Posted on 01/03/2016 4:13:57 PM PST by Kaslin
There’s a lot going on as regards the standoff in Oregon involving three of Cliven Bundy’s sons and the federal government. Jazz has already offered his opinion on the matter, and I mostly agree with him. But I’m not sure the term “armed troops†is appropriate to describe Bundy’s group because that suggests they’re in tactical gear. That doesn’t appear to be true based off what Ammon Bundy’s video posted on Facebook.
Standing for the rights of men & womenBREAKING! SHARE! Standing for the rights of Men & Women. Calling all freedom loving people to come to Harney County Oregon, come to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.
Posted by Bundy Ranch on Saturday, January 2, 2016
He repeated the comments to CNN this morning, calling his group "concerned citizens" who are acting to make sure ranchers have land for their children. It makes sense for Bundy to be concerned about ranchland, given what’s been going on with his father, but his methods are questionable because of how it can be spun in the media. The group showed foresight in taking over a remote, empty facility, but the way it’s being portrayed publicly is different. The Oregonian certainly seems to be ramping up the rhetoric against Bundy’s group (emphasis mine).
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
The problem is The Oregonian is overblowing what Payne actually told Missoula Independent about what the “militia snipers” were doing during the Bundy Ranch situation last year.
“We locked them down,” Payne says. “We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy—sometimes two guys—per BLM agent in there. So, it was a complete tactical superiority. … If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would’ve died.”
That’s a lot different than the vague term "federal agents," and suggests Payne was just making sure his men could beat the Bureau of Land Management if it came to that. It’s also possible Payne was just bragging to puff up his own self-image, as BLM denied using snipers. But it’s ridiculous for The Oregonian to not provide better context to Payne’s statements. It’s also foolish to emphasize the fact Payne was armed whenever he talked to people. This may be a bit of a shock to the Left, but Oregon is an open carry state so Payne can carry a handgun without a problem. It doesn’t appear he was walking up to people, showing the gun and yelling, "WHO DO YOU SUPPORT?" but just carrying the gun for protection. It probably seemed odd to some people, but to others in rural Oregon it may not have been an issue. One thing which is an issue is the fact people in Burns don’t want Bundy’s group there. Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has a piece pointing this out, and how it could end up hurting more than helping.
These militiamen seem to be forgetting a key fact: a force opposing government only has a measure of philosophical legitimacy if the people want their support. In this instance, the Hammonds simply want to turn themselves on Monday and finish serving their time.
These militiamen need to stop attempting to hijack the Hammond case in an attempt to stay relevant, and let Dwight and Steven Hammond peacefully turn themselves in and finish serving their time.
So what happens if Bundy’s group decides to stick around and won’t leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Hopefully, not violence. This is where authorities need to show patience, and not do anything which ends up endangering the lives of anyone. Bundy’s group isn’t hurting people, and, at worst, is guilty of trespassing. Yes, they’re armed but that doesn’t mean SWAT needs to go rolling into the refuge or a drone be used to end the standoff. That would be the worst thing to happen, and bring back memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Federal and local authorities will just have to wait out Ammon Bundy and the rest of the occupiers, until they decide to leave. It may take a while, but it’s well worth it if no lives are lost. Bundy’s group needs to go, but having it happen through a haze of gun smoke and bodies is a bad idea.
And an irony here is that this huge nature preserve (first declared by that jack*** Teddy Roosevelt) close to this rancher they are imprisoning as a “terrorist”, this federal land they keep expanding by wheedling and coercing private citizens to sell ... the studies show the ducks and geese and other wildlife prefer to use the land that is still owned privately.
(Read the article posted here several times already, federal butt-kissing sycophants—it’s all there.)
Its easier to be a puppet than to think and act on your own
It’s refreshing to read something from someone who gets it.
Whether or not these men are justified, the problem wouldn’t even exist if the Constitution was adhered to.
@ post 35 - you clearly get it.
The public needs to be educated on the benefit of allowing increased economic activity on public lands, but like so many things it is a hopeless mess. Those who have grazing leases usually pay much less than market value for grazing on public lands so they are in fact subsidized. Bundy made a deliberate decision to graze his cows on land he did not own in protest. He chose to not pay the fees and admitted as much. I would have far more respect for his position if he had put the fees in a savings account and donated them to a charity of his choice - however, he pocketed the money and refused to remove the cows. His own neighbors who ranched know exactly what he did and few of them came to his defense.
This is not the way to address this issue. Turning the land over the states will simply result in big corporations owning the land such as Inland Paper Company and they are often just as restrictive on land use as BLM is (I am surrounded by Fed land, State land (a park), and lots of Inland Paper Company forests. Pretty much no difference other than hunting access (can hunt on Inland Paper land with permit) that I can see between the three. Fire bans are in place on all three types of properties.
I think the Grazing RIGHTS issued long ago were something stronger than a lease (of a car - for example). They typically included Water Rights.
I don’t disagree - there has been little consistency in the last decade or two with grazing rights, but few of them were 100 year leases.
By the way - I lease my pasture to a neighbor with cows so I understand better than most how it works and he runs the most cattle in our county at 4 different locations - third generation. This year another neighbor and I are going to run our own feeder cows. Good market right now!
Taking down a few score of "White, racist terrorists" clinging to their guns, Bibles and the Constitution just might be the ticket.
Yes, Golux. God has blessed America and the Jews are His chosen people who have fought and died for their freedoms many times over.
Something our current president abhors.
He wants us to be totally defenseless and dependent.
We shall see who prevails.
These guys are out in the boonies. No need for any confrontation. Leave them alone. Winter and boredom will do the job of host of jack booted thugs.
The “double jeopardy” and “tried as terrorist” claims are both false. They are the type of lies I usually expect from the Left.
They were tried once and convicted of using fire to destroy Federal property.
This carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years (max of 20 years).
The trial judge thought this was too harsh and violated the law by sentencing the son to 11 months and the father to 3 months.
The government appealed and the court of appeals ruled that the 5 year minimum must be imposed.
They were not tried as terrorists. The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act increased the penalty for destruction of Federal property by fire to a minimum of 5 years in prison, regardless of whether any act of terrorism was involved.
They were tried and convicted as arsonists. Unfortunately for them an act aimed at preventing terror increased the penalty for their crime. So, they could be considered collateral damage in the war on terror, but they were not “tried as terrorists”.
I grew up in Western Oregon and agree with you a 1000%. My county was a timber county and Washington killed it.
I apologize wideawake. That was pure rudeness on my part.
My excuse is, I was raised up on a ranch and know how hard it is to make a living, even if the federal goobermint ain’t busting your chops.
I support Senator Cruz. But I have little hope for a political solution to the public lands issue and I am certainly not going to put my trust into the Republican majority again.
Now I don't know if the Hammonds had any criminal intent, or whether they were just negligent in how they set fires. What I do know is that the EPA dumped millions of gallons of mining waste into a river in Colorado. What charges are being filed there? Elliot Spitzer committed multiple crimes of tranporting prostitutes across state lines and structuring payments to avoid federal banking reporting guidelines. In that case in "wasn't in the interest of justice" for him to be charged.
Yes they did. Here in Mohave County we were the biggest exporter of uranium. Washington killed that. Now the US is the biggest importer. The wildfires we have seen have burned hotter and deeper than any we have seen before. It will take generations if they come back at all. When are we going to say enough? Washington came and tried to end our fishing industry even though they were required by law to stock our part of the Colorado River as a mitigation program. I stopped that. But every time I turn around there is another assault. Grand Canyon Watershed Monument? 1.7million acres gone. The Mexican Gray Wolf program sole purpose is to end cattle ranching. It’s happening folks. Whether or not people want to see it or not and there has been no political solution offered by our lords and masters in Washington.
I’ll tell you what, when the Feds come and tie up all your land in New Jersey I will graciously come and help you. For now, stop talking about what you know nothing about.
It’s already written. The Bundy’s will be the idiots, and we will turn our backs on these modern day Patriots. Instead, we will debate the points of the Constitution and the laws that surround it. Here’s the deal folks. We are in a war. We are armed in this war with our Bibles and Constitutions. They have their lawyers and corrupt politicians. Who do you think is going to win?
Thanks so much for the replies. That clears it up for me. Was concerned that at least part of the reason for all this was that the Hammonds’ Constitutional rights had been trampled on, which of course would not be reported by the media.
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.