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

The federal government adversely controls over 582,000,000 acres of the western lands, 51% of the entire western land mass. They also have recently begun claiming over 72% of western resources such as the sub-surface minerals, forestry and waters. This is in comparison to 4.29% federally controlled land in the east.

bundyranch.blogspot.com...

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Please. Don't let's go to twitter opinion. We don't want this to turn into another Putin is dead thread, do we?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
It's a land grab, there have been years of harassment from the BLM and the FWS, dating back to the seventies.

By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentional diverted the water to bypassing the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches.

Please read it

More on that see here, when the Hammonds purchased their ranch in 1964.

Also see, 1994 Article; Source.

a reply to: Phage

I found the new hashtags amusing, personally. If this were any other group of people, they'd be labeled as terrorists. Hiding behind the name "militia", however, they are somehow hoping to skirt that name.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Do you think they should be labeled as terrorists?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Hence my distaste (to put it mildly) for twitter and its ilk. Opinion is irrelevant. Domestic terrorism is a legal term and so far these bozos do not qualify.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

They've yet to display terroristic actions,

Like a high body count

Hitting soft targets with unarmed people

Causing mass mayhem and confusion in the streets

They are a armed political movement currently protesting they could potentially become terroristic if this situation isn't resolved peacefully, it's hard to measure intent but as of now they are sitting in a unoccupied federal building with notions of protecting freedom, they've yet to terrorize but it's a possibility with a situation like this.

a reply to: TechniXcality

now they are sitting in a unoccupied federal building with notions of protecting freedom,

How does that work? I wonder.

Correction. The building is occupied. By them.

a reply to: Phage

In my first post on page 14 I think, the judge clearly states the Antiterrorism act according to the transcript.
Also out of the Act itself:

ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996

SEC. 708. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR ARSON CRIMES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’;
(2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
‘‘(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in partowned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

I guess you could make a point that they are not being called terrorist per se, but they are being convicted under that clause in the Antiterrorism Act of 1996.

That linked website doesn't load for me neither anymore it seems sadly enough.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Phage

I found the new hashtags amusing, personally. If this were any other group of people, they'd be labeled as terrorists. Hiding behind the name "militia", however, they are somehow hoping to skirt that name.

I don't really see the Terrorism...not yet at least.

They are guilty so far of obstructing Government business and now OCCUPYING Federal Property, which in itself is obstructing Government and THEFT...I.E. the stealing of property from the Gov.

No threats have been made, no violence initiated. Civil disobedience and theft is probably their current rightful charges.

The fact that they have guns is a side note because they have a Federal and STATE (Oregon) Right to carry. They could be 'armed' with books and it would be the same legal thing.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Well I dunno if I would call it theft, its not like the took it anyplace. LOL

a reply to: Balans

I guess you could make a point that they are not being called terrorist per se, but they are being convicted under that clause in the Antiterrorism Act of 1996.

That would be an accurate point.

a reply to: Punisher75


They said they plan to be there for YEARS. I would call that a reverse land grab...I.E. "Theft"

a reply to: Phage

Phage you know exactly what the hell I meant!

ETA: I was not suggesting that they are a group of apparations of dead civil war soldiers haunting an unoccupied fed building, I meant previously the building was not occupied therefor they did not hit a target that included civilians and government workers they basically took an "abandoned building" and are squatting for freedom.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: Punisher75


They said they plan to be there for YEARS. I would call that a reverse land grab...I.E. "Theft"

Me thinks you missed the joke.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: Punisher75


They said they plan to be there for YEARS. I would call that a reverse land grab...I.E. "Theft"

Me thinks you missed the joke.

I'm dense sometimes and too serious because I'm a grumpy 40 year old.

Let's investigate these agency's

BLM bullying: ranchers testify on abuse

wlj.net...

NOV 1, 2013

Of the six individuals, the four ranchers and one county treasurer presented testimony of various examples of abuse by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) personnel.

Examples included: attempted takings of water and land rights; ignoring local efforts regarding routing of projects and conservation efforts; threats of costly litigation; threats of jail time; denying, increasing the cost of, or purposefully delaying the renewal of grazing permits; regional land management decisions, the direct result of which was to reduce the number of ranchers; outright conspiracy against individuals; and the widespread failure to reprimand agency employees found guilty of wrongdoing.

Several of those witnesses mentioned a concern over, or an expectation of, retribution by their regional BLM or FS personnel for simply attending the hearing. Lorenzo Valdez, a rancher from New Mexico, who came representing a number of indigenous Hispanic ranching groups, voiced similar concerns on behalf of those he represented.

“They were uncomfortable in coming here, I believe, because they have suffered so much retaliation from the district ranger.”

You wonder why Hammond decided to distant himself from the militia,

FEAR of retribution.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Let's pray this peaceful protest stays peaceful.

Let's hope nobody gets any crazy ideas like they did in Ferguson or Baltimore.

Protests against police/government actions can get dangerous.

That's just it,a lot of protests start off peaceful and then the agitators show up
and then it goes downhill.

a reply to: TechniXcality
Yes. I knew what you meant. I couldn't resist.

But what about the second part? How are they "protecting freedom" by occupying a building in the middle of a wildlife reserve?

I wonder what people would be saying if the (reviled on ATS) BLM movement took over some city government building?
These white protesters are always coddled by many and never get the treatment minority civil rights fighters get.


The GOP will find some way to make heroes of these criminals


I hope though this doesn't end up Obamas WACO