‘Oregon Under Attack’: Anger over limited response to hostile militia takeover of US government building

The start of an armed separatist movement in rural America - or an out-of-control local dispute?

1K

Video posted to social media showed the militia members declaring the start of a new 'movement' Facebook
An armed militia group has broken into and occupied a US government building, declaring its desire to break free from the shackles of federal control and saying it is willing to “kill or be killed” in doing so.


The takeover of a remote refuge centre near Burns, Oregon, has prompted a huge reaction on social media but limited mainstream coverage, prompting many to question whether it is yet another incident of “white terrorism” going unreported.

So was this a local dispute over land use that boiled over, or is Oregon really “under attack”? Here are the facts:

White militia occupies federal wildlife refuge

Led by the son of a prominent rancher, a group of self-proclaimed “patriots” occupied the remote headquarters of the federal Bureau of Land management (BLM), the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge around 50 miles outside the small town of Burns.

Though the outpost was unoccupied and shut for the weekend at the time, at least some of the men were armed and the group has declared in phone interviews to local reporters that they are willing to “kill and be killed” for their cause.


A reporter said he had seen evidence of no more than a dozen people with a similar number of vehicles at the scene before he was made to leave, while the group itself has claimed to have 100 to 150 members involved in the action.

Sheriff denounces “outside militant” force

The site of the takeover itself is a long drive through ice and snow away from any major town or city, meaning the response from authorities or journalists was limited as of Saturday night.

But the Harney County Sheriff, Dave Ward, released a statement to local Oregon Live warning local residents to “stay away” and promising more information as it comes.

It read: “For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation.”

Group says takeover is start of separatist movement

According to videos and local media reports, among the occupiers was Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who was involved in a recent standoff with the government over grazing rights on federal land.

In a video posted to Facebook, Ammon Bundy said the building they had taken over represented “tyranny” of central government control and described the start of what would effectively amount to a separatist movement.

Unarmed, he told a local resident filming on a phone that the place would be a “base” for the militia and that the occupation would last “several years”.

According to Oregon Live, the militia is already planning to expand its occupation to a fire station near the town of Frenchglen, currently closed for the winter.

A “call to arms” across the nation

In a video, Ammon Bundy said he wanted to reach out to people across the US to join the movement “for the people”.
He said:  “We’re doing this so the people can have their land and their resources back where they belong. We’re calling people to come and stand. We need you to bring your arms and we need you to come to the Malheur National Wildlife refuge.”

A second man in the video, seen wearing full military-style camouflage and branding a walkie-talkie, said: “This is the power of America right here. People got together for this and it doesn’t have to stop here. This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, oppressed us and took everything from us. They will not stop until we tell them no.”

Action follows peaceful protest

Popular local figures Dwight Hammond and son Steven controversially had their sentences extended for arson involving fires that spread to government lands, igniting resentments that have been bubbling for years.
That case resonated with similar disputes in neighbouring states, and in December Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from outside Oregon arrived in Burns and spoke with the Hammond family.

Demands made

Bundy and other right-wing leaders have previously called on armed militia around the country to come support the Hammonds, and locals were already concerned that Saturday’s planned protest would escalate into something more serious.

Speaking to local media, Ammon’s brother Ryan Bundy said the group had taken no hostages and its actions was “not rebellious… [but] in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land”.

He said the militia was demanding the release of the Hammonds, and that the federal government give up its claim to the Malheur Forest area.

Social media response

Since Saturday night, the phrase “OregonUnderAttack” has been trending across social media, with users alarmed at the events and dismayed at its coverage in equal measure.

Part of the issue seems to be the sheer remoteness of the refuge in question – few journalists or officials have been able to reach the site of the takeover itself.

But there has also been anger from those who see the incident not as an escalation of a local dispute, but as an example of illegal force being used to further a political goal.

The takeover involves some members of a group who protested the impending imprisonment of two Oregon ranchers earlier on Saturday in a peaceful demonstration outside the Harney County Courthouse.




John Haltiwanger Verified account ‏@jchaltiwanger
Just a quick reminder of how the FBI defines terrorism... #OregonUnderAttack



As of Sunday morning, the incident was beginning to gain greater traction among the US media – and the sheriff’s office promised “a collective effort from multiple agencies” at first light.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-under-attack-anger-as-armed-white-militia-takes-control-of-a-us-government-building-to-a6794421.html


White Caliphate?

This is the same socialist group that rallied around Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who wanted to grab Federal land for grazing rights without paying for it.  The organization stands for: How much free shit can we get from the government!

Err 'Socialist' they are not.  - Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

sassy wrote:Err 'Socialist' they are not.  - Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Ironically, their message is socialism. We confronted them back in 2014 and discovered they were just old, white men who wanted the same handouts that they accuse black families of demanding. They want to use the Federal land, free of charge, and then make free money on the cattle business they run off the land.

Don't get me wrong. They are old, white men wanting the dole, not blacks. They are racists. They are gun carriers. They are southerners.

But they are just another group of freeloaders, wanting free shit off what belongs to the taxpayers.

Been reading about this, they are talking about taking over the University?  What the fuck is the matter with you all, this is terrorism and you'll are sitting back and doing nothing!

Sassy, I'm not sure Quill got it first time around

I think they're trying to contain them in the building and avoid a shoot-out. Shouldn't be hard; from what I'm reading, they don't have enough supplies to hold out more than a week or so.

I'm surprised sassy isnt praising this action, after all, just now and again, an action taken has "beneficial results " for your oponents

I mean, whist everyone is busy comparing these guys to a "white isis and watching them, the REAL destroyers in our midst are quietly allowing in the REAL isis with no restraint

and of course are busy making sure that we provide EVERY facilitation of their every "cultural whim"

whilst denigrating our cultural norms....

Someone on this site needs to take inventory of American ideology.  Under American pluralism, different things are associated with different ideas than, say, Europe.

In America, RW = guns = anti-government = racism = tax breaks = private enterprise = freedom from regulation = anti-immigration = anti-Hispanic = war = anti-UN, etc.  There need not be any logic to ideologies, though one can hope.  

People in Europe are so used to socialism, that they don't evaluate the US RW properly.  Their associations are skewed.  For example, they often see Europe as more liberal that the US, when that is just their socialism at work.  Americans can be as liberal, if not more than Europe--on the regulatory or tax scale, for example--as we've seen on this site.

In the case of these goons, they draw upon "guns = anti-government = racism = tax breaks = private enterprise = freedom from regulation" to concoct a cause that they can take over with guns, because they are anti-government, that somehow they are a private business enterprise raising cattle, that the universe is free and that the government should not regulate free land.

The fly in the ointment for them is that the universe is not free, and land is owned either privately, or by the government.  What they think is 'free' is actually the government property, so when they seek to suck off that land, what they really are seeking is a form of welfare....ie, asking the government for a hand-out. To understand this more, we would have to go into the 'range-wars' of the 1880's, and why they think land is free.

We've been through this with them.  Old news.

Not old news when they are threatening to take over a university and say they are willing to kill or be killed to do it.

And Europe isn't Socialist, it's Capitalist with a capital C.  And land, if owned by nobody, does not belong to a government.

sassy wrote:Not old news when they are threatening to take over a university and say they are willing to kill or be killed to do it.

And Europe isn't Socialist, it's Capitalist with a capital C.  And land, if owned by nobody, does not belong to a government.

That's just an extension of their anti-government stance, coupled with the 'I have a gun' stance. Ideologies are not necessarily moral stances; they are what motivates them, no more.

And Europe is far more socialist than the US. For example, most European states have some form of socialized medicine, when we are still struggling with an insurance mechanism to provide healthcare here.

The very fact that the UK is struggling with a 'privatization' issue means that they are looking back on capitalism. In the US, we have not even visited state ownership.

Who mentioned moral stances?  What they are doing is white terrorism and it is being handled with kid gloves, quite unlike the way black protests have been handled.

Interesting take on land ownership in Europe. But Europe has never gone through a 'free-range' situation, such as we had in the 1880's.

I don't know for certain, but I would guess that every square-inch of Europe has been own by someone, somehow, over the past two-thousand years. But, I would be interested if anyone knows.

sassy wrote:Who mentioned moral stances?  What they are doing is white terrorism and it is being handled with kid gloves, quite unlike the way black protests have been handled.

Well, frankly, you did.  You just mentioned it again when you characterized what they are doing as 'terrorism'.  That's a moral statement, if you didn't notice.

I certainly agree that they are being handled with kid gloves.  The government is run by a black president, hated by a Republican political party that supports racism in the US.  The government doesn't want to provoke a civil dispute, let alone a civil war.  So they are trying to negotiate their way out of this.

Well what they are on is a Wildlife Park anyway.  But can we get back to the point, takeover with guns, saying they are willing to kill or be killed, being handled with kid gloves because they are white and not being defined as terrorism?

Well it is terrorism, if a gang of Muslims had done this there would be uproar.

Now ain't that the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sassy wrote:Well it is terrorism, if a gang of Muslims had done this there would be uproar.

there would be military. it would be huge

I cant see how anyone can argue it is not terrorism
this is ACTUAL terrorism in the true political since as they are making demands

really 9/11 etc  isn't terrorism it is just an attack, as there is no political demands or threats, just straight up 'inflict damage to enemy'

sassy wrote:Well what they are on is a Wildlife Park anyway.  But can we get back to the point, takeover with guns, saying they are willing to kill or be killed, being handled with kid gloves because they are white and not being defined as terrorism?

Yep, you don't seem to realize the gravity with which racism has taken hold in the US. Every RW pundit is watching for any wrong movement by a black-led government in this situation.

And there's an election pending...and 'smack-mouth' Donald Trump is liable to go off on anything.

sassy wrote:Well it is terrorism, if a gang of Muslims had done this there would be uproar.

You didn't ask whether it was terrorism.  You asked who called it a moral matter.

Of course it is terrorism.  So are the KKK hangings of a hundred-years ago.  People aren't pissed over terrorism, if it's for their side.  What do you think the Iraq War was?

Oregon militia occupying wildlife refuge aims to overthrow government, says sheriff
Harney County sheriff speaks of ‘alternative motives’ while Ammon Bundy’s group puts away firearms to convince media it is civil rights issue

On the second day of its armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Bundy militia shifted tactics. From a state of lockdown it moved to a charm offensive, inviting a small media contingent inside its redoubt, with warm smiles and waves.

The local sheriff was not convinced.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Sheriff David Ward said in a statement, “when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”
Members of the rightwing Bundy militia occupied the wildlife refuge in Oregon over the weekend, threatening a confrontation with federal authorities, in support of two cattle ranchers who were convicted of setting fires on federal land.
The cattle ranchers, father and son Steven and Dwight Hammond, said they did so while trying to clear their own land so their cattle could feed. The authorities said otherwise. They have both served time in prison and are due to report to a jail in San Diego on Monday in order to serve some more.
The Oregon senator Ron Wyden told the Associated Press the FBI was co-ordinating the official response to the occupation with the sheriff and state police. He also blamed outsiders.
Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old leader of the men occupying the federal buildings, insisted his men were peaceful. But, he said, if the federal government tried to take back the refuge, “they would be putting lives at risk”.
The journalists he spoke to had driven the 30 miles (48km) from Burns through heavy snowfall. Greeting them, Bundy was accompanied by a man who would identify himself only as his bodyguard. A few others lingered. There were no guns in sight

Everything was calculated to project an image of calm and reason and the absence of any threat. Just after 11am, Bundy opened his media conference.

“Your role is very important,” he said. “We do believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that the American people have a right to know what’s going on.”
For Bundy, the re-sentencing and re-imprisonment of Steven and Dwight Hammond is simply a civil rights issue; his armed militia members are simply civil rights protectors. The Hammonds were persecuted by the federal government, he said, because they refused to “sell their ranch so it can be added to the Malheur wildlife refuge”.
The Hammonds were the target, he said, of “vindictive behaviours”, from fines and harassment up to and including prosecution under federal anti-terrorism laws.
Bundy is the son of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose victory in a land rights standoff with federal agents made the family famous in 2014. He responded to questions patiently and in an even, measured voice. Such poise was clearly a product of his experience at the Bundy ranch, deployed in an effort to defuse the accusation that the group’s actions here were those of extremists or terrorists.

   
   
     Facebook [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Oregon militia occupying wildlife refuge aims to overthrow government%2C says]      Twitter [/url]      Pinterest
Ammon Bundy, in checked jacket, and other militia members meet the press. Photograph: Jason Wilson/the Guardian


That marked a shift from the previous day, when Bundy’s conspicuously armed men completed their occupation of this small collection of federal buildings.

Nevertheless, the sunshine policy turned out to go only so far. Bundy confirmed that fire observation towers at the refuge were now occupied by marksmen, for “safety”, and said he was “absolutely” prepared to use force if he thought the situation warranted it.

Once again, there was no evidence of any law enforcement presence on or near the refuge.

In his statement, Sheriff Ward said he was working with local and federal authorities to keep citizens safe and to quickly and peacefully resolve the situation. He asked people to stay away from the refuge, but did not think any other parts of the county were in immediate danger.

At the refuge, Bundy admitted that only “a small percentage” of the still unknown number of militia members on site were from Harney County, but said locals were offering support and supplies.

In isolation, the militia controlled the narrative. To many in Harney County, a place with an ambivalent relationship with government, the image of the Hammonds as persecuted victims of authority is persuasive.

The militia members also talked about the economic decline of the county, and of eastern Oregon in general. In doing so, they tapped into very real feelings about very real hardships.

“Harney County at one time was the wealthiest county in the state,” Bundy said. “Because the federal government came in and blocked access to resources, it fell into economic depression. We intend to reverse that.”

In discussions about the decline of areas formerly dependent on ranching and logging, the federal government makes a convenient scapegoat. On Sunday, no one was present to tell a more difficult and complex story.

“This refuge from its very inception has been a tool of tyranny,” said Bundy. “Steven and Dwight Hammond would not have been abused the way they have if we had adhered to the constitution. When government steps outside the bounds the people have given it, it is the duty of the people to put it back in its place.”

In order to do this, Bundy said, he and his men planned to stay where they were for a very long time.

“We do have a plan,” he said, “and that plan is going to take several months to accomplish. Those who have rights on this land, those rights will be acknowledged. There will be an opportunity to claim those rights. We are going to defend you as you use those rights.”

   
   
     Facebook [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Oregon militia occupying wildlife refuge aims to overthrow government%2C says]      Twitter [/url]      Pinterest
 Ryan Bundy talks on the phone at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Photograph: Rebecca Boone/AP
If the federal government tried to take the refuge back, he said, “they would be putting lives at risk. We are not putting anyone at risk right now. This refuge rightfully belongs to the people.”

Bundy said the militia members intended to “assist the people of Harney County to claim their rights”, and to use the refuge both to make their stand and to “stay out of the cold”.

He would not say what his end goal was, except to return the land to “ranching, trucks and recreational vehicles like it used to be”.

Asked if law enforcement officials had communicated with his men, he said: “No, not since we made this stand.” Anyone who was not a law enforcement official would be able to access the refuge, he said, while the militia were there.

“This is your land. Although it makes it complicated for us, we are not about restricting.”

Bundy concluded by outlining his vision of the structure and powers of government in the US, as laid down in the constitution.

“The federal government’s job is to protect the states from the outside world,” he said. “The states’ job is to protect the counties from the federal government. The counties’ job is to protect the people from the states.

“And the people’s job is to be free.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/oregon-militia-occupying-wildlife-refuge-wants-to-overthrow-government-says-sheriff


I get his point, but still can't get over how they are being treated so differently

Good survey of the issue, sassy.  How do you feel about the details raised?

It's obviously political.  Sheriff Ward seems to almost acknowledge this: "... in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”  Given the spirit of Revolution that America was built on, is he being critical, or perhaps a bit admiring?  To my mind, there is a bit of praise in his tone.  Is this a "redneck" sheriff, perhaps tacitly on the other side? What laws are broken?

Is it really a civil rights issue?  What civil rights are involved?  Mr. Bundy claims: "The Hammonds were persecuted by the federal government, he said, because they refused to “sell their ranch so it can be added to the Malheur wildlife refuge.”  The Constitution guarantees every citizen a right to not be "deprived of...property, without due process of law."  (Amendment Five).  How are the Hammonds being "deprived" of their rights?  What countervailing interests does the government have?

Original Quill wrote:Good survey of the issue, sassy.  How do you feel about the details raised?

It's obviously political.  Sheriff Ward seems to almost acknowledge this: "... in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”  Given the spirit of Revolution that America was built on, is he being critical, or perhaps a bit admiring?  To my mind, there is a bit of praise in his tone.  Is this a "redneck" sheriff, perhaps tacitly on the other side?  What laws are broken?  

Is it really a civil rights issue?  What civil rights are involved?  Mr. Bundy claims: "The Hammonds were persecuted by the federal government, he said, because they refused to “sell their ranch so it can be added to the Malheur wildlife refuge.”  The Constitution guarantees every citizen a right to not be "deprived of...property, without due process of law."  (Amendment Five).  How are the Hammonds being "deprived" of their rights?  What countervailing interests does the government have?

Well, if they are being persecuted because they won't sell their land, and I would like to know what the persecution involves, I would say that was being deprived of their rights by coercion to sell.   Istill get the feeling that this is more about rising up against the government than standing up for land rights though.

I know. I get the same feeling.

This has morphed suddenly into an issue of 'unconstitutional taking', when it started with the Hammons/Bundys trying to use Federal land free of charge. Ok, so the government went to taxation and fines to avoid a Waco-like confrontation, but the essential question is don't they own the debt? If they do, then it's not an unconstitutional taking...it's just business as usual.

More on this:

The protesters, who are Mormons for the most part, are calling themselves a radical sect of the Church.  The LDS Church disavows the takeover:

Huffington Post wrote:Mormon Church Officials Condemn Oregon Anti-Government Occupation
Church leaders are "deeply troubled" by reports that Ammon Bundy's Mormon faith inspired the armed seizure.
01/04/2016 05:55 pm ET | Updated 1 day ago
Jaweed Kaleem
Senior Religion Reporter, The Huffington Post

Mormon church officials are distancing themselves from the anti-government militia that has taken over a building at a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon, whose members include Mormons that have claimed divine inspiration for their actions.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leaders said in a statement Monday that they "strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles."

"This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis," the statement continued.

On Saturday, Ammon Bundy joined several others in the takeover at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon's Harney County. Bundy has said that his faith led him to the refuge to defend Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son ranchers sentenced to prison in 2012 for arson, then released and given new sentences last year.

Bundy, a Mormon, is the the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who famously had a legal battle with the government that ended in an armed confrontation in 2014.

“I got on my knees and I asked the Lord,” Ammon Bundy said in a video posted a day before the occupation, describing how he got the "overwhelming urge" to learn about the Hammonds.

Bundy said he prayed: "'Lord, if you want me to write something, then please help me clear my mind and show me what I should write.’ And that’s what happened.”

News reports on the occupation have cited Bundy's religious background, as well as a long history of government persecution of Mormons and conflict between the church and the government through the 19th century.

Church officials, who often respond to news related to the church via their MormonNewsroom.org website, released the statement after receiving inquiries about the Oregon occupation.

The church's full statement:

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

I have to hand it to RW knuckledraggers.  When they go for their welfare, the put on quite a show.

" />

this is the "federal building they have taken over ........

the locals want them to go home

they are complaining about land that was bought from farmers in the 1930s who where going bankrupt because in part they over worked the land so the federal government bought from the farmers (in the 1930s) as it was useless

Wow, that' a really big building they are going to lay down their lives for lol

That was hilarious!!!!!!

sassy wrote:That was hilarious!!!!!!

The best "real news" source from America bar none

I shall have to keep an eye on it then, thanks.

sassy wrote:I shall have to keep an eye on it then, thanks.

i have never missed a episode in the past ......wow 8 years at least it`s brilliant

Anything that give me news and a giggle has to be good!   Night all.

Oregon occupiers to face charges when siege ends: sheriff


The anti-government activists who took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon are going to face federal charges when the siege is over, the local sheriff told NBC News on Wednesday.

“The (FBI) has assured me that those at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge will at some point face charges,” Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told NBC News.
Courtesy of MSNBC

Ward did not go into specifics. A representative for the FBI, which has kept its cards close to the vest during the now five-day drama, told MSNBC there is “no information regarding arrests” and said he could not confirm Ward’s assertion.

Meanwhile, the group’s ringleader Ammon Bundy gave no indication when they would end the standoff.

“There is a time to go home, we recognize that,” he told reporters at the facility Wednesday. “We are not quite there yet.”

Bundy chuckled a bit when asked about the phony Ammon Bundy who caused a stir on Twitter when he compared the occupiers to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

“First of all, I don’t have a (Twitter) account,” he said. “But from what I hear, he’s been doing a pretty good job.”

Earlier, 54-year-old occupier LaVoy Finicum said he’d sooner die than go to a federal prison.

“I have been raised in country all my life,” Finicum, an Arizona rancher, told NBC News on Tuesday. “I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box.”

Jon Ritzheimer, 32, of Phoenix, warned the other heavily-armed occupiers huddled around a campfire and eating pizza that the feds were coming for Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, and Finicum.

RELATED: The Republican war on parks

“If you see that man taken down,” he said, gesturing to Finnicum, “if you see that man lose his life, you know what to do.”

Ritzheimer added, “Don’t open fire unless fired upon.”

Ritzheimer, who said he served two tours in Iraq as a Marine, posted a nearly 14 -minute video message to his wife and kids on YouTube before setting off with the Bundy brothers and Finicum for Oregon.

“I want to die a free man,” a tearful Ritzheimer can be heard saying. “I’ve had to do a lot of soul-searching up here … And I am 100 percent willing to lay my life down to fight against tyranny in this country.”

Last May Ritzheimer led an anti-Muslim demonstration outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

Led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy — sons of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who became infamous for another standoff with the federal government in 2014 — the gunmen took over the unoccupied federal facility in remote Burns, Oregon on Saturday.

Their stated aim was to free two ranchers — Dwight Hammond and his son Steven — who were convicted of setting fires on government land. And they were determined to sound the alarm about what they claim is a government war against private ranchers.

But the Hammonds voluntarily turned themselves in to the feds and disavowed both the Bundy brothers and their followers, making the occupiers rebels with only half a cause.

Ward urged the Bundys and the others to get out of town. And soon “Militia Go Home” signs began being seen posted on telephone poles.

korban dallas wrote:

sassy wrote:That was hilarious!!!!!!

The best "real news" source from America bar none

Unfortunately, it is blocked and can't be viewed. Would be interesting to see.

KD wrote:Their stated aim was to free two ranchers — Dwight Hammond and his son Steven — who were convicted of setting fires on government land. And they were determined to sound the alarm about what they claim is a government war against private ranchers.

From Phoenix?  Southeast Nevada?  Mormon land includes Utah (of course), Arizona and Idaho.  Peripheral territory like eastern Nevada and Oregon, too.  This whole thing is an LDS-inspired thing.

The basic issue going back to Cliven Bundy, is that they have been grazing their cattle gratis on Federal land for decades.  Essentially...the are squatters.  When druggies take over a building in the inner-city, they are squatters too...police come, they get removed.

Only, like the pigs in Animal Farm, Mormon squatters think they "more equal than everybody else."  For them it's civil rights.  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

It's welfare.  People with their hands out...and bawling when they are refused.  If they can afford to take a vacation in eastern Oregon to play these games, they are not the people for whom welfare was conceived.  A couple-three years in prison is deserved.

If they have been grazing cattle for decades on this land, do they not have a"Right Of Use" or some such legal position?

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
The best "real news" source from America bar none

Unfortunately, it is blocked and can't be viewed.  Would be interesting to see.

Blocked ? cant you see the video ?

use this
https://zenmate.com/

nicko wrote:If they have been grazing cattle for decades on this land, do they not have a"Right Of Use" or some such legal position?

I don't think so.  Not if they didn't pay state and local taxes on the land.  

Under 43 UCS §1068, the law recognizes adverse possession, but only if the claimant acted as an actual possessor, meaning he acted as if he owned the land, paying all state and local taxes.  But, still, the land is granted at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, who may subdivide the land, etc.  So even there, it is questionable.

However, we don't even reach that point, because Bundy and his cohorts only grazed the land.  This puts them in the position of taking value off the land, but not actually adversely possessing it.

nicko wrote:If they have been grazing cattle for decades on this land, do they not have a"Right Of Use" or some such legal position?

they don`t have "common land" like we do as far as i know

its like me selling land to somebody then demanding the use of it at no charge ,
As i understand the situation the federal government do allow use of the land but at a cost/fee that the ranchers do not want to pay for

Oregon Militia Confirms They Are Not Leaving; Ready To Die For Freedom

It’s 9:30pm EST, and as of three hours ago, the the situation in Oregon seems to be reaching a “tipping point” after a conference between both sides earlier today did not go well. Sheriff David Ward, the same Sheriff David Ward I might add, who has gone on the public airwaves numerous times claiming that Ammon Bundy’s group was in Burns, Oregon to stage an overthrow the local government, and start a national an uprising, decided to actually speak with a member of Bundy’s group today, rather than continue to make up facts as he goes, which has been the case so far. What's worse, is not one member of ANY news organization has even bothered to ask Sheriff Ward where he was getting his information. Isn't that journalism 101? Preschool even? In just a bit, I'll do my best to explain how I believe that one "oversight" is setting the stage for how this whole ordeal ends. Keep in mind I've been emerged in this standoff since it began, and I can't possibly write all I've seen, but when I share my hypothesis, I'm pretty sure you'll agree all of what has taken place has a very "playbook" feel to it. 

In the video above, the sheriff can be heard speaking in a very condescending voice to Ammon Bundy. it's hard to make out exactly what either man says, so I’m paraphrasing, but the Sheriff more or less says something to the effect of, “Ok boys, at some point this has to get resolved, you’ve made a point, and this seems like a good time to pack it in. I’ve told members of Congress and the Senate you want to talk to them, but come on, enough is enough. I can't promise what the feds will or won't do once you're out of the refuge, but I can promise you safe passage out of Burns.”
After just a few minutes, you’ll hear what sounds like Ammon Bundy interrupt the Sheriff, and say very matter of fact, “So you’re not even going to acknowledge the redress of grievances we've laid out? It’s got over 100,000 signatures from all fifty states, and it’s your job as a public servant to acknowledge the redress of grievances. You’re not even going to do that?”
That’s when it became pretty clear the Sheriff was there to do little more than patronize the group, if he wasn't even going to acknowledge WHY they are there. The conversation is very muffled, but you can distinctly hear Ammon Bundy say FIVE times that his group doesn't mean anyone any harm, and they have no intention of hurting anyone. That sentiment is echoed in a later video, The meeting closed with Ammon telling the Sheriff, “It’s time to get the schools opened, get the community back to living, we do NOT pose a threat, so you can do all those things without us leaving.” That comment, and a few others I will cover in further detail in my video below which gives a broad overview of where things stand overall. I think it’s pretty easy to see what is going on here… and it’s not good.


http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/01/09/oregon-militia-confirms-they-are-not-leaving-ready-to-die-for-freedom/

Videos on link.   I guess this is written by someone on their side lol