First the story says “heavily armed” and later says whether armed is not known.
If they have weapons in a federal building, they have screwed up.
Clearly AWDA and mad as hell.
As I wrote in another thread, the federal government needs to use whatever force necessary to protect public property, arrest these militia, jail them, convict them, and send them to prison. As an American, a veteran, I say zero tolerance to inciting rebellion and taking up arms against the US. These thugs are no better than the people rioting in Baltimore, occupying Wall Street, etc. They are definitely not someone any red-blooded American conservative should be supporting.
Well, ir’s a start to regaining an actual representative gov’t.
This stuff is starting to get real.
I’m sure 0bama and Loretta Lynch are dancing over this. Finally getting their white boogeyman.
True, but this is just sort of “armed”rebellion story that the media has been waiting for. Bad tactic on the part of the ranchers.
Ammon Bundy=John Brown?
I hope the mods don’t knock this story down like mine was.
But something is brewing tonight that smells bad and is worthy of Breaking News treatment.
This may be a false flag op for those who consider such things.
The Portland Oregonian/Oregon Live story on this includes this paragraph.
“Government sources told The Oregonian/Oregon Live that the militia also was planning to occupy a close wildland station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.”
The feds appear to be well informed and agents-informants are probably planted among the protestors in my estimation.
Have a bad feeling that that isn’t going to end too well — for the Bundy bros.
“Bundy and his supporters were in Oregon after two men were scheduled to go to prison on Monday for setting fires on federal land,”
They should go to prison. Who are these freaks? Possibly endangering people and wildlife and for what? What gives them the right to do this?
........”two men were charged under anti-terrorism laws....” and ........”The militia groups say the Hammond’s were illegally prosecuted for setting what they claim was a controlled fire because the federal government has no authority at the county level”.....
What is the backstory here? Did they set fires on their own land and were charged with “terrorism”? That does sound fishy.
If Black Lives Matter takes over a building, it’s cool, and just wait them out. But let a “WHITE MILITIA” do it...and it’s an ARMED REBELLION.
There’s always a rebellion brewing. President Washington had to put down The Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 over taxes on liquor.
President Washington instituted a military draft and he federalized state militias to defeat the tax protesters.
When I was in the States, I hunted Pheasant every fall on the refuge. It is miles from anything but ranches. They may not have even had to occupy the building, just bring in a few travel trailers and camp next to it. It is or was on one of the few little hills in the sage brush. There is a viewing tower on the hill as well. If the government had any sense, which it no longer does. They would just ignore them. There is not a thing they will upset, except maybe a few Pheasant and coyotes..
The government’s side of the story:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
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.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires†in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.†The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.†In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze†stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.
“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.â€
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.
The only terrorists in this and similar scenarios is the federal government who illegally and unconstitutionally hold state lands. Unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny.
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17 of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the feds may hold land in a state IF
1) the purpose for the land is for NEEDFUL federal buildings like forts or dock-yards and
2) the feds purchased the land after the state legislature consents
Most federal lands do not meet this test and should, therefore, transfer back to the states either willingly or by state commandeering the lands.
“Feel good” National Parks, for instance, are unconstitutional. Notice that unconstitutional federal acts, like National Parks, no matter how good it feels at the time, can turn ugly at any time, because tyranny never remains benign.
Government by nature is not a benign agent. Government is at its core is an agent of force. That is why the federal government must be ruled and limited by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Will this be another Ruby Ridge or Waco/Branch Davidian massacre?