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.
Ignore them. They will leave.
As a comparison, adjacent US Attorney for Western Washington went after a guy for interfering with a CBP helicopter actively involved in a search for border crossing smugglers. The offender pointed a 2 million candle power spotlight at the helicopter, which immediately gained down the pilots' night vision goggles. In essence, blinding them so they had to immediately commence an emergency climb. That guy only got a couple months. The Hammonds are looking at totals of 5 years a piece.
I get that, but for all of us who live in the real world, leases are contracts between parties.
They own a fair chunk of what is involved, and have grounds in justice to expect continued access to what they need provided that they do not abuse it, but the government wants what they own and is willing to cut off access to get it.
Imagine that the government wanted to buy your house, which you own, and you refused. After the refusal, the government refuses to renew your access to water and declares the sidewalk and streets around your house a national park on which you cannot trespass. While falling a tree on your property near the boundary, some minor damage (less than a thousand dollars worth) is donw on the other side of the property line—and as a result you are sentenced to five years in jail, fined $400,000and told that if you ever want to sell your house you have to sell it to the government.
When the real world works like that, it is time to think about changing it—and maybe for some people to do more than think.
Some pigs are more equal than others.
The federal government has burned down ranches to steal the private land in the area.
With a bit of knowledge, you’d understand that even with this move, they have the moral high ground.
But then again, less than 1% of Americans have a damned clue about what’s happening there beyond the demonization received in the media. Even those who should know better seem to have jumped to a conclusion.
I am a farm kid. There is a long standing argument between farmers and ranchers in the West. Ranchers used federal land they didn’t pay for, and killed a great many farmers who did have title and deed. Bundy didn’t have title. It wasn’t his land. His family used it for a long time, but they never owned it. Title and deed means something, even in the West.
But I come from farming stock, not ranching. A great many ranchers assume that they own every thing.
Its been going on all of my lifetime and yours, too.
The federal government’s encroachment on the lands of the West.
There are people out in your part of this country that have spent a lifetime watching it get worse and worse being manipulated and deceived by government officials, elected and unelected, Republican and Democrat.
Kentucky Jelly?
It’s OK. Thinking isn’t for everyone. Enjoy your hurt feelings.
You got that right. And now that I am in government I see how incidious it is and how the bureaucracies run the show, not our elected officials. At some point we say enough. Is it now? I don’t know. We have very good people trying to do it the “right” way. But even doing things the right way doesn’t seem to matter. So, here we are.
There are many Internet tough guys on this thread - as well as cowards privately messaging me who don't have the testicular fortitude to own their opinions publically - that seem to assume that one is either on the side of the angels (the Bundy clowncar) or the devils (the Federal government).
It might be possible that the federal government owns too much land for the public good, and - at the same time - that the Bundy crew are thieves and deadbeats.
But that's too complicated for some to think through.
My thoughts about disobeying authorities are formed by history and some experience as a journalist.
If someone is going to do it successfully they will have to carefully and quietly plan it.
Martin Luther King, it appears to me, rightly figured out the government had infiltrated his movement in the unsuccessful campaign in Albany, GA in 1962. The FBI informants and the Kennedy Administration worked to undermine King’s every move there.
King went to a secluded place with trusted aides and planned out what would be the pivotal event in the history of the 1960’s civil rights protests, the Birmingham demonstrations.
When I covered the Operation Rescue protests at the abortion clinics in the late 1980’s I decided to deal with them ‘outside the office’ since the big open newsroom I worked in had plenty of liberal ears listening.
I also told them to keep their protests secret and call me at home when they came down. I knew in general when they would act because of the times abortions were performed.
The local police had apparently infiltrated their meetings and had advance knowledge of their moves based on the feedback I was getting from the news staff I worked with.
Getting back to this Oregon thing I have no doubt the FBI is already ‘on the ground’ in the midst of the people there with informants sprinkled among the crowd.
Also some of those folks involved may be a bit under the influence of drugs and I have a broad definition of drugs that includes prescription medications, pornography and more.
I’m saying some of them are crazy, but as you know MLK had a notorious sex life that Jackie Kennedy was aware of because of the FBI spying. She called King a ‘despicable man’ who was ‘arranging orgies’.
We honor that guy with a national guy in a few weeks, so who am I to ‘judge’.
May the Creator help you and me to remain sober and sane in the midst of this situation and find something right to say or do at a time of the Higher Power’s choosing.
While it is clearly not the whole story, it is a very sympathetic and detailed account of the Hammond family position.
It clarifies a few points of procedure as well.
It is unclear how close the Bundys are to this family, however.
At the end of the piece we have Cliven Bundy spouting off once again on his painfully flawed take on Constitutional law.
But it is unclear if the Bundys have inserted them into this situation to the detriment of the Hammonds.
The piece reiterates the idea that there was a larger peaceful protest and that a segment of the protestors broke off from the main group to seize a NFWS facility.
The refuge is owned by the US fish and wildlife service according to their website. Sounds federal to me....idk
I remember that.
Yes, and esp ranching. Rewilding is all the rage.
Thank you. Since the ranch sits in the middle of the refuge, I am quite sure they want a double win - eliminate a ranch and get that land for the refuge.
Bundy on several occasions offered the money to the state of Nevada in fact. He refused to pay the feds because they had a contract he would have had to sign which completely changed everything. It’s not quite true that he refused to pay.
I suggest you read the whole story which includes harassment and property rights violations..
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.