Posted on 01/03/2016 9:04:52 PM PST by Nextrush
I don't see intent here.....and I don't see destruction.
Praytell, what was destroyed....some underbrush? dead wood?....one of the fires was caused by lightening purportedly..and this land was legally leased.
Is not the property in better condition? Is not the best use of the property the goal here? Is it not a fact that forrest fire after forrest fire that ndangers lives and property adjacent to federal mismanaged lands, a serious problem now and for decades?
The statute used against them was ignorantly applied. But it was purposeful and most definitely is now..
If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. This is simple civil disobedience, but it's complicated by the militant nature of the modern BLM,
There are numerous issues here.
Let's hope the 9th Circus stays their order and defuses this.
There was no crime. BLM is trying to steal their land using our august courts.
I know many don’t like him here on FR, but Glenn Beck is giving the backstory (took time to explain controlled burns, etc).
This doesn’t need to escalate, but it seems that is the plan on BOTH sides, and this won’t end well.
Wrong article. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular States."
If the federal government did not own the property that Oregon was created from then how could they create a state there?
Can you Read? Oregon is a State not a territory. Look up the difference. Hint Porto Rico is a Territory....
I used to think “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”, but seeing how strong satan’s minnions can be and how few laborers God gets, I have grown to realize,”pray unceasingly, knock and knock and He will answer, and keep Him on your thoughts ceaselessly.” Go to jail, pray all the more for your persecutors.
Of course they are.
The fires were set on purpose and despite the fact that there was a burn-ban on. That's the intent. The 2001 fire burned 140 acres of federal land. That's the destruction.
Praytell, what was destroyed....some underbrush? dead wood?....one of the fires was caused by lightening purportedly..and this land was legally leased.
The fire that was caused by lightning was in 2006. And that fire was on federal land, being fought by Fire Service firefighters and the Hammonds were not charged with setting that. They were charged with setting the backfire in spite of the fact that the dry conditions had let to a burn-ban being issued. The 2001 fire burned 140 acres of federal land and made it unsuitable for grazing for two years.
Is not the property in better condition? Is not the best use of the property the goal here?
I don't see how one can argue that the Hammond's acts left the federal property in better condition.
The statute used against them was ignorantly applied. But it was purposeful and most definitely is now..
A clear reading of the statute shows it was properly applied.
If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. This is simple civil disobedience, but it's complicated by the militant nature of the modern BLM,
If you're going to take a stand and flout the law you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. The Hammonds, to their credit, have made it clear that they are. We should respect that.
Let's hope the 9th Circus stays their order and defuses this.
It's been to the 9th Circuit. They upheld the convictions. It's been to the Supreme Court. They declined to hear it. It's settled.
The charges are what they did to federal land, not their land.
It was good of Glenn to discuss the story this morning, I heard part of his first hour.
But in order for Glenn to talk about the story, the ‘occupation’ had to happen in Oregon on Saturday.
I think the Republican Party minded people, those whose world revolves around politics, will talk the Hammonds now but only because the Bundy’s made them.
John F. Kennedy was forced to talk about Civil Rights in the early 1960’s because folks like Martin Luther King took actions which gained national attention.
I can and do argue that....
Burns are a essential part of grazing and wooded land management.
There is no argument...
Puerto Rico is a commonwealth. But when Oregon was a territory who owned the land the territory was created it? I believe that would be the federal government. When Oregon was admitted as a state then who created it? I believe that would be Congress. If you read the Oregon enabling act you would find the land that the government handed over to the state for their purposes. And once Oregon was admitted then who owned the land not handed over and not privately owned? I believe that would be the federal government again.
I repeat it again for clarity....if not just to be a pain in your ass.
If you also view the video of the ranch couple from Rome, Orgeon, it has suddenly become very clear to me why the wildfires on Federal lands have raged out of control over the past 10-15 years. First, they make it illegal to do prescribed burns (which is what the Hammonds did in order to prevent the wildfire from destroying their home). Then the forage becomes overgrown dry tinder, ripe for an out of control wildfire. Once land has been burned, the Feds claim it illegal for any grazing or working, making it u sustainable to continue ranching operations. So they are forcing these folks off their lands after creating the circumstances for them to burn.
And I'll say again, for clarity if for nothing else, the case has been appealed to all levels and turned down at all levels. There is nothing for the 9th Circuit to do. The Hammonds are going to prison to do their time. Bundy and his crew will sit on the hill and squawk around a while and basically get ignored.
So then if I burn your property without your permission, all in the name of woodland management, then you're OK with that?
The 9th can stay their own order..happens all the time with other circuits...
Yes, the Hammonds will be turning themselves in, it's all been set up. keeping them from appearing is not the goal of the protest.
The protest is to bring the light of day to how they have been screwed over.
The hope is to get them back out....by shedding light on it.
I could make a sensible case for doing so.
BTW, once you invoke a burn permit system in any land management area, nobody ever issues a permit.
What happens is that the deadwood and trash grass take over and you cannot use the land for anything. This is exactly what the bio-diversity NAZI’s want. It’s who is behind all of this.
Eventually, nature will burn the woods and crap for you. But in the interim, the land is worthless. Then the cycle repeats...Nature does not give a crap about bio-diversity or spotted owls. Controlled burns are as the name implies, controlled, but control is a relative thing. Accidents frequently occur where back fires fail. But it’s not a criminal act, arson or anything of the kind.
This all smells foul, and has for a very long time.
So in other words you want the 9th Circuit to do what the district court did and ignore the law? Isn't that the very kind of judicial activism that we all are supposed to oppose?
Yes, the Hammonds will be turning themselves in, it's all been set up. keeping them from appearing is not the goal of the protest.
The Hammonds were set to turn themselves in long before Bundy and his gang showed up and began protesting.
Do some searching & find the story of Wayne Hage of Tonopah, Nevada & his fight with the Feds.
Wayne won the long running lawsuit, and was awarded many millions of dollars. Last I heard, the Feds haven’t paid & the interest is piling up. That money is YOUR tax money, people.
It is a complicated story, but Hage had proof of Federal employees sabotaging his property & this grazing rights.
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.