150 Terrorists invade Oregon

[Harambe]

New twist to this. A grou p Idaho's 3%ers (militia designation) has arrived and the federal facility. They are there to "secure a perimeter" around the compund and prevent "a Waco-style situation"

The ""s are from the article I read. The article does not list the # of members of this group that arrived.

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-...sf/2016/01/oregon_standoff_idaho_militia.html

I am, finally, starting to think terrorism. Before it was some jackasses trying to free a couple of people. It's different now. After reading an article on a town meeting, how the locals are feeling, how the meeting with the Sheriff went, how the local Native American population(who, easily, have a stronger claim) is reacting. There's no way around it, at very best this has become terrorism.

Let's resolve this.

 

[babe]

I am, finally, starting to think terrorism. Before it was some jackasses trying to free a couple of people. It's different now. After reading an article on a town meeting, how the locals are feeling, how the meeting with the Sheriff went, how the local Native American population(who, easily, have a stronger claim) is reacting. There's no way around it, at very best this has become terrorism.

Let's resolve this.

Don't be a moron. What do you mean "at the very least" when you go to the absolute most extreme take on it.

I believe you have connections with some federal employees generally involved in land policies, and you fear public violence against publio employees. No issue with you if government officials carry weapons when administration of agency policy is unpopular or has little or no public input. You take away the citizen's right to assemble or petition government for redress of grievances, and you defend the right of pompous dumb**** officials to pull guns on the public.

The federal government has broken laws passed by Congress, agreements stated in Statehood Acts where it was agreed that after statehood, the lands would pass out of Federal hands. The federal government, with congressional blind-eyed acceptance, has become an out-of-control mob in it's own right, with countless agencies presuming the power to legislate, arm their employees, and set up their own Star Chamber courts which effective deny the citizen's constitutional rights to a trial by jury, or to bring in witnesses to support their rights, and these agencies are imposing draconian sentences and bankrupting fines on citizens whose offenses in no way justify such extreme and unjust decrees.

The only way to resolve this is to take responsibility for our government and insist on enforcing the constitution on jackass government tyrants/agencies.

You don't understand basically unlimited government at all. That's the kind of government that's eventually going to come around and take your property, or your life, for whatever reason seems lucent to some deranged official.

 

[babe]

A reasonable characterization of the involved parties, I think, would read like this:

Ammon Bundy and his group of property rights activists, who believe the administration of grazing lands not yet turned over to the States as promised and as stated in Statehood Enabling Acts of Congress, belongs to local governments. Since Clark County was not covered by the Statehood Act of Nevada, but was taken from Arizona Territory before Arizona became a State, the grazing and other general public management of the lands should belong to the Clark County government. Bundy's grazing interest in the lands pre-dated the transfer of the area to the State of Nevada, and cannot be restricted or reduced or any fees imposed on the grazing because a grazing interest in the land is a property right. These rights were privately bought and sold before even the Federal government took the land away from Mexico, and the Federal government cannot "administer" these rights because the Federal Government under the Constitution is proscribed from passing "Ex Post Facto" laws, or from taking property without just compensation only when it is necessary for the sake of some other constitutionally-delegated purpose.

The Sheriff, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect citizens in their rights and property.

The Federal armed agency employees who have no constitutional police authority, or law enforcement authority, or judicial authority.

The "3%-ers", who have the right, as do the Bundy folks, to "peaceably6 assemble" and to "seek redress of grievances" from the government. The interest of the "3%=ers" appears to be a recognition that the Feds are acting outside constitutional authority, and maybe a concern that the Bundy bunch has been radicalized.

By the term "Radicalized" I mean perhaps some FBI or other government "intelligence service" agency has infiltrated the group and deliberately influenced it towards undue action, setting up a high-profile public propaganda conflict intended to be used somehow to influence the direction of developments of these issues. Likely, towards more "Statist" solutions with more government authority being accepted. Deemed necessary for national security interests, perhaps, consolidiating Fed control of the land.

I'm not sure if the Bundy group has been radicalized in that manner. It seems to me that this is not the time or place for them to make such a stand. Like El Roacho says, the Hammonds have surrendered, after being beaten up pretty badly in the "legal" process perhaps, which is what Ammon Bundy might think is the point that needs to be protested.

Not one of any of these groups of players really qualifies as "terrorist" because all claim some legal concern or legal administration or duty.

 

[Harambe]

A reasonable characterization of the involved parties, I think, would read like this:

Ammon Bundy and his group of property rights activists, who believe the administration of grazing lands not yet turned over to the States as promised and as stated in Statehood Enabling Acts of Congress, belongs to local governments. Since Clark County was not covered by the Statehood Act of Nevada, but was taken from Arizona Territory before Arizona became a State, the grazing and other general public management of the lands should belong to the Clark County government. Bundy's grazing interest in the lands pre-dated the transfer of the area to the State of Nevada, and cannot be restricted or reduced or any fees imposed on the grazing because a grazing interest in the land is a property right. These rights were privately bought and sold before even the Federal government took the land away from Mexico, and the Federal government cannot "administer" these rights because the Federal Government under the Constitution is proscribed from passing "Ex Post Facto" laws, or from taking property without just compensation only when it is necessary for the sake of some other constitutionally-delegated purpose.

The Sheriff, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect citizens in their rights and property.

The Federal armed agency employees who have no constitutional police authority, or law enforcement authority, or judicial authority.

The "3%-ers", who have the right, as do the Bundy folks, to "peaceably6 assemble" and to "seek redress of grievances" from the government. The interest of the "3%=ers" appears to be a recognition that the Feds are acting outside constitutional authority, and maybe a concern that the Bundy bunch has been radicalized.

By the term "Radicalized" I mean perhaps some FBI or other government "intelligence service" agency has infiltrated the group and deliberately influenced it towards undue action, setting up a high-profile public propaganda conflict intended to be used somehow to influence the direction of developments of these issues. Likely, towards more "Statist" solutions with more government authority being accepted. Deemed necessary for national security interests, perhaps, consolidiating Fed control of the land.

I'm not sure if the Bundy group has been radicalized in that manner. It seems to me that this is not the time or place for them to make such a stand. Like El Roacho says, the Hammonds have surrendered, after being beaten up pretty badly in the "legal" process perhaps, which is what Ammon Bundy might think is the point that needs to be protested.

Not one of any of these groups of players really qualifies as "terrorist" because all claim some legal concern or legal administration or duty.

If they had a legitimate legal concern, there would be a lawyer representing them and fighting through the courts. Any lawyer in the land would love to be the man/woman to win against the federal government in such a high profile case, and would probably do it for pretty cheap.

Even Ammon knows they don't have a leg to stand on, which is why they've moved to force. If this was a peaceful protest, why'd they need to be armed in the first place? Why do they keep bird watchers and others out of the facility they're in?

 

[babe]

If they had a legitimate legal concern, there would be a lawyer representing them and fighting through the courts. Any lawyer in the land would love to be the man/woman to win against the federal government in such a high profile case, and would probably do it for pretty cheap.

Even Ammon knows they don't have a leg to stand on, which is why they've moved to force. If this was a peaceful protest, why'd they need to be armed in the first place? Why do they keep bird watchers and others out of the facility they're in?

I rate this as a reasonable response.

From the point of view of "Constitutionalists", though, they have found that almost all lawyers realize the "Constitution" is forced to ride in the back of the bus by a culture significantly influenced by college professors, major media "high priests"/"talking heads", and a whole lot of people who are just going along for the ride with big government. Very few people question the authority of government agencies to compose rules of administration, put their own laws in effect, enforce them with fines, and haul non-compliant folks into their courts and try them before administrative judges dependent on the hand that feeds them. . .. the same hand that made up the rules.

The plain fact of the matter is that ranchers have no voice in the process politically, aside from a significant number of BLM employees who have enough local relatives/friends who want to treat them fairly. The policies, however, come from Washington, DC, and so do an ever increasing number of employees come hoisting progressive ideals from the "far east", who do not understand the rancher view.

I'd say you're just wrong about there being a pool of lawyers willing to take up the case. I know of one in Wyoming. But most are so indoctrinated in the idea of compliance that they will not risk their future challenging the "way things are".

Again, I question the judgment of the Ammon Bundy band. If it had been me in charge of the protest, I would have gotten a lawyer, a permit to hold a demonstration, and sent notices to all the local press, law enforcement, and to the BLM itself, and I would not have taken guns to the site of the protest. And I would have done it in front of the courthouse, not out in the middle of nowhere.

It would be a significant impressive gesture if Obama commuted the Hammond sentences and let them go free, saying in effect that mandatory minimum sentences are counter-productive in at least this case.

 

[Harambe]

I rate this as a reasonable response.

From the point of view of "Constitutionalists", though, they have found that almost all lawyers realize the "Constitution" is forced to ride in the back of the bus by a culture significantly influenced by college professors, major media "high priests"/"talking heads", and a whole lot of people who are just going along for the ride with big government. Very few people question the authority of government agencies to compose rules of administration, put their own laws in effect, enforce them with fines, and haul non-compliant folks into their courts and try them before administrative judges dependent on the hand that feeds them. . .. the same hand that made up the rules.

The plain fact of the matter is that ranchers have no voice in the process politically, aside from a significant number of BLM employees who have enough local relatives/friends who want to treat them fairly. The policies, however, come from Washington, DC, and so do an ever increasing number of employees come hoisting progressive ideals from the "far east", who do not understand the rancher view.

I'd say you're just wrong about there being a pool of lawyers willing to take up the case. I know of one in Wyoming. But most are so indoctrinated in the idea of compliance that they will not risk their future challenging the "way things are".

Again, I question the judgment of the Ammon Bundy band. If it had been me in charge of the protest, I would have gotten a lawyer, a permit to hold a demonstration, and sent notices to all the local press, law enforcement, and to the BLM itself, and I would not have taken guns to the site of the protest. And I would have done it in front of the courthouse, not out in the middle of nowhere.

It would be a significant impressive gesture if Obama commuted the Hammond sentences and let them go free, saying in effect that mandatory minimum sentences are counter-productive in at least this case.

It's already been established that the Hammond's want no part in the Bundy's. Moreover, arson is arson; minimum sentences can suck; not in this case.

What Obama should do, is gas the refuge and incarcerate everyone involved.

Moreover, your tin foil hat is showing. Big shot lawyers aren't big shot lawyers because they follow and interpret the law, they're big shot lawyers because they write law.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's already been established that the Hammond's want no part in the Bundy's. Moreover, arson is arson; minimum sentences can suck; not in this case.

What Obama should do, is gas the refuge and incarcerate everyone involved.

Moreover, your tin foil hat is showing. Big shot lawyers aren't big shot lawyers because they follow and interpret the law, they're big shot lawyers because they write law.

There are probably many versions of this event, but most of the ones I've seen don't make this look like the sort of arson that we typically think of when we hear that word, and it certainly doesn't look like a terrorist act. The penalty seems excessive, but so do the drug related penalties that were highlighted in the video that was part of the article that Stoked posted. These mandatory minimums are a real problem. They are costing us a lot of money and accomplishing nothing.

 

[Harambe]

There are probably many versions of this event, but most of the ones I've seen don't make this look like the sort of arson that we typically think of when we hear that word, and it certainly doesn't look like a terrorist act. The penalty seems excessive, but so do the drug related penalties that were highlighted in the video that was part of the article that Stoked posted. These mandatory minimums are a real problem. They are costing us a lot of money and accomplishing nothing.

Destruction of 100+ acres of forest that could have been prevented isn't worth 5 years?

Mind you, in either case, I'm not claiming the Hammonds are the terrorists here.

 

[one eye]

They unlawfully have now taken over a federal building, used federal equipment, and cut fences on the refuge. It's time for this to end, hopefully peacefully, and with them being prosecuted for whatever crimes they've committed. Public lands are great places and I love them and use them every week. We do need to work on better management, but this wasn't the pathway to that. This was a step in the wrong direction. They need to leave the refuge, we all own it and our public lands don't just cater to one interest. They have a variety of uses and although it and the agencies aren't perfect, we can work on that.

 

[cowhide]

The word you are looking for is rebellion.

All a response like that will accomplish is increasing their numbers.

Doing nothing just empowers them even more. When you break the law you should go to jail unless if you are white I guess. Justice is blind when it comes to race and economics many times. This is the second time Bundy has pulled this stunt. I am with Thriller, if they don't leave then take them out. I think they should cut the power and block off any access to them see how long they last.

 

[cowhide]

It's already been established that the Hammond's want no part in the Bundy's. Moreover, arson is arson; minimum sentences can suck; not in this case.

What Obama should do, is gas the refuge and incarcerate everyone involved.

Moreover, your tin foil hat is showing. Big shot lawyers aren't big shot lawyers because they follow and interpret the law, they're big shot lawyers because they write law.

LOL - now you want Obama to come to the rescue. The right has been complaining about Fed overreach and abuse of executive power and now if Obama stepped in and overturned a judges decision simply to appease these christian terrorist. Man Obama can't win either way for some people. Just for the record I am not saying you are one of these people but the suggest is funny to me.

 

[Stoked]

LOL - now you want Obama to come to the rescue. The right has been complaining about Fed overreach and abuse of executive power and now if Obama stepped in and overturned a judges decision simply to appease these christian terrorist. Man Obama can't win either way for some people. Just for the record I am not saying you are one of these people but the suggest is funny to me.

Welcome to being president Obama. None of them can win "with some people".

 

[Harambe]

LOL - now you want ANYONE to come to the rescue.

Fixed that for you.

 

[one eye]

And to add to how stupid they look, the fence they tore out that they said they had "the ranchers permission", turns out they had no permission at all. The rancher expressed his anger to the media, and went in and fixed the fence they tore down and said he has had no problems with the BLM and they have a good working relationship.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/rancher_i_didnt_know_anything.html

 

[cowhide]

Fixed that for you.

I get your point. I want the same thing but if Obama sent in guys all hell would break lose with these anti-government people.

 

[Stoked]

I have read several stories that point this in a much more mixed light. Not all the residents are opposed to them being there, only some. A bunch created some sort of "safety committee" to work with the militia. They included the fire chief who just resigned over FBI activity and the sheriffs response. According to him anyways. Also most of the new militia members that have shown up are not part of Bundy's group or those at the ranch. So it looks like there is 3 separate protest groups? The original ones at the ranch, Bundy's group at the wildlife refugee and a 3rd group that has set up a perimeter around Bundy's group "to prevent another Waco".

I still think their actions are dumb even if their goal is debatable. I just don't understand protest groups that use tactics that turn people against their cause. Shooting themselves in the foot. Like the Black Lives Matter group does. more harm for their cause than good.

 

[one eye]

Stoked, the state and local agencies as well as congress have every way to fix the issues with our land management agencies. Many of the same people complaining are the same ones who vote against the very things that would fix the problems the BLM and Forest Service have. The Bundys are nothing but those who want a public resource to fully exploit for themselves, while the rest of us users and owners of these lands are left out. Thy are not the only ones who own or use these lands and they should not be the ones getting all the say. I usually vote for a republican, but this issue has really made me question the integrity of the party. It seems that if you complain about the management and then vote against everything that would fix it, that clearly tells me you don't care about the management at all, you jut want to make these federal land agencies look incompetent and the lands they manage useless so you can get your hands on them.

The agenda is made so obvious by republican politicians it amazes me people believe it. All you have to do is look at their voting record and then look at what they complain about and realize, they've voted against fixing the very things they complain about. If they truly cared about management of these lands, there goal would be just that, to fix management. So why do they all vote against what would fix management? They just want there hands on that land, and it isn't for you or my interests.

 

[Stoked]

Stoked, the state and local agencies as well as congress have every way to fix the issues with our land management agencies. Many of the same people complaining are the same ones who vote against the very things that would fix the problems the BLM and Forest Service have. The Bundys are nothing but those who want a public resource to fully exploit for themselves, while the rest of us users and owners of these lands are left out. Thy are not the only ones who own or use these lands and they should not be the ones getting all the say. I usually vote for a republican, but this issue has really made me question the integrity of the party. It seems that if you complain about the management and then vote against everything that would fix it, that clearly tells me you don't care about the management at all, you jut want to make these federal land agencies look incompetent and the lands they manage useless so you can get your hands on them.

The agenda is made so obvious by republican politicians it amazes me people believe it. All you have to do is look at their voting record and then look at what they complain about and realize, they've voted against fixing the very things they complain about. If they truly cared about management of these lands, there goal would be just that, to fix management. So why do they all vote against what would fix management? They just want there hands on that land, and it isn't for you or my interests.

IMO you are missing the issue. It isn't about fixing management its that they want to remove the feds from management all together. Do some want to abuse? sure but claiming all do is disingenuous.

Also F the Rs, why bring them up. I didn't.

 

[one eye]

IMO you are missing the issue. It isn't about fixing management its that they want to remove the feds from management all together. Do some want to abuse? sure but claiming all do is disingenuous.

Also F the Rs, why bring them up. I didn't.

I bring up D's an R's because this is an issue that is split right down the middle. Democrats don't support transfer of these lands to the state, republicans do. There are a few republicans that don't support it, and I give them a lot of credit for standing up for the citizens they represent rather than their party.

As for removing the feds from the management, it isn't exactly that simple. The broader issue here that is being pushed for, is the states want ownership of these lands and the federal government to relinquish all control of them. Once they have transferred these lands the state has the power to sale them, which is the biggest issue. The states budgets aren't going to be able to handle what it costs to maintain these lands, which will undoubtedly end up in their disposal by selling them. I do not support that. The cost of managing these lands is huge and right now the federal government, through the BLM, Forest Service, Parks service, and wildlife service foots that bill. Now they will either have to raise taxes, and a lot, to meet the costs of management, or get rid of them. See what the states fail to consider is the fact that environmental groups will continue to sue whether the feds have control or the state has control.

A great example is a forest in Oregon right now that is 93,000 acres. It used to be a big money maker for the state of Oregon. Over the last five years or so, there has been continued litigation by private groups on this forest and the management of it. Guess what? The state is losing money on it every year now, and 93,000 acres of their most amazing state ground was voted to be sold now. So as a state resident, are you ready to either foot the bill of giant fire costs, management, law enforcement, etc.? The BLM and Forest Service loose over $40 million a year on administering public land grazing on public lands because its costs are too low to pay for themselves. So these complaining ranchers better be ready to pull out a $100 million loan for a big peace of ground, or pay the state a lot more money to graze because the state isn't going to be able to absorb the costs like the feds. I'm not for removing the feds for 2 main reason, they are the state doesn't have the money to do it, and we will be the ones footing the entire bill if they are transferred. The other is that these lands we currently have access to in a variety of forms, will be sold off, and the public will be locked out. I would rather leave the management to the feds, and work on managing the lands better, rather than lose land and access for us and future generations who have the right to enjoy these lands as much as we did.

 

[Stoked]

I bring up D's an R's because this is an issue that is split right down the middle. Democrats don't support transfer of these lands to the state, republicans do. There are a few republicans that don't support it, and I give them a lot of credit for standing up for the citizens they represent rather than their party.

As for removing the feds from the management, it isn't exactly that simple. The broader issue here that is being pushed for, is the states want ownership of these lands and the federal government to relinquish all control of them. Once they have transferred these lands the state has the power to sale them, which is the biggest issue. The states budgets aren't going to be able to handle what it costs to maintain these lands, which will undoubtedly end up in their disposal by selling them. I do not support that. The cost of managing these lands is huge and right now the federal government, through the BLM, Forest Service, Parks service, and wildlife service foots that bill. Now they will either have to raise taxes, and a lot, to meet the costs of management, or get rid of them. See what the states fail to consider is the fact that environmental groups will continue to sue whether the feds have control or the state has control.

A great example is a forest in Oregon right now that is 93,000 acres. It used to be a big money maker for the state of Oregon. Over the last five years or so, there has been continued litigation by private groups on this forest and the management of it. Guess what? The state is losing money on it every year now, and 93,000 acres of their most amazing state ground was voted to be sold now. So as a state resident, are you ready to either foot the bill of giant fire costs, management, law enforcement, etc.? The BLM and Forest Service loose over $40 million a year on administering public land grazing on public lands because its costs are too low to pay for themselves. So these complaining ranchers better be ready to pull out a $100 million loan for a big peace of ground, or pay the state a lot more money to graze because the state isn't going to be able to absorb the costs like the feds. I'm not for removing the feds for 2 main reason, they are the state doesn't have the money to do it, and we will be the ones footing the entire bill if they are transferred. The other is that these lands we currently have access to in a variety of forms, will be sold off, and the public will be locked out. I would rather leave the management to the feds, and work on managing the lands better, rather than lose land and access for us and future generations who have the right to enjoy these lands as much as we did.

You're right it isn't that simple but that is their goal.

Also fair enough on the Rs and Ds.

As far as it being sold off and us locked out. I am not sure I agree. It would all depend how it was done. I am not against all fed land. They need to stay at Yellowstone, grand canyon, Bryce canyon...but the %s of western lands they own is overly excessive IMO.