielding self-proclaimed militias is not required (unless........they want to head over to Detroit and take a crack at peacekeeping there).

(http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison)

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.

Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.

Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.”

One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.

After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands.

Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

[carlotpilot]

double jeopardy.

[RowdyRebel]

According to the Illinois State Constitution, I am a member of the Illinois State Militia. No, I am not a member of the National Guard. In other words, what YOU "recognize" as the Militia doesn't matter and is flat out incorrect and uninformed.

[Underdog]

Most of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is intended to afford citizens protection FROM government intrusion. Last I checked, the National Guard is sanctioned BY the government.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[kscarbel2]

According to the Illinois State Constitution, I am a member of the Illinois State Militia. No, I am not a member of the National Guard. In other words, what YOU "recognize" as the Militia doesn't matter and is flat out incorrect and uninformed.

I respect your opinions..........please respect mine.

My understanding is, the National Guard is a state's primary militia force, i.e. the "organized" militia......per Sec 311 Title 10 of the US Code (that is what I intended to express). It is the only federally recognized militia, for both federal and state missions.

Other so-called "unorganized" state militias like the Illinois State Militia are not federally recognized (even though they may perform a military function). The unorganized state militias, in theory, includes every able-bodied man from age 17 to 45 who is not already in the National Guard. But good luck with that one.

In the event of an emergency, the National Guard is the one single force with state-wide capability (and of course can be mobilized to support federal requirements).

[RowdyRebel]

And where would we be if the only militias in 1775 were sanctioned by the government (i.e. loyal to the crown)? The Militia in this country was never intended to be federally sanctioned, as it was a last line of defense against federal overreach in order to protect the sovereignty of the state's, as well as being the first line of defense against foreign invasions as the local militia could be called up on a moment's notice whereas federal troops need to be deployed from wherever it is they are stationed and they might be days or weeks away from arriving where they are needed. Granted in today's world, with the surveillance technology we have, an invading army wouldn't likely reach our shores unnoticed. However, the enemies we face today are not coming with a fleet of war ships carrying hundreds of thousands on infantry soldiers, making the "unorganized" militia once again relevant, as they are the ones who are likely to be at the scene needing to act while the police and other government agents are "on their way". I can respect a lot of differing opinions...not so much, though, when they are simply wrong and run contrary to historical facts. For as well-read as you usually come across, it simply amazes me how far off you are on this.

[gearhead204]

HUMMM, some things fishy between the story,s here! the one i got earlier was that they started a back burn to protect their hay stacks from an approaching wild fire on BLM property, thus adding to to the acres burned and that was why the judge gave them a reduced sentence ,