Posted on 01/02/2016 11:18:03 PM PST by Nextrush
They will have no problem coming down on these guys hard and quick the same way the come down on terrorism in this country or engagement of the enemy in the middle east............. yeah right!
So, can the feds own this land constitutionally or not?
If there isn't any violence then how will they get their headlines?
Deep ds on who you believe.
The ranchers claim that the fires were backfires, intended to protect their land from wildfires and invasive species. If that’s true, then a sane BLM would have permitted the fires.
The prosecution claims that the fires were intended to cover up evidence of another crime. If that’s true, then obviously no sane BLM would permit the fire.
I believe the Bundy’s have a legitimate complaint.
But people gotta realize Oregon was Californicated decades ago. There are leftist judges and it goes without saying leftist media.
The media is trying to hype this.
I have not found any writings about these people being armed, holding hostages, destroying buildings or trespassing. It’s a simple protest.
If BLM can get by with this without starting CWII, then this should not start it either.
If CWII starts over something this simple, then you cannot blame the Bundy’s, you gotta blame the MSM and all the people that react to what they print.
The downside is how the regime may react. Even if there are no guns present, it can still be used as an excuse to confiscate guns. Now that is seriousness provoked by the regime.
Wish they occupied the White Hut!
I don’t understand.
Is their problem with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (who manage the refuge), the US Forest Service (who manage Malheur National Forest), or the Bureau of Land Management (who manage Steens Mountain)?
They’re three totally different agencies. It’s like protesting the FBI by camping out in front of the Pentagon.
When war starts, the first casualty is truth.
Is this story a story of the insanity of the protest?
What happened to the Hammond’s as affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (five year sentences for setting backfires to protect their land) doesn’t seem right.
How one responds to it is important.
The Hammonds are ready to go to jail tomorrow.
At least more of us now know something about their situation.
The half breed and his regime have been eager for a war since 2008. All it will take is a spark to grant him his wish.
But it isn’t going to turn out the way he thinks it will.
That’s a good idea, but we are dealing with the Feds. The Feds are clearly the instigators with their outrageous enforcement penalties with respect to land violations. The bureaucratic apparatus is a state unto itself and mostly impervious to popular opinion.
I don’t know why the Hammonds had to serve any jail time at all. If there was a violation, why not fines and restrictions? The federal court system and bureaucracy are the real villians. Rigged juries, star chamber proceedings with 95% conviction rates! No wonder why US has the highest per capita incarceration rate (politicians and banksters excluded)
Perhaps the Bundys will stay for a while, then leave and go into hiding in a contemporary version of Ann Frank’s haus. I’m sure these days, they’ll have plenty of people willing to support them which is another indictment against the Feds.
The degenerate queers on the Ninth Circuit and the DOJ have decided to teach Whitey a lesson.
The government signed off on the original sentences.
They now VIOLATE the 8th Amendment.
The lawlessness of the COMMUNIST PARTY in charge must be exposed.
That’s what this is all about.
Hammonds can not say they approve of this action, they are already under the jackboot.
Look for the Fed’s to come with EXTREME violence and quickly.
The longer this goes on, the more damage they incur and the more Americans wake up and become outraged.
The only thing I can think of is an unoccupied ROTC building that got OCCUPIED by some Black Panthers a few years back. I think one of them later became the Attorney General of the Country. But I dont think this one is gonna work out like that one did.
“Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination started WWI.”
Who? Never understood that one. By all accounts he was a jerk.
I believe that only applied to the states that signed the Constitution. My understanding is that most of the territories that became states after the ratification of the Constitution were created in such a way that most of the unoccupied land was deemed federal territory.
I believe that the founders of these early states were fine with that. They didn't want to be responsible for land that no one occupied.
If the people of a particular state want to take control of the land within their states they may have to buy it back from the Feds if the Feds will let them.
If the federal deficit gets bad enough, there may be opportunities in the not too distant future for financially secure states to purchase back federal lands to do with as they please.
That’s what I’m thinking too.
Go back to court
Here's a bit from the Conservative Treehouse.
Some slanting, I am sure, but it does sound like another government overreach.
Snippets:
(a1) 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.
(a2) During the 1970's the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told that, "grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced". 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(a4) By the 1990's the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the "no use" policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4 times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
Why did the judge set this return to jail date ? Why has Obama begun an anti gun push on this date ? You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize the cronies are coming for our guns. Yes they want an incident. Yes they are pushing the militia for that incident. And yes if they do not get a genuine one, they will create a false flag incident. Might as well stand behind the genuine one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.