BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Vector99 That's a very interesting read you found there, something to ponder.

I made a thread for it here

Wow, this mess unfolding ought to be a wake up call to everyone. The BLM should be renamed the BLG Bureau of Land Grab, as there is no such "Management". The BLM moves in and takes control of all the land. So they lease the land that wasn't theirs to start with to the Hammonds whom started a firebreak on their own land to stop a fire jeopardizing the rest of the land, cattle, farms and houses and the BLM calls it a Terrorist threat? However, on the the other hand , it's perfectly fine for the BLM to start fires and do burn down land, houses, cattle without notification to the land owners. I would say there is some grievances there. On what authority does the feds have in a state local issue to begin with? Who are the persons who have grievance against the Hammonds for damages? Well there are none. It's their land they set on fire! They burned 120 some acres of land to save 4000+ and they are terrorists?

So here comes the feds claiming terrorism and arrest and charge them. They serve time in jail and was let out. Now the feds and judge wants to charge them twice and that dumb ass Sheriff lets them do it. So now not only are they unlawfully kidnapped and imprisoned, they was deported out of the Oregon state to California state. Wonderful, just wonderful and no one see's anything wrong with this? Something is seriously wrong here. What better way to disappear someone who has inside information and a key witness in all the BLM's illegal fire burns and land grabs.

I am from Oregon and Burns is practically turning into a Ghost Town. The National Guard, Feds, Sheriffs are all worried about a bunch of pissed off cowboys taking over an unoccupied federal building in a ghost town. LOL This starting to sound like a Western movie. Good cause apparently that's what it takes.

I once knew a Oregon forest fire fighter smoke jumper. I have read reports of fire fighters dying in some of these "wild" fires. This was during a rash of unusual amount of fires in the 1990's. Even then he (my friend) and I knew something was not right. Fires suddenly popping up in the middle of remote lands and quickly getting out of control. If you read back in some of the history Oregon fires, the FBI was involved at one point doing investigations and probably still is. It was enough to raise their eyebrows why isn't it enough to look into all this mess? The BLM starts fires and many get out of control, this is FACT not fiction. All of you people are directing your hate to a poor old dirt farmer and not even questioning or even trying to get to the real root of the problem, the BLM. There is no doubt in my mind that the BLM is a crime organization. All these people out there are ready to shoot each other over a vacant BLM crime org building. :::Face palm::: How about you guys let Hammond go and work together & get to the bottom of the real problem. You might want to think about that the next time you sit down and eat a steak & potatoes, that a old dirt farmer like Hammond provided.

All of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves! You're all becoming a bunch of BLM puppets and slaves and don't even realize it. Who the hell jails a man for burning his own land down to save his families lives and other peoples lives?? Only the the BLM would do something like that. The Hammond's has even gone to the BLM for help and was refused. The same BLM that tried to steal land and killed the Bundy's cattle. The same BLM that did nothing about all slaughtered wild stallions. Does that sound like good land management to you? The BLM has stolen most of all the western states lands with each state at least 50% and more. They control all the resources and people cannot expand or do hardly anything. You guys might want to direct your efforts to people like senator Reid that struck a secret deal to sell 600,000 (not a typo) acres of BLM land to China. Is it starting to sink in now?

a reply to: sean

Maybe read the other side of the story before throwing stones..

The 2 people were charged with arson and their story has changed while it was in court. The reason for the extended sentences was because the original; judge didn't comply with federal minimums for an arson conviction. The prosecutor took it to an appeals court and that judge changed the verdict to comply with federal law.

The guys taking over the federal buildings are trying to hijack this issue to push their agenda.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You don't think the BLM has an agenda? What the Hammond's has done is chicken feed compared to what the BLM has done. There are people dead because of what the BLM has done employing fire fighters to set fires and then dying in that same cause to put it out. Yes, people should take over the building and land. The sheriffs and the National Guard should stand with them. There is a real crisis going on here way beyond peoples understanding. The authorities are willing to let them go home in peace. They know whats going on. This country is on a runaway train.

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Xcathdra

The authorities are willing to let them go home in peace. They know whats going on. This country is on a runaway train.

That's exactly the thought train of these squatters:

- autority lets them go home in peace: They know whats going on.
- authority interfers: The gov is suppressing us and taking our freedoms and guns away.


Basically they try to set up a trap to further their professional victimhood.

I can not understand that many of you find it normal for the Hammonds to be resentenced when it is clear that the judge that was most intimate with the case could not with a clear conscience subject them to a 5-years minimum. Again, a judge with 39 years experience in sentencing....

THE COURT (THE HON. MICHAEL R. HOGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING): I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here. And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute. When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that's what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be -- would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word "fairness" in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don't do that. But this -- it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

a reply to: Vector99

This may very well be at the root of the government's side of this. However, it does beg some questions...

To be sure there is far more tax revenue and regulatory fees (not to mention federal jobs) associated with the oversight of a series of mines versus a cattle ranch. What with the EPA, DOE, IRS and countless other agencies, mines are a far better revenue generator than a cattle ranch. So, as much as I may not like the idea of a series of mines (which will devastate the area) versus a cattle ranch, we also have to look at the flip side of the same coin.

I'm not advocating one way or the other in this post, but part one of the underpinnings behind BLM 'leases' is that the land isn't being used for anything else. Ranchers are allowed to become custodians of the land knowing this full well. That they've been there for 100 years changes nothing. They are being allowed to "use" the land...they don't "own" it. There is a big difference.

It's a risk ranchers take when they sign on for these BLM leases. The risk being, improvements they make will pay for themselves while they have use of the land.

As I noted in an earlier post here, the issues are complex and the 20 second sound bytes on the MSM don't have a prayer of covering all the facets of 100 years of history, federal land regulations, generations of use and the like.

Something to think about.

Here is the BLM's idea of a "Controlled Burn".

The Bundys have become the faces of a movement to turn federal land over to state control. Utah has been at the forefront in this movement.

The problems with the state movement to take federal land

Today, the federal government oversees everything that happens on these lands: recreation, habitat and wildlife conservation, mining, logging, grazing and oil and gas drilling. It also foots the bill for managing them all, from compliance with environmental regulations to putting up signposts.

Some uses create profit, some provide entertainment and some protect the environment. By law, the federal government must balance all of these uses.

Land transfer bills, on the other hand, are motivated primarily by profit. Supporters decry the fact that federal regulations prevent them from taking full advantage of the natural resources on public lands and say that these lands need to be used to grow the economy and provide a bigger tax base.

States cannot afford to manage this much public land unless they open more of it to natural resource extraction. This is what a report commissioned as part of Utah’s land transfer law found: For Utah to be able to generate the money it needs to manage 31 million more acres, it would have to increase drilling and mining. And it would need to demand 100 percent of the royalties from extraction (Utah currently splits mineral royalties 50-50 with the federal government). ..

The majority of Western voters oppose land transfers, according to a poll commissioned by the progressive Center for American Progress and performed by nonpartisan pollsters. Of the eight states surveyed, Utah was the only state where a majority of voters supported land transfers (52 percent).

Land transfer supporters also argue that these lands belong to each individual state’s residents, not all Americans. But most Westerners don’t believe that, according to a new poll from Colorado College. It found two-thirds of Western voters believe public lands belong to all Americans, not just state residents.

Any land grabs and mismanagement will not stop.... it will just be done by the states. There is also a movement to completely privatize all govt land.

Why the Bundy movement is not supported
The counties that actively oppose a federal lands transfer Commissioners: fear states could reduce county power and remove public access.

a reply to: desert

I am a cattle rancher, so I have a vested interest in this topic for a number of reasons. We don't presently ranch on federal land (BLM, etc.). We own all of our land. However, there could come a time in the future when we're interested in exploring options on federal land. I say this because of what I'm about to say next...

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment; at face value recent events like Bundy and now Hammond seem a travesty and the argument for states to assume custodianship of federal land has some traction. However, historically people (especially mining) have severely abused federal land and left colossal messes for others to clean up. Mining is big in this state, and some of the old mining claims here have left the state and federal government with HUGE cleanup bills (toxic wastes, etc.). So while there is a credible argument for economic development, there is also a downside from people who are irresponsible with the land they have use of. Ranchers are not exempt from this. I don't harbor much faith in the federal government's ability to administrate much of anything, but when you consider things like cleaning up ecological disaster areas a state may not have the ability to do this...and as a result may not do it.

Again, I don't have a position right now; I am still researching the issues, but it's important to understand both sides of the coin.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Thanks for the reasoned reply. For me, as a recreation enthusiast, I've been on both sides of an issue in different areas. I've seen hotheads on both sides literally come to blows over their positions.

....I've got an interesting story from some years ago re cattle and issues. In a hotly contested local issue, a cattlemens association actually gave money quietly to a national environmental organization, as both were opposed to a certain wilderness development. At issue for the ranchers was water, but they didn't want to be seen as in support of the "tree huggers". Oh, the "tree huggers" won, which in my mind saved the area from a boondoggle, someone's pipedream.....

We live in a complicated world nowadays. Sometimes, we find out that past practices were not the wisest or the best, whether it be in mining or logging, for ex. The world around us changes, and we must change to survive. And change is pretty constant nowadays.

To change gets complicated sometimes, and being in agreement means no one gets everything they want, but both sides walk away with something important to them.

I think there's a naivety and wishful thinking going on here, that just because federal land gets turned over, that things will be different. Oh, and I've seen seasonal firefighters get convicted for starting fires for personal gain. Anyway, land could still get sold, gates locked, etc. And then, yes, ecological disaster cleanup or litigation costs will fall on county/state. Maybe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for".

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Can only star you once on that post, man its true, so much going on that it can cause an overload on common sense and connecting those dots. Kind of embarrassing but yeah you are spot on.

Not talking about entitlement, I'm talking about letting them be ranchers, such as ranchers have been since our conception. Don't restrict them in ranging over such excuses of "desert turtle endangerment," a creature who still thrives as well under the feet of beef as it did under the buffalo and dinosaurs. Keep the cost of using range land very cheap, after all, they reduce range fires by reducing the fuel for fires. They feed the animals cheaply, and keep our prices lower for beef.
Let the ranchers alone to do their work, but hold them in high esteem (Treat them like rock stars) for that work. Anyone who works to feed us, farmer alike, should be given more quarter where it can be given.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Agreed. Well said and accurate. Providing agenda 2030 goes as planned, this topic will no longer be an issue. Stay strong and working to keep Ranch lands private while doing it the right way rather than how these boys went in half cocked.

a reply to: Blindmancc

One thing that made me raise an eyebrow on the current situation was how in the videos posted here in this thread they go kind of spacey discussing just who it is they are serving in this fight. They say, miners, forestry, private landowners who lost land back in 1903 or so to the gov. as well as cattle ranchers who want to use the land for cattle.

Miners will strip away and destroy it, forestation will cut down and without conscience and these ranchers supposedly do not want to play by the rules such as with the intentional fires, the rent of the land etc. Sadly or luckily none of the ranchers, miners or logging industries seem interested in this fight. Locals are happy with the status quot and so who could they possibly hope to join them?

I like many others will come on daily to discover how this is going to end and be played out.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

a reply to: desert

Helly FlyingClayDisc. Hi desert. I just wanted to say thank you both, for thoughtful, well reasoned posts.

As a former USFS employee working in several different wilderness areas, I can also attest to the difficult challenge of juggling the interests of stakeholders: grazing, mining, logging, recreation and keeping some areas pristine* for future generations.
(*prisine in theory, in truth almost every area has received some form of human footstep).

Land management of Federal lands is complicated, and your warning of "be careful what you wish for" should be heard by all.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dragoon01

Thats why the original judge ruled that the crimes they were charged with (terrorism) were not justified with 5 years of incarceration.

They were not charged with terrorism. They were charged with arson on federal property. The minimum sentence for arson on federal property is 5 years. The first judge did not have the authority to reduce the minimum sentence so they were resentenced.

Whether or not the original conviction (arson) was valid is moot. They were convicted.

And now, Bundy is taking advantage over the controversy about the resentencing to promote his own agenda.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The charges were for Arson but the sentencing was under Anti-terrorism guidelines put in place to charge eco-terrorist with minimum 5 year sentencing.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: desert

I am a cattle rancher, so I have a vested interest in this topic for a number of reasons. We don't presently ranch on federal land (BLM, etc.). We own all of our land. However, there could come a time in the future when we're interested in exploring options on federal land. I say this because of what I'm about to say next...

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment; at face value recent events like Bundy and now Hammond seem a travesty and the argument for states to assume custodianship of federal land has some traction. However, historically people (especially mining) have severely abused federal land and left colossal messes for others to clean up. Mining is big in this state, and some of the old mining claims here have left the state and federal government with HUGE cleanup bills (toxic wastes, etc.). So while there is a credible argument for economic development, there is also a downside from people who are irresponsible with the land they have use of. Ranchers are not exempt from this. I don't harbor much faith in the federal government's ability to administrate much of anything, but when you consider things like cleaning up ecological disaster areas a state may not have the ability to do this...and as a result may not do it.

Again, I don't have a position right now; I am still researching the issues, but it's important to understand both sides of the coin.

Thats a great point but its in support of the arguement that there should be very little "Federal Land". People who do not own the land have less regard for it than if they owned it personally. So put the land back in private hands and you get less abuse of it.

originally posted by: Dragoon01
Thats a great point but its in support of the arguement that there should be very little "Federal Land". People who do not own the land have less regard for it than if they owned it personally. So put the land back in private hands and you get less abuse of it.

Ya know...I don't think that's an accurate statement. Federal lands are 'our' lands, it's a matter of social responsibility just as much as personal responsibility. These people who are abusing the land tend to think of the land as 'their' land anyway. I don't trust a single family to be good stewards of the land in any way whatsoever.

Ideally, a government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' is exponentially better to control and conserve land for future generations than anyone else. I offer the National Parks as a reference.

originally posted by: Balans
I can not understand that many of you find it normal for the Hammonds to be resentenced when it is clear that the judge that was most intimate with the case could not with a clear conscience subject them to a 5-years minimum. Again, a judge with 39 years experience in sentencing....

THE COURT (THE HON. MICHAEL R. HOGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING): I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here. And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute. When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that's what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be -- would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word "fairness" in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don't do that. But this -- it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

Source please.